New research suggests that nicotine creates cellular drills, targeting and perforating smooth muscles over a period of six hours.

Contrary to popular belief, that carbon dioxide level exposure had to be extreme in order to deposit enough tar to permanently damage the lungs, it is now becoming clear that the cause of lung cancer and other smoking related problems is in fact nicotine. It was an old wives' tale or counterargument from smokers that because people living in big cities inhaled half of a pack to a pack of cigarette in smoke from smog each day, but did not have high lung cancer rates like second hand smokers, there must be something wrong with the tobacco studies that were done. Living in a city with hundreds of thousands of cars cars was equivalent to "two packs of cigarettes a day" while any smoker will have a 24-35 in 100 chance of lung cancer (500-1000 times higher than simply being a city dweller). In Bejing today, this rate is 42 in 100,000. People who use candles or incense frequently only have 7 or 8, slightly more than regular marijuana smokers. This perhaps indicated that in fact smoking cessation products cause lung cancer; that it is not smoke, but nicotine that causes the lung cancer has only been proved this last year. Possible explanations at the time included contaminants to tobacco or asbestos, hence natural brands such as American Spirit advertised as such to me as a teenager.
However, in 2013, a new paper delivered at the American Society for Cell Biology managed to watch the molecules of nicotine fold into drills after being present in the blood stream for a continuous six hours. These target smooth muscles, such as those found in the heart, epidermis, lungs, and reproductive system as well as throughout the body. This helps to explain why a secondhand smoker in a house with a heavy smoker has a greater chance of lung cancer than a light smoker. It is conceivable that users of e-cigs or nicotine substitution products such as the patch or gum living in a big city could give themselves lung cancer as well by pollutant exposure as the body becomes unable to naturally clean itself.
Much credit is deserved for Brown professor Ching-Ming Hai, who discovered these cellular drills called podosome rosettes. By establishing the link between heart disease such as atherosclerosis and nicotine, the way has been opened to investigate the role of nicotine on other organs such as the lungs. Being able to observe this phenomenon suggests a veritable hypothesis that other smooth muscles in the body will and do respond in a similar way, eventually tearing and folding under continued nicotine exposure.
Some research has existed which supports this hypothesis that lung cancer is caused by nicotine, including studies which suggest that lung cancer is sped up by nicotine exposure (Dasgupta). For the first time, it can be assuredly said that in fact the cause is in nicotine. This supports the population data. In all of Mexico, for example the lung cancer rate is 5 in 100,000 (Lazcano). Introducing smoke increases this eight times, to as much as and over 40 in 100,000 with smog and air pollution (Wang). With nicotine exposure, this jumps to the 30,000 in 100,000 or thirty percent that indicates lung cancer is caused by tobacco.
This is affirmed by research using populations in Sweden and in California in which smokers of marijuana were not found to have increased cancer rates, or only slight and suggested links to cancer. Research along these lines were released in the 1990s and 2000s, though did not have at this time any scientific rationale for the phenomenon, which can now be attributed to nicotine. Continuing research along these lines should provide alternatives and safe products, once again, to combat use of sweets and bubblegum which were originally the targets of tobacco advertising.


http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2001-07-05/news/0107050231_1_smog-alert-mexico-city-greenhouse-gases
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9428585
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1796573/
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-02-28/rates-of-lung-cancer-rising-steeply-in-smoggy-beijing
http://lungcancer.about.com/od/Lung-Cancer-And-Smoking/f/Smokers-Lung-Cancer.htm
http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/16/health/nicotine-e-cigarettes/
http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20060720/nicotine-speeds-lung-cancer
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10552-013-0259-0
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1018427320658

Bibliography:

Dasgupta, Piyali, et al. "Nicotine induces cell proliferation by β-arrestin–mediated activation of Src and Rb–Raf-1 pathways." The Journal of clinical investigation 116.8 (2006): 2208-2217.

Lazcano, Ponce EC, et al. "Trends of lung cancer mortality in Mexico."Archives of medical research 28.4 (1996): 565-570.

Wang, Q. "[An analysis of incidence mortality and survival rates of lung cancer in Beijing]." Zhonghua liu xing bing xue za zhi= Zhonghua liuxingbingxue zazhi12.4 (1991): 205-207.


Addendum: It should be noted that this does not indicate that nicotine or tobacco is responsible for cancer. Since the US cracked down on tobacco use, with success in white males, the overall cancer mortality rate has increased from 184 per 100,000 in 1950-69 to 209 per 100,000 from 1970-1994. Today that rate holds steady at 203 per 100,000. In white females and in other demographics cancer rates have been steady or changed in negligible amounts, but these demographics have had increasing tobacco use rates. Cancer is a painful and unnatural death that can often involve long battles with the disease and should be combated with all resources available, in treatment and in prevention. While lung cancer rates have fallen, technological advances have allowed earlier detection of lung cancer, which at stage 0 and 1 is among the least deadly forms of cancer, but at later stages is among the most deadly. Without adjustments for technological advances in medical care, no positive statement can be made in regards to success or negative results from anti-smoking campaigns. Meta-data from overall cancer mortality does show that the resources in the war on cancer have been squandered and had an overall detrimental effect on the national health of the country, and some policy change is necessitated, although it must be noted there is no current biological explanation for the lower cancer rates in countries and places with higher tobacco use, these have been correlative not causal links. See following for more: http://platophilosphy.blogspot.com/2015/01/increasing-cancer-mortality-rates.html

Dr. Ray Mills Antley, Sr. - Interview, Christmas 2010

Rest in peace, Ray

Marijuana is legal under the 1938 amendments to the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, we do need to regulate it.

Marijuana is legal under the 1938 amendments to the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, which remains the standard for prescription and non-prescription drugs (making in the case of marijuana, the controlled substances act out of line and unconstitutional and infringement of the duties and obligations of the FDA)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_Food_and_Drug_Act

"Goods found in violation of the law were subject to seizure and destruction at the expense of the manufacturer. That, combined with a legal requirement that all convictions be published (Notices of Judgment), proved to be important tools in the enforcement of the statute and had a deterrent effect upon would-be violators. "

http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/Transparency/Basics/ucm214416.htm
"The enactment of the 1938 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act tightened controls over drugs and food, included new consumer protection against unlawful cosmetics and medical devices, and enhanced the government’s ability to enforce the law. This law, as amended, is still in force today."
And of course, as we all know, the FDA has not made marijuana an FDA approved prescription in any state, mostly because it is available as a "dangerous" but legal drug, in the same wording as surrounds the alcohol industry.
We need better regulation  of these substances. The prohibition is ineffective and morally unjustifiable. 
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/item/18383-house-votes-to-stop-feds-from-interfering-with-state-marijuana-laws
The house has already voted to end Department of Justice funding for marijuana prosecution.

The effect of potent unregulated or decriminalized marijuana and alcohol versus legalized and properly regulated marijuana and alcohol (with proper FDA regulations full brain blood-flow should be possible regardless of which substance is consumed, though it would appear to be quite low, .5% in the case of alcohol, over half a dozen strains of marijuana are already identified that are purported to be safe some that may even contain moderate amounts of THC):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjZgj_eH4x0

In addition, while the Controlled Substances Act of 1976 (the version in 1970 was still diagnostic in effect) gave federal agencies jurisdiction to act in the case of many drugs, including marijuana, this was in spite of a decriminalization law passed in 1973, still legally and enforced in the state of North Carolina. It was not out of error that the legislation in North Carolina passed this bill, they simply were regulating a dangerous industry concluding indemnifying research that showed alcohol and tobacco to be far worse than cannabis, legally according to the FDA regulations on the product and in keeping with importation laws from nations where it was legal to possess or produce (at the time 1/2 ounce in North Carolina, the substance was legal in many parts of the world notably the Netherlands and Morocco, where multiple brutal civil wars have been fought over the legalization of the product and the monarchy's succession). Under the same legal logic that made the emancipation proclamation necessary before the constitution was amended to or acts passed to outlaw slavery, it is a de facto violation of states' rights to pass the Controlled Substances Act, at least as it applies to marijuana. These sorts of mistakes are not unheard of, and happen frequently in the budget, as federal and state governments overlap. The only legal option is to encourage or federally mandate amendment of state laws before changing federal law in this matter. In this case, it is clear that the federal government already has a department, the FDA, responsible for this product and stifling research into this promising if dangerous drug is paramount to extortion, incarceration under false pretenses, embezzlement, and treason on a massive scale. Denying this reality and failing to prosecute organizations responsible for the suppression of research and development of this industry as such, would so fundamentally change the mechanisms of this country that entire peoples could be thrown into chains, dispossessed, or in other ways robbed of their fundamental liberties that the government exists to protect under the veil of enhancing freedom and pursuing happiness.

As for constitutionality:
"The embattled Fourth Amendment[117]is probably the leading exam­ple of a “War on Drugs” casualty.[118] As has been erstwhile noted in an apropos reference to George Orwell’s, 1984, a date that we have passed in more than one sense, the “War on Drugs” has led to “[a] gradual but perceptive rise in Big Brotherism against the public at large in the form of eavesdropping, surveillance, monitor­ing, informing, and other intrusive enforcement methods.”[119] Among the inroads that have been sanctioned are those that have permitted intrusions into our homes by the use of aerial surveil­lance,[120] a practice that has led to the practical abandonment in other drug-related contexts of the privacy test announced in Katz v. United States.[121] These relaxations of the restrictions of the Fourth Amendment have allowed the expansion of police authority to carry out warrantless searches for drugs on individuals and automo­biles under circumstances beyond the original intention of Terry’s rationale,[122] which was based on police officer safety, not as a subterfuge, for a search for criminal evidence without meeting the requirements of the Fourth Amendment. The creation of the so-called “good faith” exception to the Fourth Amendment require­ment of probable cause established in United States v. León,[123] which in practice we see stretched beyond “good faith,” is another example of the courts’ permissive attitude towards the government in drug cases. Equally troubling is the upholding of the validity of a warrant issued on the basis of a partially uncorroborated anony­mous tip,[124] leading to cases in which it was allowed to corroborate the anonymous tip by the post facto discovery of illegal evi­dence.[125]"

http://academiajurisprudenciapr.org/new/rethink-the-war-of-drugs/deja-vu-a-federal-judge-revisits-the-war-on-drugs/

PLEASE NOTE: Marijuana was re-legalized in the spending bill of 2014. This was seen as a national security issue and does activate the superiority clause in the Constitution, regardless of state laws. Marijuana is currently legally available for sale and manufacture across the USA on Native American reservations. It is highly probable that state or federal governments will take more responsible steps in the future towards regulating this substance. Also in September leading anti-marijuana academics were caught accepting money from corporate interests, which has changed the field of research in this field significantly.

In regards to state laws and international treaties: Does legal marijuana violate international treaties? The answer is no.
"Even if treaties could override federalism, the agreements that the INCB cites do not purport to do so. The 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs says compliance is subject to "constitutional limitations" and undertaken with "due regard to [signatories'] constitutional, legal and administrative systems." The 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances and the 1988 Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances contain similar provisions."
Representing these treaties in this manner as the INCB has done is criminal, it makes light of legitimate and extremely important resolutions and work the UN has done and made. Now that we can prove that marijuana provides a benefit to public health, we have the right to use and provide it.

http://www.cmaj.ca/content/166/7/887.full?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=cannabis&searchid=1025853946146_44&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&journalcode=cmaj

"Current marijuana use was significantly correlated (p < 0.05) in a dose- related fashion with a decline in IQ over the ages studied. The comparison of the IQ difference scores showed an average decrease of 4.1 points in current heavy users (p < 0.05) compared to gains in IQ points for light current users (5.8), former users (3.5) and non-users (2.6)."

So use of 5-10 grams (5 joints) of marijuana per week should increase the user's IQ

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1177258/Are-wrecking-brain-Chilling-pictures-reveal-shocking-effects-alcohol-cigarettes-caffeine-mind.html

 Caffeine, recent:

Marijuana can be seen to have in normal doses, less of an effect on the bloodflow of the brain than caffeine.

Cannabis use, long term:

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/02/18/molecular-biologist-explains-how-thc-completely-kills-cancer-cells/

In studies, THC has been found to selectively target cancer cells while leaving healthy ones unharmed.

Most of the problem with marijuana today lies in the fact that it is not regulated. Parasites such as toxoplasmosis gondii end up present in the vast majority of users, and all people with negative side effects from marijuana. A legal industry would clear up the air. Also, unlike alcohol which is associated with a significant drop in national IQ, costing the United States almost 80% of its potential earnings, marijuana and THC is not associated with a decrease in mental functioning for healthy individuals. In Germany, where alcohol consumption dropped by 30% in the last 35 years, marijuana use increased 4 times over from 7% to almost 28% in 18-24 year olds from 1980 to 2015. In the same time period, the economy increased 5 times over from under a trillion dollars GDP to almost the same size as the US economy.

Kraus et al., 2013

Kraus, L., Pabst, A., Piontek, D., and Gomes de Matos, E. Substanzkonsum und substanzbezogene Störungen: Trends in Deutschland 1980–2012 (Substance use and substance use disorders: Trends in Germany 1980–2012) . Substance use and substance use disorders: Trends in Germany 1980–2012Sucht. 2013;59: 333–345

 The IRS is recommending that tax professionals who help state-recognized, legal marijuana businesses "not be considered unethical."

Habit-Forming Substances. The old Act required label disclosure of the quantity or proportion in any drug of twelve listed ingredients or their derivatives.' 99 The list comprised alcohol, several opiates and other narcotic drugs, and acetanilid, a heart depressant used in pain-killers. The Harrison Anti-Narcotic Act in effect supplanted the provision as to most of the listed drugs, but meanwhile public consumption of a number of coal-tar products, more accurately classified as hypnotics than narcotics, had grown to alarming proportions. There is a tendency for the use of these drugs to become habitual, and excessive use produces serious physiological effects. In S. 1944, therefore, the list was broadened, and, to avoid its obsolescence, power was given to the Secretary to add to it.200 Moreover, since the mere statement of the presence of the drug, although of value to the physician, seldom gave warning to the user, a requirement was added that products containing any of the listed ingredients be labeled "Warning-May be Habit-Forming."

http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1937&context=lcp

Most of these substances include the possibility of an overdose, and so the FDA’s regulations on poison control apply to these substances. This is not the case with marijuana, however, and there are no mortalities associated with the substance. As such, this is a conflict in Federal Statutes which must be resolved in a Federal Court of Law, before prosecution can occur.

Poisonous or toxic materials shall be:

1.     (A) Used according to: 

1.     (1) Law and this Code,

2.     (2) Manufacturer's use directions included in labeling, and, for a pesticide, manufacturer's label instructions that state that use is allowed in a food establishment, ^P

3.     (3) The conditions of certification, if certification is required, for use of the pest control materials, ^P and

4.     (4) Additional conditions that may be established by the regulatory authority; and

2.     (B) Applied so that: 

1.     (1) A hazard to employees or other persons is not constituted, ^P and

2.     (2) Contamination including toxic residues due to drip, drain, fog, splash or spray on food, equipment,utensils, linens, and single-service and single-use articles is prevented, and for a restricted use pesticide, this is achieved by: ^P 

1.     (a) Removing the items, ^P

2.     (b) Covering the items with impermeable covers, ^P or

3.     (c) Taking other appropriate preventive actions, ^P and

4.     (d) Cleaning and sanitizing equipment and utensils after the application. ^P

3.     (C) A restricted use pesticide shall be applied only by an applicator certified as defined in 7 USC 136 Definitions, (e) Certified Applicator, of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, or a personunder the direct supervision of a certified applicator. ^Pf

http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/RetailFoodProtection/FoodCode/ucm188102.htm

For these materials used according to Law and this code, includes most drugs, however alcohol marijuana and tobacco cannot be prosecuted under later laws until FDA statutes are amended because they are neither poisonous or toxic, as defined by the US Federal Government. Cannabis is SPECIFICALLY mentioned in this law, and this remains on the books.

• “ • 4) Notwithstanding paragraph (1)(D) of this subsection, any person who violates subsection (a) of this section by distributing a small amount of marihuana for no remuneration shall be treated as provided in section 844 of this title and section 3607 of title 18.

• (a) In general

Any individual who knowingly possesses a controlled substance that is listed in section 841(b)(1)(A) of this title in violation of section 844 of this title in an amount that, as specified by regulation of the Attorney General, is a personal use amount shall be liable to the United States for a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed $10,000 for each such violation.”

“Part D — Offenses And Penalties

§844. Penalties for simple possession

(a) Unlawful acts; penalties

It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally to possess a controlled substance unless such substance was obtained directly, or pursuant to a valid prescription or order, from a practitioner, while acting in the course of his professional practice, or except as otherwise authorized by this subchapter or subchapter II of this chapter. It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally to possess any list I chemical obtained pursuant to or under authority of a registration issued to that person under section 823 of this title or section 958 of this title if that registration has been revoked or suspended, if that registration has expired, or if the registrant has ceased to do business in the manner contemplated by his registration. It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly or intentionally purchase at retail during a 30 day period more than 9 grams of ephedrine base, pseudoephedrine base, or phenylpropanolamine base in a scheduled listed chemical product, except that, of such 9 grams, not more than 7.5 grams may be imported by means of shipping through any private or commercial carrier or the Postal Service. Any person who violates this subsection may be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not more than 1 year, and shall be fined a minimum of $1,000, or both, except that if he commits such offense after a prior conviction under this subchapter or subchapter II of this chapter, or a prior conviction for any drug, narcotic, or chemical offense chargeable under the law of any State, has become final, he shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment for not less than 15 days but not more than 2 years, and shall be fined a minimum of $2,500, except, further, that if he commits such offense after two or more prior convictions under this subchapter or subchapter II of this chapter, or two or more prior convictions for any drug, narcotic, or chemical offense chargeable under the law of any State, or a combination of two or more such offenses have become final, he shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment for not less than 90 days but not more than 3 years, and shall be fined a minimum of $5,000. Notwithstanding any penalty provided in this subsection, any person convicted under this subsection for the possession of flunitrazepam shall be imprisoned for not more than 3 years, shall be fined as otherwise provided in this section, or both. The imposition or execution of a minimum sentence required to be imposed under this subsection shall not be suspended or deferred. Further, upon conviction, a person who violates this subsection shall be fined the reasonable costs of the investigation and prosecution of the offense, including the costs of prosecution of an offense as defined in sections 1918 and 1920 of title 28, except that this sentence shall not apply and a fine under this section need not be imposed if the court determines under the provision of title 18 that the defendant lacks the ability to pay.”

SUBCHAPTER I — CONTROL AND ENFORCEMENT

Part D — Offenses And Penalties

§844a. Civil penalty for possession of small amounts of certain controlled substances

(a) In general

Any individual who knowingly possesses a controlled substance that is listed in section 841(b)(1)(A) of this title in violation of section 844 of this title in an amount that, as specified by regulation of the Attorney General, is a personal use amount shall be liable to the United States for a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed $10,000 for each such violation.

(b) Income and net assets

The income and net assets of an individual shall not be relevant to the determination whether to assess a civil penalty under this section or to prosecute the individual criminally. However, in determining the amount of a penalty under this section, the income and net assets of an individual shall be considered.

(c) Prior conviction

A civil penalty may not be assessed under this section if the individual previously was convicted of a Federal or State offense relating to a controlled substance.

(d) Limitation on number of assessments

A civil penalty may not be assessed on an individual under this section on more than two separate occasions.

(e) Assessment

A civil penalty under this section may be assessed by the Attorney General only by an order made on the record after opportunity for a hearing in accordance with section 554 of title 5. The Attorney General shall provide written notice to the individual who is the subject of the proposed order informing the individual of the opportunity to receive such a hearing with respect to the proposed order. The hearing may be held only if the individual makes a request for the hearing before the expiration of the 30-day period beginning on the date such notice is issued.

(f) Compromise

The Attorney General may compromise, modify, or remit, with or without conditions, any civil penalty imposed under this section.

(g) Judicial review

If the Attorney General issues an order pursuant to subsection (e) of this section after a hearing described in such subsection, the individual who is the subject of the order may, before the expiration of the 30-day period beginning on the date the order is issued, bring a civil action in the appropriate district court of the United States. In such action, the law and the facts of the violation and the assessment of the civil penalty shall be determined de novo, and shall include the right of a trial by jury, the right to counsel, and the right to confront witnesses. The facts of the violation shall be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

(h) Civil action

If an individual does not request a hearing pursuant to subsection (e) of this section and the Attorney General issues an order pursuant to such subsection, or if an individual does not under subsection (g) of this section seek judicial review of such an order, the Attorney General may commence a civil action in any appropriate district court of the United States for the purpose of recovering the amount assessed and an amount representing interest at a rate computed in accordance with section 1961 of title 28. Such interest shall accrue from the expiration of the 30-day period described in subsection (g) of this section. In such an action, the decision of the Attorney General to issue the order, and the amount of the penalty assessed by the Attorney General, shall not be subject to review.

(i) Limitation

The Attorney General may not under this subsection \1\ commence proceeding against an individual after the expiration of the 5-year period beginning on the date on which the individual allegedly violated subsection (a) of this section.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ So in original. Probably should be "section".

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(j) Expungement procedures

The Attorney General shall dismiss the proceedings under this section against an individual upon application of such individual at any time after the expiration of 3 years if—

(1) the individual has not previously been assessed a civil penalty under this section;

(2) the individual has paid the assessment;

(3) the individual has complied with any conditions imposed by the Attorney General;

(4) the individual has not been convicted of a Federal or State offense relating to a controlled substance; and

(5) the individual agrees to submit to a drug test, and such test shows the individual to be drug free.

A nonpublic record of a disposition under this subsection shall be retained by the Department of Justice solely for the purpose of determining in any subsequent proceeding whether the person qualified for a civil penalty or expungement under this section. If a record is expunged under this subsection, an individual concerning whom such an expungement has been made shall not be held thereafter under any provision of law to be guilty of perjury, false swearing, or making a false statement by reason of his failure to recite or acknowledge a proceeding under this section or the results thereof in response to an inquiry made of him for any purpose.

THIS MEANS THE Controlled Substances Act is literally screwing over big corporations and the IRS, a fine of $10,000 on 50 kg of marijuana is LESS than taxes in states where marijuana is "legal"

Except where control is required by United States obligations under an international treaty, convention, or protocol, in effect on October 27, 1970, and except in the case of an immediate precursor, a drug or other substance may not be placed in any schedule unless the findings required for such schedule are made with respect to such drug or other substance. The findings required for each of the schedules are as follows:

^^^^ Marijuana has been legal under UN protocols for research purposes, if a student is working with marijuana or any drug for research purposes, they are exempt according to the Controlled Substances Act, this is something that could perhaps be tightened up with academic procedures which in the case of marijuana are not difficult to acquire (previously necessitating a flight to Morocco or an "Indian" reservation, now only to Colorado or Washington, and a growing number of states), but currently this is status quo.