This paper presents an index-of-harm methodology that compares occupational risk among workers exposed to radiological and nonradiological harms. It extends the work of the International Commission on Radiological Protection by considering American rather than European and Japanese industry groups, by treating the relative importance of various occupational harms as a parameter rather than an arbitrary constant, and by identifying several ways in which both the methodology and the database could be improved. The authors examine the risk affects of six occupational harms--three nonradiological (death, accidental injury, and disease or illness) and three radiological (somatic effects, genetic effects, and somatic effects to the fetuses or embryos of pregnant women). The authors performed their analysis under five different assumptions about the relative importance of averting the six harms in question. The results of this analysis show that radiological workers exposed to the current industry average of 0.35 rem/year are among the safest of all industry groupings, and the riskiest industries appear to be mining; agriculture, forestry, and fisheries; construction; transportation; and manufacturing, roughly in that order.

Harm reduction programmes accept the reality of drug use while attempting to reduce its harmful consequences to individuals and society. Here, contributors discuss the philosophical basis and history of such policies and examine their outcomes.

v. 1. Research findings -- v. 2. Concepts and methodology -- v. 3. Implementation issues -- v. 4. Programs, tools and products.

Every liberal democracy has laws or codes against hate speech—except the United States. For constitutionalists, regulation of hate speech violates the First Amendment and damages a free society. Against this absolutist view, Jeremy Waldron argues powerfully that hate speech should be regulated as part of our commitment to human dignity and to inclusion and respect for members of vulnerable minorities. Causing offense—by depicting a religious leader as a terrorist in a newspaper cartoon, for example—is not the same as launching a libelous attack on a group’s dignity, according to Waldron, and it lies outside the reach of law. But defamation of a minority group, through hate speech, undermines a public good that can and should be protected: the basic assurance of inclusion in society for all members. A social environment polluted by anti-gay leaflets, Nazi banners, and burning crosses sends an implicit message to the targets of such hatred: your security is uncertain and you can expect to face humiliation and discrimination when you leave your home. Free-speech advocates boast of despising what racists say but defending to the death their right to say it. Waldron finds this emphasis on intellectual resilience misguided and points instead to the threat hate speech poses to the lives, dignity, and reputations of minority members. Finding support for his view among philosophers of the Enlightenment, Waldron asks us to move beyond knee-jerk American exceptionalism in our debates over the serious consequences of hateful speech.

While the notion of social harm has long interested critical criminologists it is now being explored as an alternative field of study, which provides more accurate analyses of the vicissitudes of life. However, important aspects of this notion remain undeveloped, in particular the definition of social harm, the question of responsibility and the methodologies for studying harm. This book, the first to theorise and define the social harm concept beyond criminology, seeks to address these omissions and questions why some capitalist societies appear to be more harmful than others. In doing so it provides a platform for future debates, in this series and beyond. It will be a valuable resource for academics and researchers across criminology, sociology, social policy, socio-legal studies and geography.

Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) has over the last decade made an increasing mark in several fields, notably health and medicine, education and social welfare. In recent years it has begun to make its mark in criminal justice. As engagement with EBP has spread, it has begun to evolve from what might be regarded as a somewhat narrow doctrine and orthodoxy to something more complex and various. Often criminological research has been at odds with the assumptions, conventions and methodologies associated with first generation EBP. In that context EBP poses a challenge to the research community and existing evidence base and is, accordingly, hotly controversial. This book is a welcome and timely contribution to current debates on evidence-based practice in policing. With a sharp conceptual focus, the chapters provide a critical examination of the recent history of EBP in academic, policy and practitioner communities, evaluate key dimensions of its application to policing, challenge established understandings and pave the way for a much needed change in how research 'evidence' is perceived, generated, transferred, implemented and evaluated.

Harm Reduction is a philosophy of public health intended as a progressive alternative to the prohibition of certain potentially dangerous lifestyle choices. Recognising that certain people always have and always will engage in behaviours which carry risks, the aim of harm reduction is to mitigate the potential dangers and health risks associated with those behaviours. Harm Reduction in Substance Use and High-Risk Behaviour offers a comprehensive exploration of the policy, practice and evidence base of harm reduction. Starting with a history of harm reduction, the book addresses key ethical and legal issues central to the debates and developments in the field. It discusses the full range of psychoactive substances, behaviours and communities with chapters on injecting, dance drugs, stimulant use, tobacco harm reduction, alcohol use and sex work. Written by an international team of contributors, this text provides an essential panorama of harm reduction in the 21st century for educators and researchers in addiction and public health, postgraduate students and policy makers.