Tag: National Cancer Institute

Medical Marijuana Up For Debate in Federal Court

Medical Marijuana Up For Debate in Federal Court

by Jessica Piekle

The disconnect between state laws allowing for the use of medicinal marijuana and federal anti-drug enforcement  efforts may be evolving.

As ThinkProgress reports, for the first time since 1994 a  federal court will consider the Drug Enforcement Agency’s (DEA) classification  of marijuana as a dangerous drug with no medical value. The lawsuit, which is  now a decade old, was brought by Americans for Safe Access and argues the  science behind marijuana’s therapeutic properties.

Marijuana is currently classified as a Schedule 1 substance with a “high  potential for abuse,” placing it alongside other narcotics such as heroin and  cocaine.

Oral arguments on the ASA case will be heard on October 16th. Since the  original petition was filed in 2002 the scientific evidence to support  declassifying marijuana has expanded at least two-fold, especially in the  treatment of diseases like multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer’s and cancer. In 2011,  the National Cancer Institute listed cannabis as a complementary and alternative  medicine, noting that it has been used as medicine for thousands of years. Even  Congress seems prepared to protect medical marijuana possession.

Should ASA succeed and the court find the DEA’s refusal to reclassify  marijuana as “arbitrary and capricious” that will force the Obama administration  to re-evaluate and adjust federal enforcement efforts. Which, similar to their  tactics in same sex marriage, may be exactly what they are looking for. When  Attorney General Eric Holder first took over at the Department of Justice he  said that medical marijuana prosecutions would fall low on the list of DOJ  priorities. Yet busts and prosecutions have continued, leading many to question  the sincerity of the statements.

Cover from the court would provide DOJ exactly what it needs to ease up on  enforcing federal law, expand the ability of researchers to conduct more science  to prove the benefits of medicinal marijuana use and ease tensions between  federal and local law enforcement. It may not be fast and it may not be sexy,  but this is how policy evolves.

Tanning Trumps Skin Cancer Fears for Young Adults

by Ann Pietrangelo

Young adults would rather indulge in tanning today than worry about skin  cancer tomorrow. Tanning is the norm in some circles. It’s expected. Skin cancer  is the most common form of cancer in the United States, and melanoma is the most  deadly type of skin cancer, but that’s not scaring young adults from the lure of  the tanning booth.

Exposure to ultraviolet radiation from the sun and from indoor tanning  equipment increase the risk of developing skin cancer. Engaging in indoor  tanning before age 35 increases the risk of melanoma by 75 percent. Recent  studies by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National  Cancer Institute found that:

  • Indoor tanning is common among young adults, with the highest rates of  indoor tanning among white women aged 18-21 years (32 percent) and 22-25 years  (30 percent). The reports evaluated data from the National Health Interview  Survey’s Cancer Control Supplement.
  • The highest prevalence of indoor tanning was reported among white women aged  18-21 years residing in the Midwest (44 percent), and those aged 22-25 years in  the South (36 percent).
  • Among white women aged 18-21 years who reported indoor tanning, an average  of 28 visits occurred in the past year.
  • Among white adults who reported indoor tanning, 58 percent of women and 40  percent of men used one 10 or more times in the previous year.
  • Fifty percent of people aged 18-29 reported at least one sunburn in the  previous year despite taking protective measures.

“More public health efforts, including providing shade and  sunscreen in recreational settings, are needed to raise awareness of the  importance of sun protection and sunburn prevention to reduce the burden of skin  cancer,” said Marcus Plescia, M.D., M.P.H., director of CDC’s Division of Cancer  Prevention and Control. “We must accelerate our efforts to educate young adults  about the dangers of indoor tanning to prevent melanoma as this generation  ages.”

The reports were published in CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly  Report.

On a personal note, I’m not a “tanner” and I’ve not had skin cancer, but I have  had cancer. I wouldn’t wish it on anyone. It’s certainly not a good trade  for tan skin — or red skin — or orange skin. It is an avoidable risk and one not worth  taking. Oh, and if you’re concerned about your appearance, it is worth noting  that over time, tanning gives your skin that nice wrinkled, leathery look…

Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Quirky Law Could Kill Thousands Of Animals For New Cigarette

by Sharon Seltzer

More than 8 million of the 47 million U.S. adult cigarette smokers have a serious illness caused by smoking, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Tobacco also costs the economy $96 billion a year for medical care. To counter the bad press, the tobacco industry has created new “light” tobacco products they claim are less harmful. In order to make that claim, a quirk in the law requires the products to be tested on thousands of animals.

Two years ago, Congress passed a law that requires tobacco companies to prove that any of its products labeled “light” or “mild” significantly reduce the risk of tobacco-related disease to smokers and benefit the health of the population. The Food and Drug Administration was placed in charge of regulating the law. They drafted guidelines that required animal testing to be part of the process.

The National Cancer Institute, Institute for Medicine, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine and PETA have all called for an end to the animal testing clause.

The National Cancer Institute doesn’t believe the light cigarettes are less harmful to a person’s health. In a recent report they stated, “There is no convincing evidence that changes in cigarette design… have resulted in an important decrease in the disease burden caused by cigarette use.”

Bingxuan Wang, a toxicology researcher with the nonprofit Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine is very concerned about the number of animals that will needlessly die during these tests.

“The bottom line is, tobacco – light or not – poses serious risks to the user’s health and to the health of others. Wasting countless more animal lives to prove the safety of an inherently harmful product, especially when such tests in the past have been misleading, would be grossly counterproductive for human health,” said Wang.

The Institute of Medicine said, “It is not possible to make laboratory animals use tobacco products the way humans do, and there are inherent interspecies differences that prevent meaningful extrapolation of human effects.” Experiments conducted on animals 50 years ago found that tobacco did not cause lung cancer, but that information was obviously incorrect in humans.

PETA said, “In some of the horrendous tobacco tests that could be conducted, rats would be forced to breathe tobacco smoke for as long as six hours a day for months at a time by jamming the animals into tiny canisters and pumping concentrated cigarette smoke directly into their noses. The animals would then be killed and their bodies dissected.”

Belgium, Germany and the U.K. have banned animal testing for tobacco products and Canada uses non-animal methods.

Take Action: Stop Testing Nicotine On Animals