The california substance abuse research consortium: Origins, history, and issues

Journal of Psychoactive Drugs

Volumn 35, Issue , 2003, Pages 109-117

  Anglin, M D ^a   Urada, Darren ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

California; Drugs; History; Policy; Research; Substance abuse

Indexed keywords

AMPHETAMINE; CANNABIS; COCAINE; DIAMORPHINE; ILLICIT DRUG; METHAMPHETAMINE;

CONFERENCE PAPER; COURT; CRIMINAL JUSTICE; DRUG SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM; GOVERNMENT; HISTORY; LAW; MASS MEDIUM; POLICY; POLITICS; RESEARCH; STAFF TRAINING; SUBSTANCE ABUSE; TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT; UNITED STATES;

CALIFORNIA; CRACK COCAINE; HEALTH POLICY; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; HISTORY, 20TH CENTURY; HISTORY, 21ST CENTURY; HUMANS; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; MEDICAL HISTORY TAKING; POLICY MAKING; PUBLIC HEALTH ADMINISTRATION; SUBSTANCE-RELATED DISORDERS;

EID: 0037941329     PISSN: 02791072     EISSN: 21599777     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/02791072.2003.10400505     Document Type: Article

References (12)

1. AIDS Education Global Information System. 2001. So Little Time… An AIDS History. [Cited 31 March 2003]. Available at: www.aegis.com/topics/timeline/default.asp
2. Backer, T.E. 2000. The failure of success: Challenges of disseminating effective substance abuse prevention programs. Journal of Community Psychology 28 (3): 363-73.
3. California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs & the Judicial Council of California, Administrative Office of the Courts. 2002. Drug Court Partnership Act of 1998, Chapter 1007, Statutes of 1998: Final Report. [Cited 31 March 2003] Available at: www.courtinfo.ca.gov/reference/documents/dc_partnership.pdf
4. California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs 1991. California Master Plan to Reduce Drug and Alcohol Abuse. Sacramento: California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs.
5. Community Epidemiology Work Group (CEWG). 2001. Volume I: Epidemiologic Trends in Drug Abuse, Advance Report, June 2001. Bethesda, Maryland: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institute on Drug Abuse.
6. Gerstein, D.R.; Johnson, R.R.; Harwood, H.J.; Fountain, D.; Surer, N. & Molloy, K. 1994. Evaluating Recovery Services: Drug and Alcohol Treatment Assessment(CALDATA) Final Report. Sacramento: California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs.
7. Kingdon, J.W. 1995. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies, Second Edition. New York: Addison-Wesley Longman.
8. Little Hoover Commission. 2003. For Our Health & Safety: Joining Forces to Defeat Addiction. Sacramento, California: Little Hoover Commission.
9. Sung, N.S.; Crowley, W.F.; Genel, M.; Salber, P.; Sandy, L.; Sherwood, L.M.; Johnsone, S.B.; Catanese, V.; Tilson, H.; Getz, K.; Larson, E.L.; Scheinberg, D.; Reece, E.A.; Slavkin, H.; Dobs, A.; Grebb, J.; Martinez, R.A.; Korn, A. & Rimoin, D. 2003. Special communication: Central challenges facing the national clinical research enterprise. Journal ofthe American Medical Association 289 (10): 1278-87.
10. UCLA Drug Abuse Information and Monitoring Project. 1987-1994. California State Epidemiology WorkGroup Report. Los Angeles: UCLA DAIMP.
11. UCLA Drug Abuse Research Center. 1995-1999. California Substance Abuse Research Consortium Report. Los Angeles: UCLA Drug Abuse Research Center.
12. UCLA Integrated Substance Abuse Programs. 2-2002. California Substance Abuse Research Consortium Summary. Los Angeles: UCLA Integrated Substance Abuse Programs.