Addiction (Abingdon, England) · 2017
The narcotic clinic in New Orleans, 1919-21.
Историческая статьяСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Tallaksen Amund
Аннотация
AIMS: This paper traces the history of the narcotic clinic in New Orleans, Louisiana, comparing its merits to a similar clinic in Shreveport. How do the clinics compare, and why did the Shreveport clinic operate for longer than its New Orleans counterpart?
METHODS: Qualitative analysis of contemporary medical journals and newspapers, as well as archival materials from the Narcotic Division. In addition, the records of Louisiana Governor John M. Parker, the papers of Dr Willis P. Butler in Shreveport, as well as the records of the Orleans Parish Medical Society have been utilized.
FINDINGS: The narcotic clinic in Shreveport benefited from strong local support, while the New Orleans clinic faced a more vocal opposition. In addition, the Shreveport clinic offered a broad array of services and was a pillar of the community; the New Orleans clinic was newly established and offered fewer services. It was especially the influx of out-of-state addicts that angered many New Orleanians, many of whom witnessed the addicts lined up in the French Quarter.
CONCLUSION: The effectiveness of the narcotic clinics in Louisiana (1919-23) was influenced by local opinion. The New Orleans clinic faced a tougher political climate than its counterpart in Shreveport, and therefore proved less resilient in the face of federal opposition.
METHODS: Qualitative analysis of contemporary medical journals and newspapers, as well as archival materials from the Narcotic Division. In addition, the records of Louisiana Governor John M. Parker, the papers of Dr Willis P. Butler in Shreveport, as well as the records of the Orleans Parish Medical Society have been utilized.
FINDINGS: The narcotic clinic in Shreveport benefited from strong local support, while the New Orleans clinic faced a more vocal opposition. In addition, the Shreveport clinic offered a broad array of services and was a pillar of the community; the New Orleans clinic was newly established and offered fewer services. It was especially the influx of out-of-state addicts that angered many New Orleanians, many of whom witnessed the addicts lined up in the French Quarter.
CONCLUSION: The effectiveness of the narcotic clinics in Louisiana (1919-23) was influenced by local opinion. The New Orleans clinic faced a tougher political climate than its counterpart in Shreveport, and therefore proved less resilient in the face of federal opposition.