the Law, the Universe, and Everything 

Search

Concurring Opinions is a
general-interest legal blog
operated by Concurring
Opinions LLC, a Pennsylvania
Limited Liability Corporation.

lr_jkr9_12_08supremecourt.jpg

ad-logo5.jpg

Our Podcast

Subscribe to Law Talk

Law-Rev-Forum-2.jpg

law-rev-contents2.jpg

Law-Prof-Blog-Census.jpg

Categories

Accounting
Administrative Announcements
Administrative Law
Admiralty
Advertising
Agricultural Law
Anonymity
Antitrust
Architecture
Articles and Books
Bankruptcy
Behavioral Law and Economics
Bioethics
Blogging
Book Reviews
Capital Punishment
Civil Procedure
Civil Rights
Conferences
Constitutional Law
Consumer Protection Law
Contract Law & Beyond
Corporate Finance
Corporate Law
Criminal Law
Criminal Procedure
Culture
Current Events
Cyberlaw
DRM
Economic Analysis of Law
Education
Empirical Analysis of Law
Employment Law
Environmental Law
Estates and Trusts
Evidence Law
Family Law
Feminism and Gender
First Amendment
Food
Google & Search Engines
Health Law
History of Law
Humor
Immigration
Insurance Law
Intellectual Property
International & Comparative Law
Interviews
Jurisprudence
Law and Humanities
Law and Inequality
Law and Psychology
Law Practice
Law Professor Blogger Census
Law Rev (Boston College)
Law Rev (Boston University)
Law Rev (California)
Law Rev (Chicago)
Law Rev (Columbia)
Law Rev (Cornell)
Law Rev (Duke)
Law Rev (Emory)
Law Rev (Fordham)
Law Rev (Georgetown)
Law Rev (GW)
Law Rev (Harvard)
Law Rev (Illinois)
Law Rev (Indiana)
Law Rev (Iowa)
Law Rev (Michigan)
Law Rev (Minnesota)
Law Rev (Northwestern)
Law Rev (Notre Dame)
Law Rev (NYU)
Law Rev (Penn)
Law Rev (S Cal)
Law Rev (Stanford)
Law Rev (Texas)
Law Rev (UCLA)
Law Rev (Vanderbilt)
Law Rev (Virginia)
Law Rev (Wash U)
Law Rev (Wm & Mary)
Law Rev (Yale)
Law Rev Contents
Law Rev Forum
Law School
Law School (Hiring & Laterals)
Law School (Law Reviews)
Law School (Rankings)
Law School (Scholarship)
Law School (Teaching)
Law Student Discussions
Law Talk
Legal Ethics
Legal Theory
Media Law
Movies & Television
Philosophy of Social Science
Politics
Privacy
Privacy (Consumer Privacy)
Privacy (Electronic Surveillance)
Privacy (Gossip & Shaming)
Privacy (ID Theft)
Privacy (Law Enforcement)
Privacy (Medical)
Privacy (National Security)
Property Law
Race
Religion
Reparations
Science Fiction
Second Amendment
Securities
Social Network Websites
Sociology of Law
Supreme Court
Tax
Teaching
Technology
Tort Law
Web 2.0
Weird
Wiki
Wills, Trusts, and Estates

Archives

October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005

 

« Supreme Court Minimalism And Its Effects On Lower Courts | Main | Harsh Reality: You’re Fired! »

May 26, 2006

New Study Shows No Marijuana-Lung Cancer Link

posted by Dan Filler

According to a story in today's Washington Post, a new NIH-funded study has shown that smoking marijuana does not increase the risk of lung cancer - and may actually reduce it. Since this conflicts with the administration's party line, I wonder whether we'll see various divisions of the government working to supress or otherwise undermine these results. I've previously blogged about the way the FDA has deceptively reported marijuana research.

There is little question that using marijuana, or other recreational drugs, is rarely a healthy life choice. This new research would not change my own view that smoking anything is dangerous. But since the administration has repeatedly worked to suppress or undermine data that it dislikes, I feel a sense of dread about how it will handle this surprising outcome. Will the researchers lose their grants or get blacklisted? Will the DOJ seek to fund a study specifically designed to undermine this data (incorporating any necessary methodological flaws)? Will the FDA follow its prior form, and issue a press release denying the study ever happened? Or will this information simply be deleted from every federal publication that otherwise documents new health research?

And was I always this cynical?

Posted by Dan Filler at May 26, 2006 12:08 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.concurringopinions.com/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/885.

Comments

I don't know if you always were this cynical, Dan, but given what this administration has done with/to science (and, more generally, with "facts"), there's certainly more of a basis for cynicism these days....

Posted by: Scott Moss at May 26, 2006 12:25 PM


On a somewhat related note, did any of you see the odd ad in the New York Times of May 18, 2006? Issued under the name of "Parents the Anti Drug," it makes a host of claims about links between marijuana use in teens and adverse psycho-social outcomes. It was signed by a number of medical, pyschiatric and behavioral organizations. How did the phony war on drugs capture a completely legitmate organization like the National Medical Association (The organization of black physicians)?

Posted by: Daniel Millstone at May 27, 2006 06:17 AM


DF writes:

But since the administration has repeatedly worked to suppress or undermine data that it dislikes, I feel a sense of dread about how it will handle this surprising outcome. Will the researchers lose their grants or get blacklisted? Will the DOJ seek to fund a study specifically designed to undermine this data (incorporating any necessary methodological flaws)? Will the FDA follow its prior form, and issue a press release denying the study ever happened? Or will this information simply be deleted from every federal publication that otherwise documents new health research?

Likely any or all will happen.

But I would pick one nit. The current administration, love 'em or hate 'em, is certainly not alone in undermining any research that does not support drug war zealotry. That behavior has been bipartisan since early last century.

Mindless prohibitionism is no respector of political party.

Posted by: Nobody at May 27, 2006 05:26 PM


Where does the administration say that smoking marijuana increases the risk of lung cancer?

Posted by: Roger at May 28, 2006 01:45 PM


The DEA website. First there's the vague, suggestive cancer associations:

There are also many long-term health consequences of marijuana use. According to the National Institutes of Health, studies show that someone who smokes five joints per week may be taking in as many cancer-causing chemicals as someone who smokes a full pack of cigarettes every day.

Marijuana contains more than 400 chemicals, including most of the harmful substances found in tobacco smoke. Smoking one marijuana cigarette deposits about four times more tar into the lungs than a filtered tobacco cigarette.

Then we get referred to a study (even though the text says "other studys"). According to the Bush administration's drug prohibition agency,

In other studies, smoked marijuana has been shown to cause a variety of health problems, including cancer, respiratory problems, increased heart rate, loss of motor skills, and increased heart rate. (My emphasis.)

Not only is there an increased risk of cancer, according to the DEA, increased heart rates are possible side effect. Increased heart rates, too. Whoever wrote that paragraph must have been stoned.

Posted by: Tyler Simons at May 28, 2006 03:02 PM


I'm curious about this modifier:
"There is little question that using marijuana, or other recreational drugs, is rarely a healthy life choice."



What is this supposed to mean? There is no evidence that smoking pot or taking acid will actually *enhance* your physical health. But there is no evidence that drinking a beer, or for that matter going on a road trip or having a picnic, will enhance your physical health either. I doubt you would say "there is little question that going on picnics is rarely a healthy life choice."



As well, I note that you conflate all recreational drug use here as "rarely being a healthy lifestyle choice." Do you include caffeine and alcohol in this assessment?


Like having picnics or drinking beer, smoking pot is fun. It feels good. Things get funnier, food tastes better. Then the next morning, you go to work and pay the bills like everyone else. It is neither a healthy lifestyle choice nor an unhealthy lifestyle choice. Like eating chocolate sundaes or going to the movies, smoking pot or using other benign recreational drugs is something people do to enhance their enjoyment of life.



The reason marijuana is illegal is the knee-jerk reaction by even sophisticated libertarian academics like yourself to add caveats about how objectively, "there is little question" that drug use is rarely a healthy lifestyle choice. I believe it is irrational for marijuana to be illegal, but I don't think it'll be legalized until people normalize it in their minds as a benign and even enjoyable and life-enhancing activity.

Posted by: Interested reader at May 29, 2006 01:57 AM


As well, I note that you conflate all recreational drug use here as "rarely being a healthy lifestyle choice." Do you include caffeine and alcohol in this assessment?
If he doesn't, he should: they, too, have well-known health implications. I confess to being sceptical of this study; it seems to me that routinely inhaling any kind of smoke - be it tobacco, marijuana, or even tea, for that matter - is going to damage your lungs.

Posted by: Simon at May 29, 2006 09:59 AM


I know some activists that struggle for the right to make marijuana use legal for cancer patients. Though myself I don't believe that it can help, probably only pain relief.

Posted by: Joy at June 14, 2006 05:09 PM


Simon, it is not that smoke is healthy for the lungs but that the ingredient THC is. You see, THC kills aged and damaged cells, which in return prevents cancer from forming. Of course, THC has several other affects as well. They feel good too.

Posted by: doug at June 30, 2006 06:15 PM


To Joy: Please tell me this - what proof do you have either way? Often times beliefs are of faith, and faith is blind. Although you "don't believe that it can help," I doubt you are very educated in the matter. In which case you should try to learn something of the subject before posting an uneducated opinion for all the world to see on this blog.

Posted by: Awesome Alex at June 30, 2006 06:24 PM


the munchies are a well known factor of marijuana. this is very helpful for people with particular ailments, such as some cases of aids, in which hunger wanes. marijuana instills the feeling of hunger into patients, urging them to eating and becoming healthy. this is merely one of many ways marijuana can help and cant be disputed. sorry.

Posted by: david martsh at July 1, 2006 03:49 PM


??

Posted by: Dr. Flowers at August 15, 2007 06:30 PM


Don't believe the propaganda on marijuana.
I will end all the debate for everyone.
There is but only one source of medical information that doesn't have any political motivations. The ONLY source is the PDR or Physician's Desk Reference. This is the only source that physicians use. And if the political bull s#!t info that government organizations push to the public was in the PDR then alot of Doctors would be killing people. Soooo look up in the Herbal edition of the Physicians Desk Reference Cannabis Sativa. Hummm somehow all the terrible health risks that we where told in are D.A.R.E. jr high programs isn't in the herbal PDR. PDR says marijuana helps with all terminal illness. Marijuana is shown to stop asthma attacks, blocks and neutralizes nerotoxins that damage brain tissue says the PDR. It's one of only a handfull of herbs in the world with no toxic dose level. PDR also says marijuana has inhibiting effects on lung tumors. Hell if we go on what the PDR says about marijuana looks as if it's the best habit a healthy person could have. Believe it people we have all been brainwashed on this subject. Remember you can't argue with the PDR. It is the only true source of medical information. This is the undisputed truth!

Posted by: Dr. Flowers at August 15, 2007 07:28 PM


Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)

Authors

Daniel J. Solove

Website
Understanding Privacy

Kaimipono Wenger

Website
SSRN Page

Dave Hoffman

Website
SSRN Page

Nate Oman

Website
SSRN Page

Frank Pasquale

Website
SSRN Page

Deven Desai

Website
SSRN Page

Michael O'Shea

Website
SSRN Page

Sarah Waldeck

Website
SSRN Page

Lawrence Cunningham

Website
SSRN Page

Danielle Citron

Website
SSRN Page

Jaya Ramji-Nogales

Website
SSRN Page


Guests

Robert Ahdieh
Neil H. Buchanan
Miriam Cherry
Susan Kuo
Jonathan Lipson
Paul Ohm
Geoffrey Rapp
Susan Scafidi
Howard Wasserman
Timothy Zick






ad-logo3.jpg

blawg100_winner2.jpg

Previous Guests

Michael Abramowicz
Michelle Adams
Robert Ahdieh
Michelle Anderson
Laura Appleman
Francesca Bignami
Jeremy Blumenthal
Bruce Boyden
Donald Braman
Al Brophy
Bill Burke-White
Scott Burris
Anupam Chander
Miriam Cherry
Jack Chin
Jennifer Collins
Allison Danner
Brannon Denning
Deven Desai
Mike Dimino
Christine Haight Farley
Kim Ferzan
Dan Filler
Amanda Frost
Timothy Glynn
Rachel Godsil
Eric Goldman
Craig Green
Jeffrey Harrison
Erica Hashimoto
Carissa Hessick
Laura Heymann
Christine Hurt
Darian Ibrahim
Dan Kahan
Sam Kamin
Heidi Kitrosser
Adam Kolber
Russell Korobkin
Anita S. Krishnakumar
Greg Lastowka
Sarah Lawsky
Erik Lillquist
Jeff Lipshaw
Joseph Liu
Solangel Maldonado
Jason Mazzone
William McGeveran
Salil Mehra
Carrie Menkel-Meadow
Max Minzner
Scott Moss
Eric Muller
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Elizabeth Nowicki
Paul Ohm
Michael O'Shea
Rafael Pardo
Marcy Peek
Eduardo Peñalver
Neil RIchards
Lori Ringhand
Alice Ristroph
Paul Secunda
Jessica Silbey
Peter Smith
Charles Sullivan
Rick Swedloff
Steph Tai
Robert Tsai
Steve Vladeck
Sarah Waldeck
Melissa Waters
Alfred Yen
David Zaring
Timothy Zick
Jonathan Zittrain

Blogroll

Above the Law
ACS Blog
Althouse
Balkinization
Becker-Posner Blog
Beltway Blogroll
BlackProf
BoingBoing
Chicago Law Faculty Blog
Conglomerate
Convictions
CrimLaw
Crime & Federalism
CrimProf Blog
Crooked Timber
Discourse.net
Dorf on Law
Election Law
Emergent Chaos
Feminist Law Profs
43(B)log
Freakonomics Blog
Freedom to Tinker
Google Blogoscoped
How Appealing
Ideoblog
Info/Law
Instapundit.com
JD2B.com
Juris Novus
Jurisdynamics
Law and Letters
Legal Profession Blog
Legal Theory Blog
Legal Times Blog
Leiter Reports
Brian Leiter's Law School Reports
Lessig Blog
Madisonian
Mirror of Justice
National Security Advisors
Opinio Juris
Point of Law
Political Theory Daily Review
PrawfsBlawg
ProfessorBainbridge.com
Property Prof
Red Tape Chronicles
The Right Coast
Schneier on Security
SCOTUSBlog
Security Dilemmas
Sentencing Law and Policy
Simple Justice
Sivacracy.net
The Situationist
Susan Crawford
TalkLeft
Talking Points Memo
TaxProf Blog
Tech & Marketing Law
Truth on the Market
Volokh Conspiracy
WorkPlace Prof Blog
WSJ Law Blog
Wonkette
The Yin Blog

Pajamas Media BlogRoll Member