Connecticut Poison Control Center. 2002 and 2003 Annual Report and Poison Exposure Statistics

The Connecticut Poison Control Center (CPCC) at the University of Connecticut Health Center (UCHC) was established in 1957 under Connecticut General Statute 10a- 132. The CPCC’s main responsibility is to provide 24-hour emergency toxicology management consultations for victims of poisoning, and serve as a source for pharmacology and toxicology-related information. The center monitors the epidemiology of human poisoning and provides surveillance for environmental and occupational chemical exposures, drug abuse, and pharmaceutical interactions and adverse effects. The CPCC performs toxicological research, and provides formal toxicology instruction for allied health professionals, as well as professional and consumer poison prevention education. The CPCC is one of 63 nationwide centers certified by the American Association of Poison Control Centers (AAPCC), and the only poison center in the state of Connecticut. The AAPCC establishes standards of care for poisoning and administers the Toxic Exposure Surveillance System (TESS), a national database of poisoning statistics, to which the CPCC is a contributor.

Church and State

Church and state have historically had an uneasy relationship, sometimes close allies, at others harsh adversaries, and at still others largely independent of one another. This paper develops an economic model of this relationship, where the state's objective is to maximize net tax revenue, while the church provides religious goods. Religious goods benefit the state in two ways: first, they provide utility to citizens, thus allowing the state to extract more taxes before running up against citizens' reservation utility (the point at which they would revolt), and second, they potentially provide legitimacy to the state, thereby lowering the costs of tax collection. If the latter effect is strong enough, the state may find it optimal to take control of the church, either to enhance its legitimizing effect, or to suppress its de-legitimizing effect. To evaluate the model's implications, we use recent cross-country data on the relationship between religion and state, including measures coded from the 2001, 2003, and 2005 International Religious Freedom reports. We also examine in more detail some of the paradigmatic cases indicated by the model, presenting various types of evidence from current and historical examples of each case.