Humans, animals, and the environment face a universal crisis: antimicrobial resistance. Addressing AR and its multi-disciplinary causes across many sectors including in human and veterinary medicine remains underdeveloped. One barrier to AR efforts is an inconsistent process to incorporate the plenitude of stakeholders about what AR is and how to stifle its development and spread—especially stakeholders from the animal agriculture sector, one of the largest purchasers of antimicrobial drugs. In 2019, The Wellcome Trust released Reframing Resistance: How to communicate about (...) antimicrobial resistance effectively, which proposed the need to establish a consistent and harmonized messaging effort that describes the AR crisis and its global implications for health and wellbeing across all stakeholders. Yet, Reframing Resistance does not specifically engage the animal agriculture community. This study investigates the gap between two principles recommended by Reframing Resistance and animal agriculture stakeholders. For this analysis, the research group conducted 31 semi-structured interviews with a diverse group of United States animal agriculture stakeholders. Participants reported attitudes, beliefs, and practices about a variety of issues, including how they defined AR and what entities the AR crisis impacts most. Exploration of Reframing Resistance’s Principle 2, “explain the fundamentals succinctly” and Principle 3, “emphasis that this is universal issue; it can affect anyone, including you” reveals disagreement in both the fundamentals of AR and consensus of “who” the AR crisis impacts. Principle 2 may do better to acknowledge that animal agriculture stakeholders espouse a complex array of perspectives that cannot be summed up in a single perspective or principle. As a primary tool to combat AR, behavior change must be accomplished first through outreach to stakeholder groups and understanding their perspectives. (shrink)

State health departments are at the core of the United States public health infrastructure. Surveillance to monitor trends in disease and injury; the development, coordination, and delivery of services; and public education are some of the core functions health department employees oversee every day. As such, agencies and their employees are well positioned to inform policy decisions that affect the public’s health. However, little is known about the role of health department staff — a sizeable proportion of the public health (...) workforce — as advocates for public health policies, independent of their agency roles. Anecdotally, some health department employees with whom we have spoken expressed reluctance to engage in policy advocacy for fear of violating little known or understood agency or state rules. (shrink)

Senate Bill 1435, the “Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003,” was introduced into the Senate on July 21, 2003, and in less than a week passed both the Senate and House by unanimous consent. The Bill was presented to President Bush on September 2, 2003, and he signed it two days later on September 4, 2003. The stated purposes of the Act are far-reaching and ambitious:establish a zero-tolerance standard for the incidence of prison rape in prisons in the United States;make (...) the prevention of prison rape a top priority in each prison system;develop and implement national standards For the detection, prevention, reduction, and punishment of prison rape;increase the available data and information on the incidence of prison rape, consequently improving the management and administration of correctional facilities;standardize the definitions used for collecting data on the incidence of prison rape. (shrink)

Senate Bill 1435, the “Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003,” was introduced into the Senate on July 21, 2003, and in less than a week passed both the Senate and House by unanimous consent. The Bill was presented to President Bush on September 2, 2003, and he signed it two days later on September 4, 2003. The stated purposes of the Act are far-reaching and ambitious:establish a zero-tolerance standard for the incidence of prison rape in prisons in the United States;make (...) the prevention of prison rape a top priority in each prison system;develop and implement national standards For the detection, prevention, reduction, and punishment of prison rape;increase the available data and information on the incidence of prison rape, consequently improving the management and administration of correctional facilities;standardize the definitions used for collecting data on the incidence of prison rape. (shrink)

Objectives:Over the past two decades, all U.S. states have incorporated alcohol ignition interlock technology into sentencing laws for individuals convicted of driving while intoxicated. This article provides the first 50-state summary of these laws to include changes in the laws over time and their effective dates. This information is critical for policy makers to make informed decisions and for researchers to conduct quantitative evaluation of the laws.Methods:Standard legal research and legislative history techniques were used, including full-text searches in the Westlaw (...) legal database and identification of state session laws. Because ignition interlock device laws often change over time, we identified the date of each law's initial enactment as well as the effective date of each law in its current form.Results:Beginning with California and Washington in 1987, all 50 states have enacted IID laws as a sentencing option for DWI offenders. Initially, most of these laws were discretionary. Today, however, 48 states mandate IID installation for at least some types of DWI offenders to maintain lawful driving privileges. Of these, 27 mandate an IID for all offenders; seven mandate an IID for repeat offenders only; and 21 for some combination of specific groups of DWI offenders, including repeat offenders, offenders with a blood alcohol content above a legislatively-specified level, and aggravated offenders.Conclusion:States have wrestled with a number of IID policy issues, including for whom to mandate IIDs and whether to suspend a license for DWI prior to reinstating driving privileges with or without an IID. By understanding how state interlock laws differ, policy makers and researchers can ultimately better ascertain the impact of these laws. (shrink)

Firearm violence is a major public health problem in the United States. In 2000, firearms were used in 10,801 homicides – two-thirds of all homicides in the U.S. – and 533,470 non-fatal criminal victimizations including rapes, robberies, and assaults. The social costs of gun violence in the United States are also staggering, and have been estimated to be on the order of $100 billion per year.Illegal gun carrying, usually concealed, in public places is an important risk factor for firearm-related crime. (...) In the 1980s and 1990s, police departments across the country began to develop and implement strategies to address illegal weapons carrying. Often these strategies have involved aggressive efforts to identify and physically search individuals suspected of illegally carrying a firearm. (shrink)

Firearm violence is a major public health problem in the United States. In 2000, firearms were used in 10,801 homicides – two-thirds of all homicides in the U.S. – and 533,470 non-fatal criminal victimizations including rapes, robberies, and assaults. The social costs of gun violence in the United States are also staggering, and have been estimated to be on the order of $100 billion per year.Illegal gun carrying, usually concealed, in public places is an important risk factor for firearm-related crime. (...) In the 1980s and 1990s, police departments across the country began to develop and implement strategies to address illegal weapons carrying. Often these strategies have involved aggressive efforts to identify and physically search individuals suspected of illegally carrying a firearm. (shrink)