Abstract As part of the Department of Justice’s comprehensive review of the Asset Forfeiture Program, then Attorney General Eric Holder issued a memo on January 16th, 2015 restricting the adoption of state-level asset forfeitures by federal agencies. This paper seeks to predict what impact, if any, this change in policy will have on the use and abuse of civil asset forfeiture by examining the history of and literature surrounding civil asset forfeiture. Given this policy’s narrow scope and lax definitions that exempt most cases where it would be applicable, it is unlikely that this policy will have a substantial impact. Alternative methods of limiting the abuse of both federal adoption and civil asset forfeiture as a whole are proposed.
{"title":"Will Eric Holder’s Memo Have a Substantial Effect on Civil Asset Forfeiture Practices?","authors":"Tyler Kirkland Jones","doi":"10.1515/jdpa-2015-0026","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jdpa-2015-0026","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract As part of the Department of Justice’s comprehensive review of the Asset Forfeiture Program, then Attorney General Eric Holder issued a memo on January 16th, 2015 restricting the adoption of state-level asset forfeitures by federal agencies. This paper seeks to predict what impact, if any, this change in policy will have on the use and abuse of civil asset forfeiture by examining the history of and literature surrounding civil asset forfeiture. Given this policy’s narrow scope and lax definitions that exempt most cases where it would be applicable, it is unlikely that this policy will have a substantial impact. Alternative methods of limiting the abuse of both federal adoption and civil asset forfeiture as a whole are proposed.","PeriodicalId":38436,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Drug Policy Analysis","volume":"8 1","pages":"37 - 46"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/jdpa-2015-0026","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66931363","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Rosalie Liccardo Pacula, Priscillia Hunt, Anne Boustead
When voters in two US states approved the recreational use of marijuana in 2012, public debates for how best to promote and protect public health and safety started drawing implications from states' medical marijuana laws. However, many of the discussions were simplified to the notion that states either have a medical marijuana law or do not; little reference was made to the fact that legal provisions differ across states. This study seeks to clarify the characteristics of medical marijuana laws in place since 1990 that are most relevant to consumers/patients and categorizes those aspects most likely to affect the prevalence of use, and consequently the intensity of public health and welfare effects. Evidence shows treating medical marijuana laws as homogeneous across states is misleading and does not reflect the reality of medical marijuana lawmaking. This variation likely has implications for use and health outcomes, and thus states' public health.
{"title":"Words Can Be Deceiving: A Review of Variation Among Legally Effective Medical Marijuana Laws in the United States.","authors":"Rosalie Liccardo Pacula, Priscillia Hunt, Anne Boustead","doi":"10.1515/jdpa-2014-0001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jdpa-2014-0001","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>When voters in two US states approved the recreational use of marijuana in 2012, public debates for how best to promote and protect public health and safety started drawing implications from states' medical marijuana laws. However, many of the discussions were simplified to the notion that states either have a medical marijuana law or do not; little reference was made to the fact that legal provisions differ across states. This study seeks to clarify the characteristics of medical marijuana laws in place since 1990 that are most relevant to consumers/patients and categorizes those aspects most likely to affect the prevalence of use, and consequently the intensity of public health and welfare effects. Evidence shows treating medical marijuana laws as homogeneous across states is misleading and does not reflect the reality of medical marijuana lawmaking. This variation likely has implications for use and health outcomes, and thus states' public health.</p>","PeriodicalId":38436,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Drug Policy Analysis","volume":"7 1","pages":"1-19"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/jdpa-2014-0001","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"33033269","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Illicit drug abuse remains a serious problem in the United States. While contemporary U.S. drug policies emphasize a prohibitionist “War on Drugs,” other countries have embraced public health based harm reduction. Whereas the current U.S. policy aims to eliminate drug use, harm reduction seeks to reduce its inevitable consequences, revealing an important ideological tension. Newsprint media depictions of drugs influence public opinion, discourse, and policy, particularly surrounding harm reduction programs and services. Combining textual discourse and qualitative content analyses, this study explores and describes discursive use of the term “harm reduction” with illicit drugs in a sample of 296 U.S. newspaper pieces published between 1990 and 2012. Typically describing harm reduction and “Drug War” strategies as incompatible, harm reduction supporters advocated a range of policy changes, whereas opponents described harm reduction as something to be avoided given the danger of drugs. A discourse theory framework situates the debate over harm reduction as tension in the U.S. drug policy hegemony, and considers domestic and international politic dynamics, and beliefs regarding the nature of substance use, addiction, and recovery.
{"title":"Harm Reduction and Illicit Drugs in U.S. Newspapers","authors":"M. Eversman","doi":"10.1515/jdpa-2012-0005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jdpa-2012-0005","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Illicit drug abuse remains a serious problem in the United States. While contemporary U.S. drug policies emphasize a prohibitionist “War on Drugs,” other countries have embraced public health based harm reduction. Whereas the current U.S. policy aims to eliminate drug use, harm reduction seeks to reduce its inevitable consequences, revealing an important ideological tension. Newsprint media depictions of drugs influence public opinion, discourse, and policy, particularly surrounding harm reduction programs and services. Combining textual discourse and qualitative content analyses, this study explores and describes discursive use of the term “harm reduction” with illicit drugs in a sample of 296 U.S. newspaper pieces published between 1990 and 2012. Typically describing harm reduction and “Drug War” strategies as incompatible, harm reduction supporters advocated a range of policy changes, whereas opponents described harm reduction as something to be avoided given the danger of drugs. A discourse theory framework situates the debate over harm reduction as tension in the U.S. drug policy hegemony, and considers domestic and international politic dynamics, and beliefs regarding the nature of substance use, addiction, and recovery.","PeriodicalId":38436,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Drug Policy Analysis","volume":"6 1","pages":"19 - 39"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/jdpa-2012-0005","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66931264","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Passage of marijuana-legalization initiatives in Colorado and Washington poses a problem for the federal government: marijuana remains illegal under federal law, but the federal government lacks the capacity to fully enforce that law without state and local cooperation. Complete deference to state legalization would put each state’s cannabis policy at the mercy of its neighbors’. A system of legislatively-authorized policy waivers would allow controlled exploration of alternative systems of control. In the absence of such authorization, the executive branch could use existing authority to craft cooperative agreements with the states intended to confine the effects of each state’s new policies within its own borders.
{"title":"Cooperative Enforcement Agreements and Policy Waivers: New Options for Federal Accommodation to State-Level Cannabis Legalization","authors":"M. Kleiman","doi":"10.1515/jdpa-2013-0001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jdpa-2013-0001","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Passage of marijuana-legalization initiatives in Colorado and Washington poses a problem for the federal government: marijuana remains illegal under federal law, but the federal government lacks the capacity to fully enforce that law without state and local cooperation. Complete deference to state legalization would put each state’s cannabis policy at the mercy of its neighbors’. A system of legislatively-authorized policy waivers would allow controlled exploration of alternative systems of control. In the absence of such authorization, the executive branch could use existing authority to craft cooperative agreements with the states intended to confine the effects of each state’s new policies within its own borders.","PeriodicalId":38436,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Drug Policy Analysis","volume":"6 1","pages":"41 - 49"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/jdpa-2013-0001","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66931686","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
K. Sabet, Stephen K. Talpins, Matthew Dunagan, E. Holmes
Abstract Given the size and cost of the American criminal justice system, new ways of thinking about community corrections are necessary to both reduce the economic impact and public safety consequences of offenders cycling in and out of prison and jail. Several new paradigms for dealing with offenders have recently emerged and are expanding throughout the United States. All of these approaches involve utilizing swift, certain, and modest sanctions, rather than random and severe sanctions, which is the status quo. This paper outlines the aforementioned approach by highlighting three such programs currently in existence in the United States. The paper ends with general guidelines for constructing similar cost-effective programs.
{"title":"Smart Justice: A New Paradigm for Dealing with Offenders","authors":"K. Sabet, Stephen K. Talpins, Matthew Dunagan, E. Holmes","doi":"10.1515/jdpa-2012-0004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jdpa-2012-0004","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Given the size and cost of the American criminal justice system, new ways of thinking about community corrections are necessary to both reduce the economic impact and public safety consequences of offenders cycling in and out of prison and jail. Several new paradigms for dealing with offenders have recently emerged and are expanding throughout the United States. All of these approaches involve utilizing swift, certain, and modest sanctions, rather than random and severe sanctions, which is the status quo. This paper outlines the aforementioned approach by highlighting three such programs currently in existence in the United States. The paper ends with general guidelines for constructing similar cost-effective programs.","PeriodicalId":38436,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Drug Policy Analysis","volume":"6 1","pages":"1 - 17"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/jdpa-2012-0004","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66931255","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Passage of marijuana-legalization initiatives in Colorado andWashington poses a problem for the federal government: marijuana remains illegal under federal law, but the federal government lacks the capacity to fully enforce that law without state and local cooperation. Complete deference to state legalization would put each state’s cannabis policy at the mercy of its neighbors’. A system of legislativelyauthorized policy waivers would allow controlled exploration of alternative systems of control. In the absence of such authorization, the executive branch could use existing authority to craft cooperative agreements with the states intended to confine the effects of each state’s new policies within its own borders.
{"title":"Cooperative Enforcement Agreements and Policy Waivers: New Options for Federal Accommodation to State-Level Cannabis Legalization","authors":"M. Kleiman","doi":"10.1515/jdpa-2013-1001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jdpa-2013-1001","url":null,"abstract":"Passage of marijuana-legalization initiatives in Colorado andWashington poses a problem for the federal government: marijuana remains illegal under federal law, but the federal government lacks the capacity to fully enforce that law without state and local cooperation. Complete deference to state legalization would put each state’s cannabis policy at the mercy of its neighbors’. A system of legislativelyauthorized policy waivers would allow controlled exploration of alternative systems of control. In the absence of such authorization, the executive branch could use existing authority to craft cooperative agreements with the states intended to confine the effects of each state’s new policies within its own borders.","PeriodicalId":38436,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Drug Policy Analysis","volume":"6 1","pages":"51 - 51"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/jdpa-2013-1001","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66931698","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract This paper reviews the first three years of drug policy in the Obama Administration, focusing in particular on whether policy has been and will continue to be “health-oriented”. Some advocates use the term “health-oriented” as a euphemism for legalization of the production, supply, advertising and use of currently illegal drugs. Such individuals would not consider the Obama drug policy “health-oriented” because it reflects the President’s longstanding opposition to drug legalization. Other observers use the term “health-oriented” to mean drug policies that enhance public health. From this perspective, the Obama policy has been unusually “health-oriented”. The administration has expanded health and social services for people with drug and alcohol problems to an extent not seen in 40 years or more. It has also eliminated harsh drug war rhetoric, reduced some criminal penalties for drug offenses, supported re-entry programs and alternatives to incarceration and overseen the first drop in the size of the incarcerated population in decades.
{"title":"Will the Obama Administration Implement a More Health-Oriented Approach to Drug Policy?","authors":"K. Humphreys","doi":"10.1515/1941-2851.1050","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/1941-2851.1050","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This paper reviews the first three years of drug policy in the Obama Administration, focusing in particular on whether policy has been and will continue to be “health-oriented”. Some advocates use the term “health-oriented” as a euphemism for legalization of the production, supply, advertising and use of currently illegal drugs. Such individuals would not consider the Obama drug policy “health-oriented” because it reflects the President’s longstanding opposition to drug legalization. Other observers use the term “health-oriented” to mean drug policies that enhance public health. From this perspective, the Obama policy has been unusually “health-oriented”. The administration has expanded health and social services for people with drug and alcohol problems to an extent not seen in 40 years or more. It has also eliminated harsh drug war rhetoric, reduced some criminal penalties for drug offenses, supported re-entry programs and alternatives to incarceration and overseen the first drop in the size of the incarcerated population in decades.","PeriodicalId":38436,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Drug Policy Analysis","volume":"5 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/1941-2851.1050","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66804577","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Drug law enforcement in source and transit countries such as Mexico naturally tends to increase the incentives for drug-related violence, unless enforcement is configured deliberately to create disincentives instead. A program of focused enforcement aimed sequentially at the most violent drug-dealing organizations in Mexico might succeed in reducing the current intolerable level of violence there.
{"title":"Strategies to Control Mexican Drug-Trafficking Violence","authors":"M. Kleiman, Steven Davenport","doi":"10.1515/1941-2851.1047","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/1941-2851.1047","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Drug law enforcement in source and transit countries such as Mexico naturally tends to increase the incentives for drug-related violence, unless enforcement is configured deliberately to create disincentives instead. A program of focused enforcement aimed sequentially at the most violent drug-dealing organizations in Mexico might succeed in reducing the current intolerable level of violence there.","PeriodicalId":38436,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Drug Policy Analysis","volume":"5 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/1941-2851.1047","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66804387","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
R. T. Sherba, Richard R. Massatti, L. Potts, Surendra Adhikari, Nick Martt, S. Starr, Theresa Porter Patel
Ohio is currently in the midst of an opiate epidemic. Persons seeking treatment for opiate addiction are now inundating treatment centers in every region of the state. To understand further the capacity of Ohio’s treatment system to address the needs of opiate abusing and dependent clients, the Ohio Department of Alcohol and Drug Addiction Services (ODADAS) surveyed all treatment providers regarding service wait times and treatment barriers. Nearly 80 percent of providers statewide participated (N = 193). Results concluded that the proportion of clients accessing services across Ohio with an opiate abuse/dependence diagnosis has increased over the past 12 months. Almost a third of providers reported that opiate addicted clients now make up more than a quarter of all clients served. The state’s current treatment system is challenged in addressing the needs of Ohio’s rapidly increasing number of opiate addicted clients. Nearly 80 percent of providers reported wait times for assessment services; providers most frequently reported wait times of several weeks for residential treatment; and practically half of referring providers to Suboxone®, and the majority of those referring to methadone programs, indicated difficulty in getting clients enrolled in medication-assisted treatment, citing capacity issues such as no program openings for methadone and lack of licensed physicians for Suboxone®. The opiate epidemic has increased wait times for treatment services across the state, further straining Ohio's treatment capacity in an already challenged behavioral healthcare system. New policies are needed to expand treatment capacity and to limit nonmedical use of prescription opiates.
{"title":"A Review of Ohio's Treatment Capacity in Addressing the State's Opiate Epidemic","authors":"R. T. Sherba, Richard R. Massatti, L. Potts, Surendra Adhikari, Nick Martt, S. Starr, Theresa Porter Patel","doi":"10.1515/1941-2851.1036","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/1941-2851.1036","url":null,"abstract":"Ohio is currently in the midst of an opiate epidemic. Persons seeking treatment for opiate addiction are now inundating treatment centers in every region of the state. To understand further the capacity of Ohio’s treatment system to address the needs of opiate abusing and dependent clients, the Ohio Department of Alcohol and Drug Addiction Services (ODADAS) surveyed all treatment providers regarding service wait times and treatment barriers. Nearly 80 percent of providers statewide participated (N = 193). Results concluded that the proportion of clients accessing services across Ohio with an opiate abuse/dependence diagnosis has increased over the past 12 months. Almost a third of providers reported that opiate addicted clients now make up more than a quarter of all clients served. The state’s current treatment system is challenged in addressing the needs of Ohio’s rapidly increasing number of opiate addicted clients. Nearly 80 percent of providers reported wait times for assessment services; providers most frequently reported wait times of several weeks for residential treatment; and practically half of referring providers to Suboxone®, and the majority of those referring to methadone programs, indicated difficulty in getting clients enrolled in medication-assisted treatment, citing capacity issues such as no program openings for methadone and lack of licensed physicians for Suboxone®. The opiate epidemic has increased wait times for treatment services across the state, further straining Ohio's treatment capacity in an already challenged behavioral healthcare system. New policies are needed to expand treatment capacity and to limit nonmedical use of prescription opiates.","PeriodicalId":38436,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Drug Policy Analysis","volume":"5 1","pages":"1 - 11"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-01-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/1941-2851.1036","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66804289","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
J. Caulkins, C. Coulson, Christina Farber, Joseph V. Vesely
Legalization has been debated for decades, but Californiaâs Fall 2010 vote on Proposition 19 makes passage seem suddenly more plausible. Proposition 19, which would have legalized not only personal consumption but also production and distribution to supply recreational use, was defeated narrowly (53.5% to 46.5%). This article synthesizes several threads of evidence concerning public support for legalization in the U.S. to shed light on the likelihood some similar effort will pass in the future. The overall conclusion is noncommittal, but the exercise generates a number of insights. In particular, simple what-if exercises suggest that the effects of generational turnover and voting occurring in a presidential vs. an âoffâ year may be smaller than some thought. The concluding section translates some of the observations into implications for both proponents and opponents of marijuana legalization.
{"title":"Marijuana Legalization: Certainty, Impossibility, Both, or Neither?","authors":"J. Caulkins, C. Coulson, Christina Farber, Joseph V. Vesely","doi":"10.1515/1941-2851.1035","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/1941-2851.1035","url":null,"abstract":"Legalization has been debated for decades, but Californiaâs Fall 2010 vote on Proposition 19 makes passage seem suddenly more plausible. Proposition 19, which would have legalized not only personal consumption but also production and distribution to supply recreational use, was defeated narrowly (53.5% to 46.5%). This article synthesizes several threads of evidence concerning public support for legalization in the U.S. to shed light on the likelihood some similar effort will pass in the future. The overall conclusion is noncommittal, but the exercise generates a number of insights. In particular, simple what-if exercises suggest that the effects of generational turnover and voting occurring in a presidential vs. an âoffâ year may be smaller than some thought. The concluding section translates some of the observations into implications for both proponents and opponents of marijuana legalization.","PeriodicalId":38436,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Drug Policy Analysis","volume":"5 1","pages":"1 - 27"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-01-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/1941-2851.1035","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66804223","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：