October 1999: "Smoked Herring, Shotten Herring;" Technical Services

http://digitalcommons.winthrop.edu/dacusfocus/1007/thumbnail.jpg

The association between smoking marijuana and the occurrence of lung cancer

It is still unclear if an association exists between the smoking of marijuana and the occurrence of lung cancer although one clearly exists between cigarette smoking and lung cancer. The objective of this study was to systematically review the literature in order to assess the impact of marijuana smoking, which is increasingly becoming a significant public health issue, on the occurrence of the number one killing cancer, lung cancer. ^ Method. Selected studies in the English language conducted on humans that assess the impact of marijuana smoking on lung cancer were identified from EBSCO MEDLINE, PUBMED, and GOOGLE databases. The search keywords were marijuana, cannabis, hashish, kif, and lung cancer with selection criteria including studies in the English language identified from 1950 to April 2008. Excluded were non-research studies such as editorials, letters, and reviews. Also excluded were studies that did not involve humans with direct intentional marijuana smoking or in vivo studies with mice. Case report studies or case series studies involving less than 10 patients were also excluded as well as studies that did not examine lung conditions related to premalignant or cancerous changes. ^ Results. Ten studies met the selection criteria and were analyzed. The ten studies in this review overall offer biological evidence of the potential association between marijuana smoking and premalignant lung findings but no overwhelming conclusive evidence for the association between marijuana smoking and the occurrence of lung cancer. Two of the observational studies [1, 2] failed to demonstrate an association between marijuana and lung cancer, but the remaining studies supported an association between marijuana smoking and premalignant or malignant lung findings. ^ Conclusion. It must, therefore, be concluded that no convincing evidence exists, based on the existing data, for an association between marijuana smoking and the occurrence of lung cancer even though the few observational studies failing to report such an association may be due to certain limitations particularly the relative young age of the participants precluding sufficient lag time for the identification of lung cancer outcome as explained in other sections of this paper. ^ Further research is, therefore, necessary to better evaluate this critical issue, while recommendations against smoking marijuana because of its potential harmful effects, including the potential for premalignant lung changes as noted in this review, should continue to be made. ^ In the future, large prospective studies with study participants representing a much wider spectrum of ages, and longer follow-up periods, with detailed assessment of marijuana exposure and definitive pathologic diagnosis of lung cancer are necessary^

Public Lawyers and Marijuana Regulation

Although 23 states and the District of Columbia have now legalized marijuana for medical purposes, marijuana remains a prohibited substance under federal law. Because the production, sale, possession and use of marijuana remain illegal, there is a risk of prosecution under federal laws. Furthermore, those who help marijuana users and providers put themselves at risk — federal law punishes not only those who violate drug laws but also those who assist or conspire with them to do so. In the case of lawyers representing marijuana users and businesspeople, this means not only the real (though remote) risk of criminal prosecution but also the more immediate risk of professional discipline. Elsewhere, we wrote about the difficult place in which lawyers find themselves when representing marijuana clients. We argued that while both the criminal law and the rules of professional conduct rightly require legal obedience from lawyers, other countervailing factors must be considered when evaluating lawyers’ representation of marijuana clients. In particular, we asserted that considerations of equity and access to justice weigh dispositively in favor of protecting lawyers who endeavor to help their clients comply with state marijuana laws, and we suggested means of interpreting relevant criminal law provisions and rules of professional conduct to achieve this result. This article builds on that analysis, taking on the particular issue of the public lawyer’s’ role in marijuana regulation. For government lawyers, the key issues in exercising discretion in the context of marijuana are not clients’ access to the law and equality but rather determining the clients’ wishes and serving them diligently and ethically. Lawyers representing state agencies, legislatures and the executive branch of government draft and interpret the rules and regulations regarding marijuana. Lawyers for federal, state and local governments then interpret those rules to determine the obligations and responsibilities of those they represent and to help their clients meet those obligations and carry out their required tasks. Both state and federal prosecutors are charged with determining what conduct remains illegal under the new rules and, perhaps more importantly, with exercising discretion regarding whom to prosecute and to what extent. Marijuana regulation is not a niche area of government regulation; it will influence the practice of virtually every public lawyer in the years to come. Public lawyers must understand the changes in marijuana law and the implications for government clients. Given the pervasiveness of the modern regulatory state, the situation is no easier — and, in many ways, it is more complicated — for public lawyers than it is for private ones. Public lawyers face myriad practice challenges with respect to marijuana law reform, and while we do not purport to identify and resolve all of the issues that are sure to arise in this short paper, we hope that the article helps alert public lawyers to some of the risks involved in participating in marijuana regulation so that they can think carefully about their obligations when these issues arise.

Marijuana Legalization in Colorado -- Lessons for Colombia

In 2012 Colorado became the first jurisdiction anywhere in the world to legalize marijuana possession and use for all adults. The regulated and taxed marijuana industry that arose in Colorado following legalization was also the first of its kind and stands a model for other states considering marijuana law reform. In this brief article I discuss the results of the Colorado experiment; I demonstrate that while Colorado’s regulatory model was largely successful, it also demonstrates the limits of generating revenue through taxing and regulating marijuana. I then discuss the implications of this conclusion for post-conflict Colombia, drawing a comparison to the situation California confronts as it considers legalizing marijuana for adult use.

The Battle of the Bulge: The Surprising Last Stand Against State Marijuana Legalization

Although marijuana possession remains a federal crime, twenty-three states now allow use of marijuana for medical purposes and four states have adopted tax-and-regulate policies permitting use and possession by those twenty-one and over. In this article, I examine recent developments regarding marijuana regulation. I show that the Obama administration, after initially sending mixed signals, has taken several steps indicating an increasingly accepting position toward marijuana law reform in states; however the current situation regarding the dual legal status of marijuana is at best an unstable equilibrium. I also focus on what might be deemed the last stand of marijuana-legalization opponents, in the form of lawsuits filed by several states, sheriffs, and private plaintiffs challenging marijuana reform in Colorado (and by extension elsewhere). This analysis offers insights for federalism scholars regarding the speed with which marijuana law reform has occurred, the positions taken by various state and federal actors, and possible collaborative federalism solutions to the current state-federal standoff.

The Limits of Marijuana Legalization in the States

Although some ingenious solutions have been proposed to the problems posed by Section 280E pf the federal tax code, the situation remains untenable. The only solution to this current conundrum is a change in federal law; so long as marijuana remains illegal under the Controlled Substances Act, state marijuana policy will inevitably be frustrated. This brief response to an article by Professor Leff identifies some of these frustrations and proposes a few modest federal solutions

Representing Clients in the Marijuana Industry: Navigating State and Federal Rules

As the number of states legalizing medicinal and recreational marijuana increases and marijuana emerges as a growing lawful industry, lawyers find themselves in an awkward position. In most states, lawyers who represent clients in the marijuana industry risk discipline for assisting clients in the commission of a (federal) crime. Even in jurisdictions like Colorado, where the rules of professional conduct have been amended to permit lawyers to assist clients who comply with marijuana state laws, lawyers who are admitted to practice in federal courts risk being disciplined by these tribunals for assisting clients in the commission of a crime pursuant to the courts’ local rules of conduct. This short article explores the thorny issue of navigating state and federal rules of professional conduct while representing clients in the marijuana industry.

U.S.-Mexico opium poppy and marijuana aerial eradication program /

At head of title: United States General Accounting Office. Testimony.

The role of alcohol, marijuana and other drugs in the accidents of injured drivers. [Revised edition].

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C.

Marijuana, alcohol and actual driving performance.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C.