#inciardi
Explore tagged Tumblr posts
popgirlnyc · 24 days ago
Text
Tumblr media
so fun and beautiful #inciardi and #grandcentralnyc. love these mini prints of iconic nyc!
0 notes
sixtwothree · 1 year ago
Text
Tumblr media
Mini prints by inciardi.
Source: x
0 notes
wuntrum · 1 year ago
Note
any instagram artist recommendations? 🧐
SOOO many omg...forgetting a ton but heres a few off the top of my head: sweatermuppets3.0, cursedluver, quasimaddi, woodrow_white, _heretic_ceramics, ingrownmayo, icuffmyjeans, inciardi, sketches.of.shay, tired.virgo.art, bananabirch, nicolasuribeb, raijin.999, wiltart, ciraleth, sophiemcpike, lewisrossignol, leticiaplate, leofox__, mourningdoves, mooooonbug (mightve forgotten an o), flesh.png, magsmunroe, jamiegreenillustration, spacecrumble, bdotpng, salman.toor, ellysmallwood, _morgansuter, ezrazone, riseandwander, adonyne, tacodemuerte, jordanenthusiast, spooksier, rememburgerme, diortheartist, craig.gleason, cranitys, laurarbenson, susan.nethercote... and i could keep going, but i'm gonna stop there for now LDSKJF
49 notes · View notes
drikkes · 11 months ago
Text
Tumblr media
Anastasia Inciardi's Crowded Table
1 note · View note
birdbathcabal · 1 year ago
Text
Tumblr media
Photo courtesy of Lenny S. ( kodaklens )
EXHIBITION DESIGN AND CREATIVE DIRECTION: General Idea Agency
Ian Schatzberg
Ken Tokunaga
Zach Seely
Demarco Jones
Molly McMullin
Adam Morten
Jordan Barnett
EXHIBITION PRODUCTION DESIGN AND MANAGEMENT: Tribe Design
Bruce Rodgers
Shelley Rodgers
Lily Rodgers
Maria Garcia
Craig Inciardi
LEAD PRODUCTION: ESM Productions
Scott Mirkin
Craig Mirkin
Anthony Gallagher
1 note · View note
medicowesome · 5 years ago
Photo
Tumblr media
Cardiovascular complications of COVID-19
Hi everyone...
Virus infections are the most common cause of myocarditis. The previous severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) beta-coronavirus SARS-CoV-1 was associated with tachyarrhythmias, signs, and symptoms of heart failure.
Let's learn about SARS-CoV-2:
COVID-19 patients who died had higher levels of troponin, myoglobin, C-reactive protein, serum ferritin, and IL-6.
This is because of the high inflammatory burden in COVID-19.
Let’s find out and understand about CVS complications by COVID-19:
Mainly, vascular inflammation, myocarditis, and cardiac arrhythmias
The possible late phenomenon of the viral respiratory infection
Commonly observed in severe cases
Strongly associated with mortality
Cardiac MRI Findings in COVID-19:
⬆️ Wall thickness with diffuse biventricular hypokinesis (especially in the apical segments)
Severe LV dysfunction (LVEF < 35%)
Circumferential pericardial effusion ( notable around the right chambers)
Short tau inversion recovery and T2-mapping sequences:
Marked biventricular myocardial interstitial edema
Diffuse late gadolinium enhancement involving the entire biventricular wall
CVS complications as an important prognostic factor:
Patients who have high troponin levels showed a higher incidence of complications such as
ARDS
Malignant arrhythmias
Acute renal injury
Acute coagulopathy
Lastly, what are the major risk factors for COVID-19 mortality?
advanced age (>60 years)
male sex
Strong and independent risk factors:
the presence of comorbidities ( HTN, coronary artery disease)
cardiac injury, myocarditis, and ARDS
Thank you,
Written by Drashtant
References:
Inciardi RM, Lupi L, Zaccone G, et al. Cardiac Involvement in a Patient With Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). JAMA Cardiol. Published online March 27, 2020. doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2020.1096
Madjid M, Safavi-Naeini P, Solomon SD, Vardeny O. Potential Effects of Coronaviruses on the Cardiovascular System: A Review. JAMA Cardiol. Published online March 27, 2020. doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2020.1286
46 notes · View notes
it-invent-crack-03 · 2 years ago
Text
Download IT Invent crack (license key) latest version B9L1№
Tumblr media
💾 ►►► DOWNLOAD FILE 🔥🔥🔥 Lankenau, Ph. He conducts research on hidden populations, high-risk youth, and out-of-treatment drug users. Muchael C. Clatts, Ph. His principal area of interest is in community epidemiology and the development of community-based public health programs. Lloyd A. Goldsamt, Ph. His primary area of interest is public health research with high risk youth populations, with an emphasis on the initiation of risk behaviors. Dorinda L. Welle, Ph. She is currently conducting a longitudinal ethnographic study of how the AIDS epidemic informs adolescent development and identity dynamics among youth. Copyright notice Abstract This article examines the behavioral practices and health risks associated with preparing crack cocaine for injection. The findings suggest that crack injectors use a variety of methods to prepare crack, which may carry different risks for the transmission of bloodborne pathogens. In particular, crack injection may be an important factor in the current HIV epidemic. The emerging practice of injecting crack cocaine merits particular attention since injection drug users IDUs of powder cocaine have been shown to be at greater risk for HIV infection than heroin injectors Chaisson et al. Despite the accumulating evidence that crack cocaine is being injected in cities across the United States, no studies have offered detailed descriptions of the practices used to prepare crack for intravenous injection — practices which may place IDUs at increased risk for the transmission of bloodborne pathogens, such as HIV, BBV, and HCV. However, some drug users prefer injection as a mode of administrating crack since injection often increases the intensity and duration of a crack high Carlson et al. Additionally, the greater availability and lower costs associated with crack cocaine make it an alternative for IDUs who inject powder cocaine. In contrast to crack, powder cocaine has been injected for over a century, although initially for medicinal purposes and for the treatment of morphine and alcohol addiction Freud, Crack is a combination of cocaine hydrochloride, baking soda, and other adulterants which gives rise to a rock-like substance Inciardi, Consequently, IDUs who seek to inject crack are faced with the problem of transforming the rock into a soluble form that can be pulled into a hypodermic syringe. In contrast to crack, powder cocaine is water soluble Flynn, and can be prepared for injection without an acid. Rather, powder cocaine is typically prepared by adding water to powder and drawing the drug solution into a syringe. Hence, compared to powder cocaine, crack requires a different set of preparation practices to convert the drug into a soluble form. Drug preparation practices are an important component of both HIV risk and protective behaviors. For instance, cookers, the small bottle-cap type vessels used to prepare drugs, are often the most efficient containers to share drugs among injectors. Consequently, a cooker may be contaminated with HIV when it touches other paraphernalia used to prepare or inject drugs, such as a syringe, a filter, or water. Recent ethnographic research demonstrated that cookers may also play a unique protective role in reducing exposure to bloodborne pathogens among IDUs. Clatts, Heimer et al. Laboratory studies modeling these observations revealed that heating a cooker introduced with HIV-1 isolates for 15 seconds or more reduced HIV-1 viability below detectable levels. Hence, an IDU who applies a flame to a cooker for 15 seconds or more may deactivate HIV contained in the cooker prior to pulling the drug solution into a syringe. Additionally, this research highlights how different forms of the same drug — powder vs. In this article, we describe how crack — a hardened form of powder cocaine —is prepared for injection, the drug solutions injected, and the injection paraphernalia utilized based upon ethnographic interviews with samples of injectors living in New York City and Bridgeport, Connecticut. Additionally, we provide data on crack injection initiation, which may help to locate the emergence of crack injection as a new form of injection drug use. Louis, Toronto, Washington, D. In this article, we focus on specific findings from two cities: Bridgeport and New York. The aims of the CAP were to gather information about the general prevalence of crack injection, identify subpopulations where crack injection occurred, and describe variability in the behavioral practices used to prepare and inject crack. We accomplished these objectives by interviewing community members and crack injectors in both New York and Bridgeport. Community members and professionals who interacted with crack injectors, such as staff at needle exchanges, drug treatment centers, and health departments, provided information about the general location of crack injectors in each city. We used this community mapping information to conduct targeted participant observation in parks and along city streets, and to conduct informal interviews with crack injectors at each venue. Ultimately, the combined mapping information and participant observation revealed variability in crack cocaine quality and form, drug preparation practices, and injector demographic characteristics. These dimensions of crack injection were further pursued in the development of the Key Participant Interview KPI — a minute, semistructured interview focusing on crack injection initiation and the most recent crack injection event, including drug solutions injected and drug preparation methods employed. The primary enrollment requirement for a KPI was that an individual had injected crack within the past 60 days. Additionally, screening questions were used to ensure that injectors had recently prepared crack cocaine for injection as opposed to powder cocaine, for instance. Field notes and KPI data were recorded using pen and paper and converted into Microsoft Word files following each day of fieldwork. In New York, all injectors who met the enrollment and screening criteria agreed to participate in the study. In Bridgeport, one injector who met the study criteria refused to participate. We use the combined larger sample as the basis for our analysis, which is principally focused on describing variability across samples among crack injectors. Comparisons between injectors in New York and Bridgeport are not a primary analytical focus because of the small number of crack injectors interviewed in each city. However, we do present several meaningful contrasts between samples as a way to highlight variability among crack injectors. Results Table 1 presents demographic characteristics of the two smaller samples of crack injectors and the combined larger sample. Compared to the New York sample, the most notable differences are that the Bridgeport sample is typically older 40 years old vs. In the combined sample, the typical crack injector is 36 years old, white, male, supported through informal illegal and legal activities, initiated injection drug use in late teens with heroin, initiated crack injection in his early 30s, and commonly injected crack within the past week. The following results are based upon the combined sample of 38 crack injectors. Table 1.
1 note · View note
it-invent-crack-6f · 2 years ago
Text
Download IT Invent crack (keygen) latest version CAN4+
Tumblr media
💾 ►►► DOWNLOAD FILE 🔥🔥🔥 Lankenau, Ph. He conducts research on hidden populations, high-risk youth, and out-of-treatment drug users. Muchael C. Clatts, Ph. His principal area of interest is in community epidemiology and the development of community-based public health programs. Lloyd A. Goldsamt, Ph. His primary area of interest is public health research with high risk youth populations, with an emphasis on the initiation of risk behaviors. Dorinda L. Welle, Ph. She is currently conducting a longitudinal ethnographic study of how the AIDS epidemic informs adolescent development and identity dynamics among youth. Copyright notice Abstract This article examines the behavioral practices and health risks associated with preparing crack cocaine for injection. The findings suggest that crack injectors use a variety of methods to prepare crack, which may carry different risks for the transmission of bloodborne pathogens. In particular, crack injection may be an important factor in the current HIV epidemic. The emerging practice of injecting crack cocaine merits particular attention since injection drug users IDUs of powder cocaine have been shown to be at greater risk for HIV infection than heroin injectors Chaisson et al. Despite the accumulating evidence that crack cocaine is being injected in cities across the United States, no studies have offered detailed descriptions of the practices used to prepare crack for intravenous injection — practices which may place IDUs at increased risk for the transmission of bloodborne pathogens, such as HIV, BBV, and HCV. However, some drug users prefer injection as a mode of administrating crack since injection often increases the intensity and duration of a crack high Carlson et al. Additionally, the greater availability and lower costs associated with crack cocaine make it an alternative for IDUs who inject powder cocaine. In contrast to crack, powder cocaine has been injected for over a century, although initially for medicinal purposes and for the treatment of morphine and alcohol addiction Freud, Crack is a combination of cocaine hydrochloride, baking soda, and other adulterants which gives rise to a rock-like substance Inciardi, Consequently, IDUs who seek to inject crack are faced with the problem of transforming the rock into a soluble form that can be pulled into a hypodermic syringe. In contrast to crack, powder cocaine is water soluble Flynn, and can be prepared for injection without an acid. Rather, powder cocaine is typically prepared by adding water to powder and drawing the drug solution into a syringe. Hence, compared to powder cocaine, crack requires a different set of preparation practices to convert the drug into a soluble form. Drug preparation practices are an important component of both HIV risk and protective behaviors. For instance, cookers, the small bottle-cap type vessels used to prepare drugs, are often the most efficient containers to share drugs among injectors. Consequently, a cooker may be contaminated with HIV when it touches other paraphernalia used to prepare or inject drugs, such as a syringe, a filter, or water. Recent ethnographic research demonstrated that cookers may also play a unique protective role in reducing exposure to bloodborne pathogens among IDUs. Clatts, Heimer et al. Laboratory studies modeling these observations revealed that heating a cooker introduced with HIV-1 isolates for 15 seconds or more reduced HIV-1 viability below detectable levels. Hence, an IDU who applies a flame to a cooker for 15 seconds or more may deactivate HIV contained in the cooker prior to pulling the drug solution into a syringe. Additionally, this research highlights how different forms of the same drug — powder vs. In this article, we describe how crack — a hardened form of powder cocaine —is prepared for injection, the drug solutions injected, and the injection paraphernalia utilized based upon ethnographic interviews with samples of injectors living in New York City and Bridgeport, Connecticut. Additionally, we provide data on crack injection initiation, which may help to locate the emergence of crack injection as a new form of injection drug use. Louis, Toronto, Washington, D. In this article, we focus on specific findings from two cities: Bridgeport and New York. The aims of the CAP were to gather information about the general prevalence of crack injection, identify subpopulations where crack injection occurred, and describe variability in the behavioral practices used to prepare and inject crack. We accomplished these objectives by interviewing community members and crack injectors in both New York and Bridgeport. Community members and professionals who interacted with crack injectors, such as staff at needle exchanges, drug treatment centers, and health departments, provided information about the general location of crack injectors in each city. We used this community mapping information to conduct targeted participant observation in parks and along city streets, and to conduct informal interviews with crack injectors at each venue. Ultimately, the combined mapping information and participant observation revealed variability in crack cocaine quality and form, drug preparation practices, and injector demographic characteristics. These dimensions of crack injection were further pursued in the development of the Key Participant Interview KPI — a minute, semistructured interview focusing on crack injection initiation and the most recent crack injection event, including drug solutions injected and drug preparation methods employed. The primary enrollment requirement for a KPI was that an individual had injected crack within the past 60 days. Additionally, screening questions were used to ensure that injectors had recently prepared crack cocaine for injection as opposed to powder cocaine, for instance. Field notes and KPI data were recorded using pen and paper and converted into Microsoft Word files following each day of fieldwork. In New York, all injectors who met the enrollment and screening criteria agreed to participate in the study. In Bridgeport, one injector who met the study criteria refused to participate. We use the combined larger sample as the basis for our analysis, which is principally focused on describing variability across samples among crack injectors. Comparisons between injectors in New York and Bridgeport are not a primary analytical focus because of the small number of crack injectors interviewed in each city. However, we do present several meaningful contrasts between samples as a way to highlight variability among crack injectors. Results Table 1 presents demographic characteristics of the two smaller samples of crack injectors and the combined larger sample. Compared to the New York sample, the most notable differences are that the Bridgeport sample is typically older 40 years old vs. In the combined sample, the typical crack injector is 36 years old, white, male, supported through informal illegal and legal activities, initiated injection drug use in late teens with heroin, initiated crack injection in his early 30s, and commonly injected crack within the past week. The following results are based upon the combined sample of 38 crack injectors. Table 1.
1 note · View note
shots-crack-9e · 2 years ago
Text
Download shots crack (license key) latest version U3G*
Tumblr media
💾 ►►► DOWNLOAD FILE 🔥🔥🔥 The new PMC design is here! Learn more about navigating our updated article layout. The PMC legacy view will also be available for a limited time. Federal government websites often end in. The site is secure. This article examines the behavioral practices and health risks associated with preparing crack cocaine for injection. The findings suggest that crack injectors use a variety of methods to prepare crack, which may carry different risks for the transmission of bloodborne pathogens. In particular, crack injection may be an important factor in the current HIV epidemic. The emerging practice of injecting crack cocaine merits particular attention since injection drug users IDUs of powder cocaine have been shown to be at greater risk for HIV infection than heroin injectors Chaisson et al. Despite the accumulating evidence that crack cocaine is being injected in cities across the United States, no studies have offered detailed descriptions of the practices used to prepare crack for intravenous injection — practices which may place IDUs at increased risk for the transmission of bloodborne pathogens, such as HIV, BBV, and HCV. However, some drug users prefer injection as a mode of administrating crack since injection often increases the intensity and duration of a crack high Carlson et al. Additionally, the greater availability and lower costs associated with crack cocaine make it an alternative for IDUs who inject powder cocaine. In contrast to crack, powder cocaine has been injected for over a century, although initially for medicinal purposes and for the treatment of morphine and alcohol addiction Freud, Crack is a combination of cocaine hydrochloride, baking soda, and other adulterants which gives rise to a rock-like substance Inciardi, Consequently, IDUs who seek to inject crack are faced with the problem of transforming the rock into a soluble form that can be pulled into a hypodermic syringe. In contrast to crack, powder cocaine is water soluble Flynn, and can be prepared for injection without an acid. Rather, powder cocaine is typically prepared by adding water to powder and drawing the drug solution into a syringe. Hence, compared to powder cocaine, crack requires a different set of preparation practices to convert the drug into a soluble form. Drug preparation practices are an important component of both HIV risk and protective behaviors. For instance, cookers, the small bottle-cap type vessels used to prepare drugs, are often the most efficient containers to share drugs among injectors. Consequently, a cooker may be contaminated with HIV when it touches other paraphernalia used to prepare or inject drugs, such as a syringe, a filter, or water. Recent ethnographic research demonstrated that cookers may also play a unique protective role in reducing exposure to bloodborne pathogens among IDUs. Clatts, Heimer et al. Laboratory studies modeling these observations revealed that heating a cooker introduced with HIV-1 isolates for 15 seconds or more reduced HIV-1 viability below detectable levels. Hence, an IDU who applies a flame to a cooker for 15 seconds or more may deactivate HIV contained in the cooker prior to pulling the drug solution into a syringe. Additionally, this research highlights how different forms of the same drug — powder vs. In this article, we describe how crack — a hardened form of powder cocaine —is prepared for injection, the drug solutions injected, and the injection paraphernalia utilized based upon ethnographic interviews with samples of injectors living in New York City and Bridgeport, Connecticut. Additionally, we provide data on crack injection initiation, which may help to locate the emergence of crack injection as a new form of injection drug use. Louis, Toronto, Washington, D. In this article, we focus on specific findings from two cities: Bridgeport and New York. The aims of the CAP were to gather information about the general prevalence of crack injection, identify subpopulations where crack injection occurred, and describe variability in the behavioral practices used to prepare and inject crack. We accomplished these objectives by interviewing community members and crack injectors in both New York and Bridgeport. Community members and professionals who interacted with crack injectors, such as staff at needle exchanges, drug treatment centers, and health departments, provided information about the general location of crack injectors in each city. We used this community mapping information to conduct targeted participant observation in parks and along city streets, and to conduct informal interviews with crack injectors at each venue. Ultimately, the combined mapping information and participant observation revealed variability in crack cocaine quality and form, drug preparation practices, and injector demographic characteristics. These dimensions of crack injection were further pursued in the development of the Key Participant Interview KPI — a minute, semistructured interview focusing on crack injection initiation and the most recent crack injection event, including drug solutions injected and drug preparation methods employed. The primary enrollment requirement for a KPI was that an individual had injected crack within the past 60 days. Additionally, screening questions were used to ensure that injectors had recently prepared crack cocaine for injection as opposed to powder cocaine, for instance. Field notes and KPI data were recorded using pen and paper and converted into Microsoft Word files following each day of fieldwork. In New York, all injectors who met the enrollment and screening criteria agreed to participate in the study. In Bridgeport, one injector who met the study criteria refused to participate. We use the combined larger sample as the basis for our analysis, which is principally focused on describing variability across samples among crack injectors. Comparisons between injectors in New York and Bridgeport are not a primary analytical focus because of the small number of crack injectors interviewed in each city. However, we do present several meaningful contrasts between samples as a way to highlight variability among crack injectors. Table 1 presents demographic characteristics of the two smaller samples of crack injectors and the combined larger sample. Compared to the New York sample, the most notable differences are that the Bridgeport sample is typically older 40 years old vs. In the combined sample, the typical crack injector is 36 years old, white, male, supported through informal illegal and legal activities, initiated injection drug use in late teens with heroin, initiated crack injection in his early 30s, and commonly injected crack within the past week. The following results are based upon the combined sample of 38 crack injectors. Figure 1 presents the year of crack injection initiation and the age at crack injection initiation. Figure 1 indicates that four injectors initiated crack injection as early as — the same year that crack injection was first reported in England Hunter et al. This finding corroborates other reports that drug injectors in the United States first began experimenting with injecting crack in the early s Carlson et al. Additionally, the majority of injectors initiated crack injection since — particularly in and — indicating that crack injection continues to be an emerging practice in these two cities. Figure 1 also presents age cohorts at crack injection initiation. The fact that many of the injectors initiated crack injection at a relatively young age — initiation began between the ages of 16 and 25 years old for 10 injectors — suggests that the practice of injecting crack is not limited to long-time, older injectors Carlson et al. Rather, initiation into crack injection may begin at the same young age that other drugs are first injected, such as heroin or cocaine. For instance, one injector reported injecting crack in when he was 16 years old — soon after he first began injecting cocaine. Significantly, only one injector initiated their injection drug use career with crack. Rather, the vast majority of injectors in the sample initiated with heroin, transitioned into injecting cocaine, and eventually began shooting crack. The diverse age span at crack injection initiation depicted by Figure 1 , including one year-old man who initiated in , indicates that injectors initiated crack injection at a range of ages. Additionally, the interview data indicated that situational factors, such as cost, quality, and availability of crack over powder cocaine, often impacted upon decisions to initiate crack injection. Figure 2 presents crack preparation methods used by injectors during their most recent injection of crack. Our analyses revealed three primary factors involved in preparing crack for injection: adding some agent, typically an acid, to neutralize adulterants comprising the crack; the absence or application of heat to the cooker; and the absence or addition of heroin to the crack solution. For instance, three injectors used fresh lemon juice to neutralize the crack, combined the solution with heroin, and heated the entire solution in a cooker with a lighter or match. Ascorbic acid is regarded as less harmful to veins compared to acids such as lemon juice and vinegar. None of the Bridgeport sample used lemon juice — only ascorbic acid and white vinegar. Among the New York sample who used an acid to transform crack into solution, all used fresh lemon juice or concentrate except for one injector who added white vinegar. While the duration of heat applied to a cooker was not recorded, this is a protective crack preparation practice since heating a cooker for 15 seconds or longer may deactivate HIV Clatts, Heimer et. Among those injectors applying heat, most also added an acid, such as fresh lemon juice, concentrated lemon, ascorbic acid, or white vinegar. Injectors using ascorbic acid and acids from a bottle, such as white vinegar and concentrated lemon juice, also added water to dilute the concentrate. One injector transformed crack into solution applying only heat and water. Given the somewhat insoluble nature of crack, we hypothesize that this injector began with a more granular form of crack or some other atypical, more soluble form of crack. Rather, most converted the crack into a solution using some form of lemon juice, ascorbic acid, or vinegar. Thirteen of these injectors added heroin to the crack and acid mixture. Another four injectors used neither acid nor heat but rather converted crack using somewhat unique preparation practices. Heat is applied to the bottle, thereby separating the adulterants from the rock and leaving behind a gel-like substance containing a concentrated cocaine-based solution. The gel is then extracted by pouring it through a screen and placing it in a cooker but not heated during the two events reported before being injected. The rock is then lit while tilting the mirror, which causes the cocaine to melt and ooze down the mirror. After extinguishing the flame, the crack remains are scraped and finely chopped with a razor blade and then are deposited into a cooker but not heated during the two events reported before being injected. Significantly, the crack preparation methods employed by injectors varied by age. The majority of the injectors 11 out of 12 who used fresh lemon juice to transform crack were younger than 35 years old, whereas the majority of injectors seven out of eight who used white vinegar were older than Also, the majority of the injectors who applied heat to a cooker 10 out of 17 were under 35 years old. Hence, in addition to living in different geographic regions, such as New York or Bridgeport, belonging to different injection cohorts may expose injectors to diverse crack preparation practices. In particular, older injectors may bring a range of knowledge and techniques from other drug using experiences to a new practice, such as crack injection. Furthermore, the interview data revealed that the entire sample 38 out of 38 regularly used natural or synthetic opiates — 34 injected heroin, two sniffed heroin, and two were on methadone maintenance. Hence, crack was commonly injected in the context of opiate use. Additionally, combining two samples of crack injectors from different populations of injection drug users makes it difficult to generalize the findings across the study. Small, purposeful samples, which are common to qualitative research, however, are particularly useful when the research is focused on documenting an emerging phenomenon Patton, Towards this end, a primary component of documenting a new phenomenon is to maximize the identification of variability on the behaviors of interests, such as crack preparation methods, which we attempted to accomplish by combining two diverse samples of crack injectors. Our findings indicate that crack injectors employed a wide range of practices and materials to prepare crack for injection. When considering three key variables involved in preparing crack for injection — the absence or presence of an agent, heat, or heroin — we uncovered 16 different crack solutions out of 38 injectors. This finding of wide variability in crack preparation methods indicates that the practice of injecting crack had not become routinized across the sample of injectors in either city. Rather, crack preparation practices were innovative depending upon drug form, situational factors, and available materials. However, the use of certain preparation practices within specific geographic regions, e. The wide variability in crack preparation practices also suggests potentially different risks of exposure to bloodborne pathogens among IDUs who inject crack. Our findings indicate that the age of the injector and geographic region may be important factors influencing drug preparation practices. In particular, younger crack injectors may be adopting preparation practices, such as applying heat to a cooker, that have been shown to be protective against infectious diseases Clatts, Heimer et al. It is unknown how acids, such a lemon juice, ascorbic acid, or vinegar, impact upon HIV viability in a cooker. Laboratory research which will occur in the next phase of our study is necessary to model varying drug preparation methods of crack solutions and to assess the effects of acid on the transmission of HIV, HBV, and HCV. Furthermore, the impact of acids on vein health should also be examined in future studies. Our interviews revealed that heroin and other opiate use were pervasive among this sample — both at injection initiation and during the most recent crack injection. This is an important finding since it suggests that IDUs often injected crack to supplement heroin use. Future studies should compare two types of crack injectors — those who primarily inject crack with injectors who mainly shoot heroin — to understand whether preparation practices and injection risk behaviors differ between the two types of injectors. In this current study, it is difficult to discern whether IDUs who injected crack faced unique HIV risks above and beyond the risks associated with heroin injection alone. It is possible that some of the preparation practices associated with crack injection, such as heating a cooker or adding an acid to a cooker, may actually reduce the risks of transmitting bloodborne pathogens during injection events. Currently, it is unknown how the risk or protective practices associated with crack injection may interact with the injection practices common to heroin injection. Given the unknown impact of crack preparation practices on the risks for exposure to bloodborne pathogens, crack injection may be an important factor in the current HIV epidemic. While drug users have been injecting crack as early as , crack injection is a hidden practice since few research studies or drug treatment providers ask injectors specifically about injecting crack. The fact that both young and older injectors initiated crack injection throughout the s — increasingly in the late s among this sample — indicates that crack injection remains an emerging practice that may expose new cohorts of injectors to infectious diseases. These findings suggest that HIV service providers, outreach workers, and researchers should ask crack users about mode of administration since smoking is generally assumed. Without more detailed inquiries into the modes of administrating crack, crack injection is likely to remain a largely hidden practice. Consequently, IDUs who inject crack will fail to be identified and targeted for interventions designed to reduce the risk of transmitting bloodborne pathogens and other harms associated with preparation practices particular to crack injection. We would like to acknowledge the assistance offered by the Bridgeport Needle Exchange Program during data collection in Bridgeport, Connecticut. J Drug Issues. Author manuscript; available in PMC Dec Stephen E. Lankenau , Michael C. Clatts , Ph. Goldsamt , and Dorinda L. Author information Copyright and License information Disclaimer. Lankenau, Ph. He conducts research on hidden populations, high-risk youth, and out-of-treatment drug users. Muchael C. Clatts, Ph. His principal area of interest is in community epidemiology and the development of community-based public health programs. Lloyd A. Goldsamt, Ph. His primary area of interest is public health research with high risk youth populations, with an emphasis on the initiation of risk behaviors. Dorinda L. Welle, Ph. She is currently conducting a longitudinal ethnographic study of how the AIDS epidemic informs adolescent development and identity dynamics among youth. Copyright notice. Abstract This article examines the behavioral practices and health risks associated with preparing crack cocaine for injection. Results Table 1 presents demographic characteristics of the two smaller samples of crack injectors and the combined larger sample. Table 1 Sample Demographics. Open in a separate window. Figure 1. Figure 2. Conclusion Given the unknown impact of crack preparation practices on the risks for exposure to bloodborne pathogens, crack injection may be an important factor in the current HIV epidemic. Acknowledgments We would like to acknowledge the assistance offered by the Bridgeport Needle Exchange Program during data collection in Bridgeport, Connecticut. References Agar M. Social misery, and the sanctions of substance abuse: Confronting I-HV risk among homeless heroin addicts in San Francisco. Social Problems. Crack cocaine injection in the heartland: An ethnographic perspective. Medical Anthropology. The Journal of the American Medical Association. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome. Interdisciplinary research on transmission of blood-borne pathogens among drug injectors: Applications of ethnography in epidemiology and public health. Reconceptualizing the interaction of drug and sexual risk among MSM speed users: notes oward an ethno-epidemiology. AIDS and Behavior. An ethno-epidemiological model for the study of trends in illicit drug use: Reflections on the 'emergence' of crack injection. International Journal of Drug Policy. Epidemiologic trends in drug abuse. HIV infection and intravenous drug use: Critical issues in transmission dynamics, infection outcomes, and prevention. Review of Infectious Disease. Initiation into crack and cocaine: A tale of two epidemics. Contemporary Drug Problems. New York: Citadel Press; Uber coca. In: Byck R, editor. Cocaine papers. New York: Meridian; Crack use and injection on the increase among injecting drug users in London. Beyond cocaine: Basuco, crack, and coca products. The injection of crack cocaine among Chicago drug users. American Journal of Public Health. Crack injection in Bridgeport, CT: Prevalence, practices, and practical prevention. The risk of HIV transmission from sharing water, drug mixing containers and cotton filters among intravenous drug users. Ketamine injection among high-risk youth: Preliminary findings from New York City. The Journal of Drug Issues. Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; Copy Download.
0 notes
it-invent-crack-7f · 2 years ago
Text
Download IT Invent crack (keygen) latest version 8WW+
Tumblr media
💾 ►►► DOWNLOAD FILE 🔥🔥🔥 Lankenau, Ph. He conducts research on hidden populations, high-risk youth, and out-of-treatment drug users. Muchael C. Clatts, Ph. His principal area of interest is in community epidemiology and the development of community-based public health programs. Lloyd A. Goldsamt, Ph. His primary area of interest is public health research with high risk youth populations, with an emphasis on the initiation of risk behaviors. Dorinda L. Welle, Ph. She is currently conducting a longitudinal ethnographic study of how the AIDS epidemic informs adolescent development and identity dynamics among youth. Copyright notice Abstract This article examines the behavioral practices and health risks associated with preparing crack cocaine for injection. The findings suggest that crack injectors use a variety of methods to prepare crack, which may carry different risks for the transmission of bloodborne pathogens. In particular, crack injection may be an important factor in the current HIV epidemic. The emerging practice of injecting crack cocaine merits particular attention since injection drug users IDUs of powder cocaine have been shown to be at greater risk for HIV infection than heroin injectors Chaisson et al. Despite the accumulating evidence that crack cocaine is being injected in cities across the United States, no studies have offered detailed descriptions of the practices used to prepare crack for intravenous injection — practices which may place IDUs at increased risk for the transmission of bloodborne pathogens, such as HIV, BBV, and HCV. However, some drug users prefer injection as a mode of administrating crack since injection often increases the intensity and duration of a crack high Carlson et al. Additionally, the greater availability and lower costs associated with crack cocaine make it an alternative for IDUs who inject powder cocaine. In contrast to crack, powder cocaine has been injected for over a century, although initially for medicinal purposes and for the treatment of morphine and alcohol addiction Freud, Crack is a combination of cocaine hydrochloride, baking soda, and other adulterants which gives rise to a rock-like substance Inciardi, Consequently, IDUs who seek to inject crack are faced with the problem of transforming the rock into a soluble form that can be pulled into a hypodermic syringe. In contrast to crack, powder cocaine is water soluble Flynn, and can be prepared for injection without an acid. Rather, powder cocaine is typically prepared by adding water to powder and drawing the drug solution into a syringe. Hence, compared to powder cocaine, crack requires a different set of preparation practices to convert the drug into a soluble form. Drug preparation practices are an important component of both HIV risk and protective behaviors. For instance, cookers, the small bottle-cap type vessels used to prepare drugs, are often the most efficient containers to share drugs among injectors. Consequently, a cooker may be contaminated with HIV when it touches other paraphernalia used to prepare or inject drugs, such as a syringe, a filter, or water. Recent ethnographic research demonstrated that cookers may also play a unique protective role in reducing exposure to bloodborne pathogens among IDUs. Clatts, Heimer et al. Laboratory studies modeling these observations revealed that heating a cooker introduced with HIV-1 isolates for 15 seconds or more reduced HIV-1 viability below detectable levels. Hence, an IDU who applies a flame to a cooker for 15 seconds or more may deactivate HIV contained in the cooker prior to pulling the drug solution into a syringe. Additionally, this research highlights how different forms of the same drug — powder vs. In this article, we describe how crack — a hardened form of powder cocaine —is prepared for injection, the drug solutions injected, and the injection paraphernalia utilized based upon ethnographic interviews with samples of injectors living in New York City and Bridgeport, Connecticut. Additionally, we provide data on crack injection initiation, which may help to locate the emergence of crack injection as a new form of injection drug use. Louis, Toronto, Washington, D. In this article, we focus on specific findings from two cities: Bridgeport and New York. The aims of the CAP were to gather information about the general prevalence of crack injection, identify subpopulations where crack injection occurred, and describe variability in the behavioral practices used to prepare and inject crack. We accomplished these objectives by interviewing community members and crack injectors in both New York and Bridgeport. Community members and professionals who interacted with crack injectors, such as staff at needle exchanges, drug treatment centers, and health departments, provided information about the general location of crack injectors in each city. We used this community mapping information to conduct targeted participant observation in parks and along city streets, and to conduct informal interviews with crack injectors at each venue. Ultimately, the combined mapping information and participant observation revealed variability in crack cocaine quality and form, drug preparation practices, and injector demographic characteristics. These dimensions of crack injection were further pursued in the development of the Key Participant Interview KPI — a minute, semistructured interview focusing on crack injection initiation and the most recent crack injection event, including drug solutions injected and drug preparation methods employed. The primary enrollment requirement for a KPI was that an individual had injected crack within the past 60 days. Additionally, screening questions were used to ensure that injectors had recently prepared crack cocaine for injection as opposed to powder cocaine, for instance. Field notes and KPI data were recorded using pen and paper and converted into Microsoft Word files following each day of fieldwork. In New York, all injectors who met the enrollment and screening criteria agreed to participate in the study. In Bridgeport, one injector who met the study criteria refused to participate. We use the combined larger sample as the basis for our analysis, which is principally focused on describing variability across samples among crack injectors. Comparisons between injectors in New York and Bridgeport are not a primary analytical focus because of the small number of crack injectors interviewed in each city. However, we do present several meaningful contrasts between samples as a way to highlight variability among crack injectors. Results Table 1 presents demographic characteristics of the two smaller samples of crack injectors and the combined larger sample. Compared to the New York sample, the most notable differences are that the Bridgeport sample is typically older 40 years old vs. In the combined sample, the typical crack injector is 36 years old, white, male, supported through informal illegal and legal activities, initiated injection drug use in late teens with heroin, initiated crack injection in his early 30s, and commonly injected crack within the past week. The following results are based upon the combined sample of 38 crack injectors. Table 1.
1 note · View note
shots-crack-td · 2 years ago
Text
Download shots crack (license key) latest version V4V#
Tumblr media
💾 ►►► DOWNLOAD FILE 🔥🔥🔥 The new PMC design is here! Learn more about navigating our updated article layout. The PMC legacy view will also be available for a limited time. Federal government websites often end in. The site is secure. This article examines the behavioral practices and health risks associated with preparing crack cocaine for injection. The findings suggest that crack injectors use a variety of methods to prepare crack, which may carry different risks for the transmission of bloodborne pathogens. In particular, crack injection may be an important factor in the current HIV epidemic. The emerging practice of injecting crack cocaine merits particular attention since injection drug users IDUs of powder cocaine have been shown to be at greater risk for HIV infection than heroin injectors Chaisson et al. Despite the accumulating evidence that crack cocaine is being injected in cities across the United States, no studies have offered detailed descriptions of the practices used to prepare crack for intravenous injection — practices which may place IDUs at increased risk for the transmission of bloodborne pathogens, such as HIV, BBV, and HCV. However, some drug users prefer injection as a mode of administrating crack since injection often increases the intensity and duration of a crack high Carlson et al. Additionally, the greater availability and lower costs associated with crack cocaine make it an alternative for IDUs who inject powder cocaine. In contrast to crack, powder cocaine has been injected for over a century, although initially for medicinal purposes and for the treatment of morphine and alcohol addiction Freud, Crack is a combination of cocaine hydrochloride, baking soda, and other adulterants which gives rise to a rock-like substance Inciardi, Consequently, IDUs who seek to inject crack are faced with the problem of transforming the rock into a soluble form that can be pulled into a hypodermic syringe. In contrast to crack, powder cocaine is water soluble Flynn, and can be prepared for injection without an acid. Rather, powder cocaine is typically prepared by adding water to powder and drawing the drug solution into a syringe. Hence, compared to powder cocaine, crack requires a different set of preparation practices to convert the drug into a soluble form. Drug preparation practices are an important component of both HIV risk and protective behaviors. For instance, cookers, the small bottle-cap type vessels used to prepare drugs, are often the most efficient containers to share drugs among injectors. Consequently, a cooker may be contaminated with HIV when it touches other paraphernalia used to prepare or inject drugs, such as a syringe, a filter, or water. Recent ethnographic research demonstrated that cookers may also play a unique protective role in reducing exposure to bloodborne pathogens among IDUs. Clatts, Heimer et al. Laboratory studies modeling these observations revealed that heating a cooker introduced with HIV-1 isolates for 15 seconds or more reduced HIV-1 viability below detectable levels. Hence, an IDU who applies a flame to a cooker for 15 seconds or more may deactivate HIV contained in the cooker prior to pulling the drug solution into a syringe. Additionally, this research highlights how different forms of the same drug — powder vs. In this article, we describe how crack — a hardened form of powder cocaine —is prepared for injection, the drug solutions injected, and the injection paraphernalia utilized based upon ethnographic interviews with samples of injectors living in New York City and Bridgeport, Connecticut. Additionally, we provide data on crack injection initiation, which may help to locate the emergence of crack injection as a new form of injection drug use. Louis, Toronto, Washington, D. In this article, we focus on specific findings from two cities: Bridgeport and New York. The aims of the CAP were to gather information about the general prevalence of crack injection, identify subpopulations where crack injection occurred, and describe variability in the behavioral practices used to prepare and inject crack. We accomplished these objectives by interviewing community members and crack injectors in both New York and Bridgeport. Community members and professionals who interacted with crack injectors, such as staff at needle exchanges, drug treatment centers, and health departments, provided information about the general location of crack injectors in each city. We used this community mapping information to conduct targeted participant observation in parks and along city streets, and to conduct informal interviews with crack injectors at each venue. Ultimately, the combined mapping information and participant observation revealed variability in crack cocaine quality and form, drug preparation practices, and injector demographic characteristics. These dimensions of crack injection were further pursued in the development of the Key Participant Interview KPI — a minute, semistructured interview focusing on crack injection initiation and the most recent crack injection event, including drug solutions injected and drug preparation methods employed. The primary enrollment requirement for a KPI was that an individual had injected crack within the past 60 days. Additionally, screening questions were used to ensure that injectors had recently prepared crack cocaine for injection as opposed to powder cocaine, for instance. Field notes and KPI data were recorded using pen and paper and converted into Microsoft Word files following each day of fieldwork. In New York, all injectors who met the enrollment and screening criteria agreed to participate in the study. In Bridgeport, one injector who met the study criteria refused to participate. We use the combined larger sample as the basis for our analysis, which is principally focused on describing variability across samples among crack injectors. Comparisons between injectors in New York and Bridgeport are not a primary analytical focus because of the small number of crack injectors interviewed in each city. However, we do present several meaningful contrasts between samples as a way to highlight variability among crack injectors. Table 1 presents demographic characteristics of the two smaller samples of crack injectors and the combined larger sample. Compared to the New York sample, the most notable differences are that the Bridgeport sample is typically older 40 years old vs. In the combined sample, the typical crack injector is 36 years old, white, male, supported through informal illegal and legal activities, initiated injection drug use in late teens with heroin, initiated crack injection in his early 30s, and commonly injected crack within the past week. The following results are based upon the combined sample of 38 crack injectors. Figure 1 presents the year of crack injection initiation and the age at crack injection initiation. Figure 1 indicates that four injectors initiated crack injection as early as — the same year that crack injection was first reported in England Hunter et al. This finding corroborates other reports that drug injectors in the United States first began experimenting with injecting crack in the early s Carlson et al. Additionally, the majority of injectors initiated crack injection since — particularly in and — indicating that crack injection continues to be an emerging practice in these two cities. Figure 1 also presents age cohorts at crack injection initiation. The fact that many of the injectors initiated crack injection at a relatively young age — initiation began between the ages of 16 and 25 years old for 10 injectors — suggests that the practice of injecting crack is not limited to long-time, older injectors Carlson et al. Rather, initiation into crack injection may begin at the same young age that other drugs are first injected, such as heroin or cocaine. For instance, one injector reported injecting crack in when he was 16 years old — soon after he first began injecting cocaine. Significantly, only one injector initiated their injection drug use career with crack. Rather, the vast majority of injectors in the sample initiated with heroin, transitioned into injecting cocaine, and eventually began shooting crack. The diverse age span at crack injection initiation depicted by Figure 1 , including one year-old man who initiated in , indicates that injectors initiated crack injection at a range of ages. Additionally, the interview data indicated that situational factors, such as cost, quality, and availability of crack over powder cocaine, often impacted upon decisions to initiate crack injection. Figure 2 presents crack preparation methods used by injectors during their most recent injection of crack. Our analyses revealed three primary factors involved in preparing crack for injection: adding some agent, typically an acid, to neutralize adulterants comprising the crack; the absence or application of heat to the cooker; and the absence or addition of heroin to the crack solution. For instance, three injectors used fresh lemon juice to neutralize the crack, combined the solution with heroin, and heated the entire solution in a cooker with a lighter or match. Ascorbic acid is regarded as less harmful to veins compared to acids such as lemon juice and vinegar. None of the Bridgeport sample used lemon juice — only ascorbic acid and white vinegar. Among the New York sample who used an acid to transform crack into solution, all used fresh lemon juice or concentrate except for one injector who added white vinegar. While the duration of heat applied to a cooker was not recorded, this is a protective crack preparation practice since heating a cooker for 15 seconds or longer may deactivate HIV Clatts, Heimer et. Among those injectors applying heat, most also added an acid, such as fresh lemon juice, concentrated lemon, ascorbic acid, or white vinegar. Injectors using ascorbic acid and acids from a bottle, such as white vinegar and concentrated lemon juice, also added water to dilute the concentrate. One injector transformed crack into solution applying only heat and water. Given the somewhat insoluble nature of crack, we hypothesize that this injector began with a more granular form of crack or some other atypical, more soluble form of crack. Rather, most converted the crack into a solution using some form of lemon juice, ascorbic acid, or vinegar. Thirteen of these injectors added heroin to the crack and acid mixture. Another four injectors used neither acid nor heat but rather converted crack using somewhat unique preparation practices. Heat is applied to the bottle, thereby separating the adulterants from the rock and leaving behind a gel-like substance containing a concentrated cocaine-based solution. The gel is then extracted by pouring it through a screen and placing it in a cooker but not heated during the two events reported before being injected. The rock is then lit while tilting the mirror, which causes the cocaine to melt and ooze down the mirror. After extinguishing the flame, the crack remains are scraped and finely chopped with a razor blade and then are deposited into a cooker but not heated during the two events reported before being injected. Significantly, the crack preparation methods employed by injectors varied by age. The majority of the injectors 11 out of 12 who used fresh lemon juice to transform crack were younger than 35 years old, whereas the majority of injectors seven out of eight who used white vinegar were older than Also, the majority of the injectors who applied heat to a cooker 10 out of 17 were under 35 years old. Hence, in addition to living in different geographic regions, such as New York or Bridgeport, belonging to different injection cohorts may expose injectors to diverse crack preparation practices. In particular, older injectors may bring a range of knowledge and techniques from other drug using experiences to a new practice, such as crack injection. Furthermore, the interview data revealed that the entire sample 38 out of 38 regularly used natural or synthetic opiates — 34 injected heroin, two sniffed heroin, and two were on methadone maintenance. Hence, crack was commonly injected in the context of opiate use. Additionally, combining two samples of crack injectors from different populations of injection drug users makes it difficult to generalize the findings across the study. Small, purposeful samples, which are common to qualitative research, however, are particularly useful when the research is focused on documenting an emerging phenomenon Patton, Towards this end, a primary component of documenting a new phenomenon is to maximize the identification of variability on the behaviors of interests, such as crack preparation methods, which we attempted to accomplish by combining two diverse samples of crack injectors. Our findings indicate that crack injectors employed a wide range of practices and materials to prepare crack for injection. When considering three key variables involved in preparing crack for injection — the absence or presence of an agent, heat, or heroin — we uncovered 16 different crack solutions out of 38 injectors. This finding of wide variability in crack preparation methods indicates that the practice of injecting crack had not become routinized across the sample of injectors in either city. Rather, crack preparation practices were innovative depending upon drug form, situational factors, and available materials. However, the use of certain preparation practices within specific geographic regions, e. The wide variability in crack preparation practices also suggests potentially different risks of exposure to bloodborne pathogens among IDUs who inject crack. Our findings indicate that the age of the injector and geographic region may be important factors influencing drug preparation practices. In particular, younger crack injectors may be adopting preparation practices, such as applying heat to a cooker, that have been shown to be protective against infectious diseases Clatts, Heimer et al. It is unknown how acids, such a lemon juice, ascorbic acid, or vinegar, impact upon HIV viability in a cooker. Laboratory research which will occur in the next phase of our study is necessary to model varying drug preparation methods of crack solutions and to assess the effects of acid on the transmission of HIV, HBV, and HCV. Furthermore, the impact of acids on vein health should also be examined in future studies. Our interviews revealed that heroin and other opiate use were pervasive among this sample — both at injection initiation and during the most recent crack injection. This is an important finding since it suggests that IDUs often injected crack to supplement heroin use. Future studies should compare two types of crack injectors — those who primarily inject crack with injectors who mainly shoot heroin — to understand whether preparation practices and injection risk behaviors differ between the two types of injectors. In this current study, it is difficult to discern whether IDUs who injected crack faced unique HIV risks above and beyond the risks associated with heroin injection alone. It is possible that some of the preparation practices associated with crack injection, such as heating a cooker or adding an acid to a cooker, may actually reduce the risks of transmitting bloodborne pathogens during injection events. Currently, it is unknown how the risk or protective practices associated with crack injection may interact with the injection practices common to heroin injection. Given the unknown impact of crack preparation practices on the risks for exposure to bloodborne pathogens, crack injection may be an important factor in the current HIV epidemic. While drug users have been injecting crack as early as , crack injection is a hidden practice since few research studies or drug treatment providers ask injectors specifically about injecting crack. The fact that both young and older injectors initiated crack injection throughout the s — increasingly in the late s among this sample — indicates that crack injection remains an emerging practice that may expose new cohorts of injectors to infectious diseases. These findings suggest that HIV service providers, outreach workers, and researchers should ask crack users about mode of administration since smoking is generally assumed. Without more detailed inquiries into the modes of administrating crack, crack injection is likely to remain a largely hidden practice. Consequently, IDUs who inject crack will fail to be identified and targeted for interventions designed to reduce the risk of transmitting bloodborne pathogens and other harms associated with preparation practices particular to crack injection. We would like to acknowledge the assistance offered by the Bridgeport Needle Exchange Program during data collection in Bridgeport, Connecticut. J Drug Issues. Author manuscript; available in PMC Dec Stephen E. Lankenau , Michael C. Clatts , Ph. Goldsamt , and Dorinda L. Author information Copyright and License information Disclaimer. Lankenau, Ph. He conducts research on hidden populations, high-risk youth, and out-of-treatment drug users. Muchael C. Clatts, Ph. His principal area of interest is in community epidemiology and the development of community-based public health programs. Lloyd A. Goldsamt, Ph. His primary area of interest is public health research with high risk youth populations, with an emphasis on the initiation of risk behaviors. Dorinda L. Welle, Ph. She is currently conducting a longitudinal ethnographic study of how the AIDS epidemic informs adolescent development and identity dynamics among youth. Copyright notice. Abstract This article examines the behavioral practices and health risks associated with preparing crack cocaine for injection. Results Table 1 presents demographic characteristics of the two smaller samples of crack injectors and the combined larger sample. Table 1 Sample Demographics. Open in a separate window. Figure 1. Figure 2. Conclusion Given the unknown impact of crack preparation practices on the risks for exposure to bloodborne pathogens, crack injection may be an important factor in the current HIV epidemic. Acknowledgments We would like to acknowledge the assistance offered by the Bridgeport Needle Exchange Program during data collection in Bridgeport, Connecticut. References Agar M. Social misery, and the sanctions of substance abuse: Confronting I-HV risk among homeless heroin addicts in San Francisco. Social Problems. Crack cocaine injection in the heartland: An ethnographic perspective. Medical Anthropology. The Journal of the American Medical Association. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome. Interdisciplinary research on transmission of blood-borne pathogens among drug injectors: Applications of ethnography in epidemiology and public health. Reconceptualizing the interaction of drug and sexual risk among MSM speed users: notes oward an ethno-epidemiology. AIDS and Behavior. An ethno-epidemiological model for the study of trends in illicit drug use: Reflections on the 'emergence' of crack injection. International Journal of Drug Policy. Epidemiologic trends in drug abuse. HIV infection and intravenous drug use: Critical issues in transmission dynamics, infection outcomes, and prevention. Review of Infectious Disease. Initiation into crack and cocaine: A tale of two epidemics. Contemporary Drug Problems. New York: Citadel Press; Uber coca. In: Byck R, editor. Cocaine papers. New York: Meridian; Crack use and injection on the increase among injecting drug users in London. Beyond cocaine: Basuco, crack, and coca products. The injection of crack cocaine among Chicago drug users. American Journal of Public Health. Crack injection in Bridgeport, CT: Prevalence, practices, and practical prevention. The risk of HIV transmission from sharing water, drug mixing containers and cotton filters among intravenous drug users. Ketamine injection among high-risk youth: Preliminary findings from New York City. The Journal of Drug Issues. Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; Copy Download.
1 note · View note
quotidiantimes · 3 years ago
Text
Men indicted for trying to sell stolen handwritten lyrics and notes from 'Hotel California' album
Men indicted for trying to sell stolen handwritten lyrics and notes from ‘Hotel California’ album
About 100 pages of notes and lyrics for songs including “Hotel California,” “Life in the Fast Lane” and “New Kid in Town” were among the documents prosecutors said were stolen and worth more than $1 million, according to a news release. The men, Glenn Horowitz, 66, Craig Inciardi, 58, and Edward Kosinski, 59, were each charged with one count of conspiracy in the fourth degree. Inciardi and…
Tumblr media
View On WordPress
0 notes
highlifestyleindia · 3 years ago
Text
Tumblr media
Three men have been charged criminally in Manhattan for allegedly having roughly 100 pages of handwritten lyrics and notes for the Eagles' hugely successful 1976 album "Hotel California" that were stolen from vocalist Don Henley.
On Tuesday, Glenn Horowitz, Craig Inciardi, and Edward Kosinski were charged with trying to resell goods valued at over $1 million while concealing their source from law authorities, auction houses, and potential buyers.
The words to songs like "Hotel California," "Life in the Fast Lane," and "New Kid in Town" are among the lyrics included in the files, according to Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg.
The allegations of conspiracy and criminal possession were denied by Horowitz, 66, of Manhattan, Inciardi, 58 of Brooklyn, and Kosinski, 59 of Franklin Lakes, New Jersey. Horowitz also denied the charge of obstructing the investigation.
In a joint statement, their lawyers said Bragg's office "alleges criminality where none exists and unfairly tarnishes the reputations of well-respected professionals. We will fight these unjustified charges vigorously. These men are innocent."
According to the prosecution, a potential Eagles biographer took the papers in the late 1970s and sold them to rare book trader Horowitz in 2005.
After that, according to Horowitz, Inciardi and Kosinski sought to sell the items at Christie's and Sotheby's or pressure Henley into purchasing them back.
Numerous emails concerning the alleged 7-and-a-half-year plot are included in the indictment.
Frey "is dead and identifying him as (the) source would make this go away once and for all," Horowitz allegedly wrote in February 2017, 13 months after Frey's death.
In a statement, Eagles manager Irving Azoff said no one has a right to profit from "the outright theft of irreplaceable pieces of musical history. ... We look forward to the return of Don's property."
Henley has claimed that the song's abstract lyrics, "Hotel California," represent American excess. The song is also recognised for its lengthy guitar outro by Don Felder and Joe Walsh. It won the 1977 Record of the Year Grammy.
The handwritten lyrics to "Like a Rolling Stone" by Bob Dylan sold for a record-breaking $2 million in 2014 at Sotheby's.
0 notes
timesofunited · 3 years ago
Text
The Eagles have charged three men with attempting to sell counterfeit "Hotel California" notes
The Eagles have charged three men with attempting to sell counterfeit “Hotel California” notes
THE NEW YORK – In connection with an alleged conspiracy involving the handwritten lyrics to the Eagles’ classic rock anthem “Hotel California” and other songs, three people were charged on Tuesday. The defendants, according to the prosecution, lied about the manuscripts’ provenance to auction houses and buyers despite being aware that the material was stolen. Glenn Horowitz, Craig Inciardi, and…
Tumblr media
View On WordPress
0 notes
reportwire · 3 years ago
Text
Three charged over stolen lyric notes from the Eagles’ Don Henley
Three charged over stolen lyric notes from the Eagles’ Don Henley
New York authorities have charged three individuals concerning their possession of 100 pages of lyric notes from Eagles frontman Don Henley.  In a news release on Tuesday, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg (D) announced that Glenn Horowitz, 66, Craig Inciardi, 58, and Edward Kosinski, 59, had all been charged as part of the scheme. The manuscripts were originally stolen by a writer who had…
Tumblr media
View On WordPress
0 notes
dangerouskingcheesecake · 3 years ago
Text
#js主义Three people in New York have been charged with possessing rock legend Don Henley’s handwritten notes and lyrics for songs including the famous "Hotel California" – and even trying for years to prevent Henley from being reunited with his documents after the Eagles band member himself got involved, officials announced Tuesday.
Glenn Horowitz, 66; Edward Kosinski, 59; and Craig Inciardi, 58, were indicted for conspiracy involving their possession of roughly 100 pages of the Rock and Roll Hall of Famer’s notes and lyrics for songs on the Eagles’ famous "Hotel California" album, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office said in a Tuesday press release. The stolen property allegedly included lyrics for the songs "Life in the Fast Lane" and "New Kid in Town," and also for the six-and-a-half-minute hit, "Hotel California."
0 notes