<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet href="/rss.css" type="text/css"?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/"
    xmlns:cc="http://web.resource.org/cc/"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
    xmlns:extra="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"
    xmlns:prism="http://prismstandard.org/namespaces/1.2/basic/"
    xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
    <channel rdf:about="http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/feeds/mostaccessed/journal?quantity=&amp;format=rss&amp;version=">
        <title>Harm Reduction Journal - Most accessed articles</title>
        <link>http://www.harmreductionjournal.com</link>
        <description>The most accessed research articles published by Harm Reduction Journal</description>
        <dc:date>2012-01-20T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <items>
            <rdf:Seq>
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/1/1/5" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/5/1/19" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/9/1/1" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/4/1/11" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/9/1/4" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/8/1/32" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/2/1/21" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/2/1/17" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/9/1/3" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/9/1/6" />
                            </rdf:Seq>
        </items>
                 <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </channel>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/1/1/5">
        <title>Substance use during pregnancy: time for policy to catch up with research</title>
        <description>The phenomenon of substance abuse during pregnancy has fostered much controversy, specifically regarding treatment vs. punishment. Should the pregnant mother who engages in substance abuse be viewed as a criminal or as someone suffering from an illness requiring appropriate treatment? As it happens, there is a noticeably wide range of responses to this matter in the various states of the United States, ranging from a strictly criminal perspective to one that does emphasize the importance of the mother&apos;s treatment. This diversity of dramatically different responses illustrates the failure to establish a uniform policy for the management of this phenomenon. Just as there is lack of consensus among those who favor punishment, the same lack of consensus characterizes those states espousing treatment. Several general policy recommendations are offered here addressing the critical issues. It is hoped that by focusing on these fundamental issues and ultimately detailing statistics, policymakers throughout the United States will consider the course of action that views both pregnant mother and fetus/child as humanely as possible.</description>
        <link>http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/1/1/5</link>
                <dc:creator>Barry Lester</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Lynne Andreozzi</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Lindsey Appiah</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Harm Reduction Journal 2004, null:5</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2004-04-20T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1477-7517-1-5</dc:identifier>
                                <prism:require>/content/figures/1477-7517-1-5-toc.gif</prism:require>
                <prism:publicationName>Harm Reduction Journal</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1477-7517</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>${item.volume}</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>5</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2004-04-20T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/5/1/19">
        <title>Hookah smoking and cancer: carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) levels in exclusive/ever hookah smokers</title>
        <description>Background:
We have recently published some work on CEA levels in hookah (also called narghile, shisha elsewhere) and cigarette smokers. Hookah smokers had higher levels of CEA than non-smokers although mean levels were low compared to cigarette smokers. However some of them were also users of other tobacco products (cigarettes, bidis, etc.).ObjectivesTo find serum CEA levels in ever/exclusive hookah smokers, i.e. those who smoked only hookah (no cigarettes, bidis, etc.), prepared between 1 and 4 times a day with a quantity of up to 120 g of a tobacco-molasses mixture each (i.e. the tobacco weight equivalent of up to 60 cigarettes of 1 g each) and consumed in 1 to 8 sessions.
Methods:
Enhanced chemiluminescent immunometric technique was applied to measure CEA levels in serum samples from 59 exclusive male smokers with age ranging from 20&#8211;80 years (mean = 58.8 &#177; 14.7 years) and 8&#8211;65 years of smoking (mean = 37.7 &#177; 16.8). 36 non-smokers served as controls. Subjects were divided into 3 groups according to the number of preparations; the number of sessions and the total daily smoking time: Light (1; 1; &#8804; 20 minutes); Medium (1&#8211;3; 1&#8211;3; &gt;20 min to &#8804; 2 hrs) and Heavy smokers (2&#8211;4; 3&#8211;8; &gt;2 hrs to &#8804; 6 hrs). Because of the nature of distribution of CEA levels among our individuals, Wilcoxon&apos;s rank sum two-sample test was applied to compare the variables.
Results:
The overall CEA levels in exclusive hookah smokers (mean: 3.58 &#177; 2.61 ng/ml; n = 59) were not significantly different (p &#8804; 0.0937) from the levels in non-smokers (2.35 &#177; 0.71 ng/ml). Mean levels in light, medium and heavy smokers were: 1.06 &#177; 0.492 ng/ml (n = 5); 2.52 &#177; 1.15 ng/ml (n = 28) and 5.11 &#177; 3.08 ng/ml (n = 26) respectively. The levels in medium smokers and non-smokers were also not significantly different (p &#8804; 0.9138). In heavy smokers, the CEA levels were significantly higher than in non-smokers (p &#8804; 0.0001567).
Conclusion:
Overall CEA levels in exclusive hookah smokers were low compared to cigarette smokers. However, heavy hookah smoking substantially raises CEA levels. Low-nitrosamines smokeless tobacco of the SNUS Swedish type could be envisaged as an alternative to smoking for this category of users and also, in a broad harm reduction perspective, to the prevalent low-quality moist snuff called naswar.</description>
        <link>http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/5/1/19</link>
                <dc:creator>Khan Sajid</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Kamal Chaouachi</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Rubaida Mahmood</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Harm Reduction Journal 2008, null:19</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2008-05-24T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1477-7517-5-19</dc:identifier>
                                <prism:require>/content/figures/1477-7517-5-19-toc.gif</prism:require>
                <prism:publicationName>Harm Reduction Journal</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1477-7517</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>${item.volume}</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>19</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2008-05-24T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/9/1/1">
        <title>Prescribing Cannabis for Harm Reduction</title>
        <description>Neuropathic pain affects between 5% and 10% of the US population and can be refractory to treatment.  Opioids may be recommended as a second-line pharmacotherapy but have risks including overdose and death.  Cannabis has been shown to be effective for treating nerve pain without the risk of fatal poisoning. The author suggests that physicians who treat neuropathic pain with opioids should evaluate their patients for a trial of cannabis and prescribe it when appropriate prior to using opioids.  This harm reduction strategy may reduce the morbidity and mortality rates associated with prescription pain medications.</description>
        <link>http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/9/1/1</link>
                <dc:creator>Mark Collen</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Harm Reduction Journal 2012, null:1</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2012-01-01T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1477-7517-9-1</dc:identifier>
                                <prism:require>/content/figures/1477-7517-9-1-toc.gif</prism:require>
                <prism:publicationName>Harm Reduction Journal</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1477-7517</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>${item.volume}</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>1</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2012-01-01T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>PDF</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/4/1/11">
        <title>Decreased respiratory symptoms in cannabis users who vaporize</title>
        <description>Cannabis smoking can create respiratory problems. Vaporizers heat cannabis to release active cannabinoids, but remain cool enough to avoid the smoke and toxins associated with combustion. Vaporized cannabis should create fewer respiratory symptoms than smoked cannabis. We examined self-reported respiratory symptoms in participants who ranged in cigarette and cannabis use. Data from a large Internet sample revealed that the use of a vaporizer predicted fewer respiratory symptoms even when age, sex, cigarette smoking, and amount of cannabis used were taken into account. Age, sex, cigarettes, and amount of cannabis also had significant effects. The number of cigarettes smoked and amount of cannabis used interacted to create worse respiratory problems. A significant interaction revealed that the impact of a vaporizer was larger as the amount of cannabis used increased. These data suggest that the safety of cannabis can increase with the use of a vaporizer. Regular users of joints, blunts, pipes, and water pipes might decrease respiratory symptoms by switching to a vaporizer</description>
        <link>http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/4/1/11</link>
                <dc:creator>Mitch Earleywine</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Sara Smucker Barnwell</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Harm Reduction Journal 2007, null:11</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2007-04-16T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1477-7517-4-11</dc:identifier>
                            <dc:title>Vaporizer reduces harm to marijuana users</dc:title>
                            <dc:description>Marijuana smokers, who often report respiratory problems such as coughing or shortness of breath, present fewer of these symptoms when using a vaporizer, a device that heats marijuana to release the active ingredients.</dc:description>
                <prism:require>/content/figures/1477-7517-4-11-toc.gif</prism:require>
                <prism:publicationName>Harm Reduction Journal</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1477-7517</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>${item.volume}</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>11</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2007-04-16T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/9/1/4">
        <title>Psychoactive substances and the political ecology of mental distress</title>
        <description>The goal of this paper is to both understand and depathologize clinically significant mental distress related to criminalized contact with psychoactive biotic substances by employing a framework known as critical political ecology of health and disease from the subdiscipline of medical geography.  The political ecology of disease framework joins disease ecology with the power-calculus of political economy and calls for situating health-related phenomena in their broad social and economic context, demonstrating how large-scale global processes are at work at the local level, and giving due attention to historical analysis in understanding the relevant human-environment relations.  Critical approaches to the political ecology of health and disease have the potential to incorporate ever-broadening social, political, economic, and cultural factors to challenge traditional causes, definitions, and sociomedical understandings of disease.  Inspired by the patient-centered medical diagnosis critiques in medical geography, this paper will use a critical political ecology of disease approach to challenge certain prevailing sociomedical interpretations of disease, or more specifically, mental disorder, found in the field of substance abuse diagnostics and the related American punitive public policy regimes of substance abuse prevention and control, with regards to the use of biotic substances.  It will do this by first critically interrogating the concept of &quot;substances&quot; and grounding them in an ecological context, reviewing the history of both the development of modern substance control laws and modern substance abuse diagnostics, and understanding the biogeographic dimensions of such approaches.  It closes with proposing a non-criminalizing public health approach for regulating human close contact with psychoactive substances using the example of cannabis use.</description>
        <link>http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/9/1/4</link>
                <dc:creator>Sunil Aggarwal</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Gregory Carter</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Craig Zumbrunnen</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Richard Morrill</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Mark Sullivan</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Jonathan Mayer</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Harm Reduction Journal 2012, null:4</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2012-01-18T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1477-7517-9-4</dc:identifier>
                                <prism:require>/content/figures/1477-7517-9-4-toc.gif</prism:require>
                <prism:publicationName>Harm Reduction Journal</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1477-7517</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>${item.volume}</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>4</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2012-01-18T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>PDF</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/8/1/32">
        <title>The Soviet doctor and the treatment of drug addiction: &quot;A difficult and most ungracious task&quot;</title>
        <description>This paper reviews the development of early Soviet drug treatment approaches by focusing on the struggle for disciplinary power between leading social and mental hygienists and clinical psychiatrists as a defining moment for Soviet drug treatment speciality that became known as &quot;narcology.&quot; From this vantage point, I engage in the examination of the rise and fall of various treatment methods and conceptualizations of addiction in Russian metropolitan centres and look at how they were imported (or not) to other Soviet republics. As clinical psychiatrists appeared as undisputed victors from the battle with social and mental hygienists, the entire narcological arsenal was subdued in order to serve the needs of mainstream psychiatry. However, what that &apos;mainstream&apos; would be, was not entirely clear. When, in 1934, Aleksandr Rapoport insisted on the need for re-working narcological knowledge in line with the Marxist approach, he could only raise questions and recognise that there were almost no &quot;dialectically illuminated scientific data&quot; to address these questions. The maintenance treatment of opiate users, which emerged as the most effective one based on the results of a six-year study published in 1936, was definitely not attuned to the political and ideological environment of the late 1930s. Maintenance was rather considered as a temporary solution, in the absence of radical therapeutic measures to free Soviet society from &quot;narkomania.&quot; As the Great Terror swept across the Soviet Union, Stalin&apos;s regime achieved its objective of eliminating drug addiction from the surface of public life by driving opiate users deep underground and incarcerating many of them in prisons and the Gulag camps. In the final section, I briefly discuss the changing perceptions of drug use during the World War II and outline subsequent transformations in Soviet responses to the post-war opiate addiction.</description>
        <link>http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/8/1/32</link>
                <dc:creator>Alisher Latypov</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Harm Reduction Journal 2011, null:32</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2011-12-30T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1477-7517-8-32</dc:identifier>
                                <prism:require>/content/figures/1477-7517-8-32-toc.gif</prism:require>
                <prism:publicationName>Harm Reduction Journal</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1477-7517</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>${item.volume}</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>32</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2011-12-30T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>PDF</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/2/1/21">
        <title>Cannabis and tobacco smoke are not equally carcinogenic</title>
        <description>More people are using the cannabis plant as modern basic and clinical science reaffirms and extends its medicinal uses. Concomitantly, concern and opposition to smoked medicine has occurred, in part due to the known carcinogenic consequences of smoking tobacco. Are these reactions justified? While chemically very similar, there are fundamental differences in the pharmacological properties between cannabis and tobacco smoke. Cannabis smoke contains cannabinoids whereas tobacco smoke contains nicotine. Available scientific data, that examines the carcinogenic properties of inhaling smoke and its biological consequences, suggests reasons why tobacco smoke, but not cannabis smoke, may result in lung cancer.</description>
        <link>http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/2/1/21</link>
                <dc:creator>Robert Melamede</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Harm Reduction Journal 2005, null:21</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2005-10-18T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1477-7517-2-21</dc:identifier>
                                <prism:require>/content/figures/1477-7517-2-21-toc.gif</prism:require>
                <prism:publicationName>Harm Reduction Journal</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1477-7517</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>${item.volume}</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>21</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2005-10-18T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/2/1/17">
        <title>Harm reduction-the cannabis paradox</title>
        <description>This article examines harm reduction from a novel perspective. Its central thesis is that harm reduction is not only a social concept, but also a biological one. More specifically, evolution does not make moral distinctions in the selection process, but utilizes a cannabis-based approach to harm reduction in order to promote survival of the fittest. Evidence will be provided from peer-reviewed scientific literature that supports the hypothesis that humans, and all animals, make and use internally produced cannabis-like products (endocannabinoids) as part of the evolutionary harm reduction program. More specifically, endocannabinoids homeostatically regulate all body systems (cardiovascular, digestive, endocrine, excretory, immune, nervous, musculo-skeletal, reproductive). Therefore, the health of each individual is dependant on this system working appropriately.</description>
        <link>http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/2/1/17</link>
                <dc:creator>Robert Melamede</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Harm Reduction Journal 2005, null:17</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2005-09-22T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1477-7517-2-17</dc:identifier>
                                <prism:require>/content/figures/1477-7517-2-17-toc.gif</prism:require>
                <prism:publicationName>Harm Reduction Journal</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1477-7517</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>${item.volume}</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>17</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2005-09-22T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/9/1/3">
        <title>The Nature of Methadone Diversion in England: A Merseyside case study</title>
        <description>Background:
Methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) is a key element in treatment for opiate addiction; however concerns about the diversion of methadone remain.  More current empirical data on methadone diversion are required.  This research investigated the market for diverted methadone in Merseyside, UK, in order to provide a case study which can be transferred to other areas undertaking methadone maintenance treatment on a large scale.  Methods: Questionnaires were completed (in interview format) with 886 past year users of methadone recruited both in and out of prescribing agencies. Topic areas covered included current prescribing, obtaining and providing methadone, reasons for using illicit methadone and other drug use. Results: Large proportions of participants had obtained illicit methadone for use in the past year with smaller proportions doing so in the past month.  Proportions of participants buying and being given methadone were similar. Exchange of methadone primarily took place between friends and associates, with &apos;dealers&apos; rarely involved.  Gender, age, whether participant&apos;s methadone consumption was supervised and whether the aims of their treatment had been explained to them fully, influenced the extent to which participants were involved in diverting or using diverted methadone.  Conclusion: Methadone diversion is widespread although drug users generally do not make use of illicit methadone regularly (every month). The degree of altruism involved in the exchange of methadone does not negate the potential role of this action in overdose or the possibility of criminal justice action against individuals.  Treatment agencies need to emphasise these risks whilst ensuring that treatment aims are effectively shared with clients to ensure adherence to treatment.</description>
        <link>http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/9/1/3</link>
                <dc:creator>Paul Duffy</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Helen Baldwin</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Harm Reduction Journal 2012, null:3</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2012-01-13T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1477-7517-9-3</dc:identifier>
                                <prism:require>/content/figures/1477-7517-9-3-toc.gif</prism:require>
                <prism:publicationName>Harm Reduction Journal</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1477-7517</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>${item.volume}</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>3</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2012-01-13T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>PDF</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/9/1/6">
        <title>Injecting drug use via femoral vein puncture: Preliminary findings of a point-of-care ultrasound service for opioid-dependent groin injectors in treatment</title>
        <description>Background:
Within the UK, injecting in the femoral vein (FV), often called &apos;groin injecting&apos;, is a serious cause of risk and harm. This study aimed to use ultrasound scanning as a means to engage groin injectors (GIs), examine their femoral injecting sites and assess their venous health, with the intention of developing improved responses.
Methods:
Between September 2006 and March 2009, GIs attending a network of community drug treatment centres in South East England were invited to attend an ultrasound &apos;health-check&apos; clinic. This paper provides a narrative account of the scanning procedure and operation of the service, with descriptive statistical analysis of GIs who attended. The analysis uses a structured, specially-developed clinical data set that incorporates a categorisation for the severity of FV damage. Case studies using ultrasound images and video are provided to illustrate the range of presentations encountered and the categorisations used for severity.
Results:
A total of 160 groin scans (76 bilateral and 8 unilateral) were performed in 84 GIs. The majority were men (69.0%) and the mean age of the sample was 36.8 years. The mean duration of drug use and injecting drug use was 19.7 years and 13.8 years, respectively. FV damage at the injecting site in the right groin was graded as minimal in 20 patients (25%), moderate in 27 (33.8%), severe in 16 (20.0%) and very-severe in 17 (21.3%). Corresponding figures for left FV were 24 (30.0%), 22 (27.5%), 18 (22.5%) and 16 (20.0%).  Wide variation was observed in the time to the development of these grades of FV damage.
Conclusions:
Modern, portable ultrasound scanners make it possible to examine the venous health of GIs in community treatment settings. Ultrasound scanning identified extensive FV damage, much hitherto-unrecognised in this population. These findings should further alert clinicians, policy-makers and patients to the urgent need for effective harm reduction responses to GI behaviour. Images of damaged FV in this paper might prove to be a useful resource for discussions about GI risks.</description>
        <link>http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/9/1/6</link>
                <dc:creator>Richard Senbanjo</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Tracey Tipping</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Neil Hunt</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>John Strang</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Harm Reduction Journal 2012, null:6</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2012-01-20T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1477-7517-9-6</dc:identifier>
                                <prism:require>/content/figures/1477-7517-9-6-toc.gif</prism:require>
                <prism:publicationName>Harm Reduction Journal</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1477-7517</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>${item.volume}</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>6</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2012-01-20T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>PDF</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <cc:License rdf:about="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/">
        <cc:permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#Reproduction" />
        <cc:permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#Distribution" />
        <cc:permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#DerivativeWorks" />
    </cc:License>
</rdf:RDF>

