Marijuana Use Linked With Increased Risk Of Testicular Cancer: Study

[Malgaftan]

Recreational marijuana use has been linked to an increased risk of testicular cancer, particularly the more dangerous non-seminoma and mixed germ cell tumor types, according to a new study.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/10/marijuana-testicular-cancer-risk_n_1870699.html


The good news is, if you just have your balls cut off you should be fine. No balls no cancer.

[Parkbandit]

In before "No one has ever died due to marijuana"

[Tgo01]

All negative studies done on marijuana are just attempts by the government to demonize the very safe marijuana plant.

Only positive studies done on marijuana can be believed.

[Androidpk]

And exposure to carrots causes HIV.

[jpatter123]

I'm not buying it.

[Back]

Dude, buzzkill. Now all the stoners reading this board are going to be fixated on their balls imagining tumors every time they get stoned.

[Androidpk]

I'm not buying it.

I'm serious dude, carrots will kill you. You may think it's cool that eating them lets you see in the dark but scientists have discovered hidden radioactive particles in them.

[jpatter123]

oh no I totally believe carrots cause HIV..matter of facts carrots stole my lunch money.

I'm just thinking of all the pot smokers and I 've never personally known anyone with testi cancer. Sounds like a biased study that needs to be re-evaluated.

[Fallen]

I think this is the study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3017734/?tool=pubmed

Not sure.

[Tgo01]

I'm just thinking of all the pot smokers and I 've never personally known anyone with testi cancer. Sounds like a biased study that needs to be re-evaluated.

I've never personally known anyone with lung cancer either. Damn the American Lung Society giving cigarettes a bad name!

[subzero]

ZOMG MORE POT COMMENTS?! /FLAIL

[jpatter123]

I've never personally known anyone with lung cancer either. Damn the American Lung Society giving cigarettes a bad name!

really?? I know of dozens and dozens. 4 grandparents and 2 aunts alone.

[Tgo01]

really?? I know of dozens and dozens. 4 grandparents and 2 aunts alone.

All smokers?

[jpatter123]

All smokers?

yup.. friend of mine's mom is now in the hospital with stage 5 lung cancer and a lifetime smoker.

[jpatter123]

what's funny about my opinions are that I don't smoke weed and I smoke cigarettes.

but I don't eat carrots.. so I'm safe.

[leifastagsweed]

Countered with... (http://the420times.com/2011/02/is-marijuana-sex-enhancing-or-sex-killing/)

[Stanley Burrell]

Any combustion reaction's product hitting your lungs is going to do damage. I'm waiting for it to be legalized so Glaxo & Kline can make non-prescription marijuana cessation products I can get addicted to. Hurry up guys.

Edit: Déjà vu of the "alcho-patch" from GTA IV.

[Androidpk]

The study seems pretty bogus. They tested a very small number of people and given the number of people that smoke marijuana...

Stan, true, but smoking isn't the only way of using the mj.

[Fallen]

And the ROI isn't all that big of a deal when you're talking about such small odds to begin with. I think they said 6.2 out of every something hundred thousand men, and you have to smoke daily for the largest increases to your health.

[Androidpk]

http://i46.tinypic.com/11j9h8g.jpg

http://i46.tinypic.com/10naxyv.gif

[jpatter123]

The study seems pretty bogus. They tested a very small number of people and given the number of people that smoke marijuana...

Stan, true, but smoking isn't the only way of using the mj.

This study is an interesting lead into future study possibilities, but based on what is there proves absolutely nothing. One thing I'd be interested to see is how many of the study participants have HPV. I would also like to see the sampling over 10's of thousands.

[Bobmuhthol]

To the people complaining about small sample size: why do you think that you know more about epidemiology than scientists?

[AnticorRifling]

Because weed can't be bad and anything that says it is must be stupid. Duh.

[Androidpk]

Tiny sample size in one location that comes to an extremely vague conclusion. That's real science!

[AnticorRifling]

If you agreed with the results you'd say it was. Weedocrite.

[Androidpk]

If you agreed with the results you'd say it was. Weedocrite.

If I agreed with the results, which I don't, I'd still say it was a poor study.

[Parkbandit]

MORE PEPL DI3 FR0M ALCOHOL THAN TEH POT

[jpatter123]

To the people complaining about small sample size: why do you think that you know more about epidemiology than scientists?

scientists? Define that please. What does it take to publish a study? Doctorate? grad? undergrad? Once a study is evaluated and published, what is the purpose of publishing that paper? Is it to call it fact or is it so it can be peer reviewed by other "scientists". I'll answer the what does it take to have a paper/study published - time and money, that's right no degree required, although the paper is typically reviewed for errors before publishing it does not denote the study is flawless.

[Bobmuhthol]

If I agreed with the results, which I don't, I'd still say it was a poor study.
I know you have a MSPH and a PhD, so I don't know why I'm even bothering to question your obvious credentials, but I don't think I've ever seen you say, "Wow, check out those completely correct results from this study." It's always, "Yeah, bogus study bro, they had fewer than a million observations in non-perfect conditions, fuck those guys." I'm begging you to spend some time doing any research at all in any capacity before you dismiss every single study you come across as not meeting your criteria. By the way, "one location" doesn't make sense because they studied people with that particular cancer, so location isn't even a factor, and the data were collected over 5 years, and the results are not vague (that's the whole point of a conclusion).

[Bobmuhthol]

scientists? Define that please. What does it take to publish a study? Doctorate? grad? undergrad? Once a study is evaluated and published, what is the purpose of publishing that paper? Is it to call it fact or is it so it can be peer reviewed by other "scientists". I'll answer the what does it take to have a paper/study published - time and money, that's right no degree required, although the paper is typically reviewed for errors before publishing it does not denote the study is flawless.
You're right, I should throw out everything I think I know in favor of your obviously correct views: science is nonsense and marijuana is fantastic. You seem more credible than statisticians anyway.

[jpatter123]

You're right, I should throw out everything I think I know in favor of your obviously correct views: science is nonsense and marijuana is fantastic. You seem more credible than statisticians anyway.

what are you talking about ? Science is my life. I have no idea where you draw that conclusion. I also do not smoke marijuana. Because I said that this study needs further investigation before it can be called anywhere near conclusive you call my evaluation nonsense?

[Androidpk]

I know you have a MSPH and a PhD, so I don't know why I'm even bothering to question your obvious credentials, but I don't think I've ever seen you say, "Wow, check out those completely correct results from this study." It's always, "Yeah, bogus study bro, they had fewer than a million observations in non-perfect conditions, fuck those guys." I'm begging you to spend some time doing any research at all in any capacity before you dismiss every single study you come across as not meeting your criteria. By the way, "one location" doesn't make sense because they studied people with that particular cancer, so location isn't even a factor, and the data were collected over 5 years, and the results are not vague (that's the whole point of a conclusion).

Right, because you know what studies I have paid attention to and what ones I agree with or disagree with. Are you always such a dumb cunt?

[Bobmuhthol]

what are you talking about ? Science is my life. I have no idea where you draw that conclusion. I also do not smoke marijuana. Because I said that this study needs further investigation before it can be called anywhere near conclusive you call my evaluation nonsense?
You said the study proves "absolutely nothing," and dismissed it. You're also making really strange arguments that make no sense ("you don't need a degree to be published" -- but this woman has 3).

Right, because you know what studies I have paid attention to and what ones I agree with or disagree with. Are you always such a dumb cunt?
Uh, yeah, that's cool that you react like a child, but the fact remains that I have never observed you agreeing with a study, and I have on many occasions observed you claiming that the study has no merit and should be disregarded. But yeah, totally, I'm just a dumb cunt. (You're free to challenge my statements like a big boy, but until then I'll just consider myself right.)

[Androidpk]

Uh, yeah, that's cool that you react like a child, but the fact remains that I have never observed you agreeing with a study, and I have on many occasions observed you claiming that the study has no merit and should be disregarded. But yeah, totally, I'm just a dumb cunt. (You're free to challenge my statements like a big boy, but until then I'll just consider myself right.)

And you're free to make up whatever facts you want, hence you being a dumb cunt.

[Parkbandit]

What fact is Bob making up?

[Back]

Well I know this study is bogus because I just checked my balls and they're fine.

[Bobmuhthol]

Poorly done test, pointing out accidents where people had cannabis in their blood shows nothing, as it remains in your system for weeks.
When a study found that marijuana impairs driving skills.

[Androidpk]

Keep going. You said you observed many occasions so I assume you have a whole list ready. Oh wait, you don't, because while frantically searching for evidence to back you up that's probably the only one you came across.

[msconstrew]

When a study found that marijuana impairs driving skills.

I don't have a study that agrees with this assertion. But I have handled a number of cases where cannabis was a contributing factor to reaction times, which caused or contributed to an accident. In all of those cases, I've been able to get a PhD toxicologist to testify under oath that the consumption of cannabis negatively affects reaction times and reaction abilities, and impairs driving skills. So while I'm sorry that I can't point to anything that conclusively says that Bob is correct (and I certainly can't provide you with an expert report I've got), I certainly CAN tell you that learned treatises and educated experts agree that it is true.

[Androidpk]

I don't have a study that agrees with this assertion. But I have handled a number of cases where cannabis was a contributing factor to reaction times, which caused or contributed to an accident. In all of those cases, I've been able to get a PhD toxicologist to testify under oath that the consumption of cannabis negatively affects reaction times and reaction abilities, and impairs driving skills. So while I'm sorry that I can't point to anything that conclusively says that Bob is correct (and I certainly can't provide you with an expert report I've got), I certainly CAN tell you that learned treatises and educated experts agree that it is true.

My issue was with how the information was gathered not the results saying that mj impairs driving.

[Bobmuhthol]

My issue was with how the information was gathered not the results saying that mj impairs driving.

I believe a chronic user would be able to smoke a small amount, something of a joint size or smaller, and be fully capable of driving in a safe and effective manner.
Anyway:

Keep going. You said you observed many occasions so I assume you have a whole list ready. Oh wait, you don't, because while frantically searching for evidence to back you up that's probably the only one you came across.
I don't keep a fucking file on you, so no, I didn't have a prepared list, and I did find a recent and relevant example. But you got me. I frantically searched for evidence (and found it...) and now I'm just feeling beaten.

[jpatter123]

You said the study proves "absolutely nothing," and dismissed it. You're also making really strange arguments that make no sense ("you don't need a degree to be published" -- but this woman has 3).

)

I'm cool with having a disagreement and even debating that disagreement. If it comes to pass during that debate that makes me consider I could be wrong I would gladly say I'm wrong or I need to look into further. Having a debate with someone who just twists my words and puts them where I did not is not something I'm keen with doing.

[Androidpk]

Right on bob, say stupid shit and expect to get called out on it. You're the same tool that tried to argue about the definition of quitting cold turkey so it doesn't surprise me you would say something like this.

[msconstrew]

My issue was with how the information was gathered not the results saying that mj impairs driving.

Okay, but if you ostensibly agree that cannabis impairs reaction time, etc., then why even quibble over the information-gathering method? I am not arguing that the methodology for the study isn't important (it's exceptionally important); I'm just wondering why this is something you're arguing about in the first place if you don't disagree with the ultimate conclusion.

And as for the testicular cancer aspect of it - let's assume that the conclusion is correct (i.e., that chronic cannabis consumption does increase the risk of cancerous germ cells in testicles (not the same thing as testicular cancer, but I digress...)). Even assuming it's true, it applies only to chronic, long-term users (at least according to the abstract) AND it's a risk-benefit analysis like anything else. So educating the populace about a potential risk isn't a bad thing, in my view. If the populace is educated, doesn't believe the study, or doesn't fall into the applicable group, then they can perform a risk-benefit analysis and decide whether they're willing to take the risk.

[Bobmuhthol]

I'm cool with having a disagreement and even debating that disagreement. If it comes to pass during that debate that makes me consider I could be wrong I would gladly say I'm wrong or I need to look into further. Having a debate with someone who just twists my words and puts them where I did not is not something I'm keen with doing.
Direct quote: "Based on what is there proves absolutely nothing." And again, you were providing arguments against me that had nothing to do with anything that I said. I'm very cool with you not wanting to talk to me, though.

Right on bob, say stupid shit and expect to get called out on it. You're the same tool that tried to argue about the definition of quitting cold turkey so it doesn't surprise me you would say something like this.
You're still wrong about that, too...

[Androidpk]

You're still wrong about that, too...

Sure I am kid. Why don't you get back to me when you have some real world experience under your belt.

[Bobmuhthol]

Definitions of terms: coming from real world experience since never.

[AnticorRifling]

Nothing says sweet, sweet internet fighting like calling the other person kid. Pk representin trade chat.

[Tgo01]

All I know is I consume about 3-4 times the recommended daily amount of salt every day and I don't have high blood pressure. Those bastards are just trying to give salt a bad name! Bacon for everyone!

[Androidpk]

Bacon causes cancer!

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/73704-bacon-can-cause-cancer-study-reveals

[Reliel]

Obviously a smear campaign PK.

Bacon is awesome and awesome never causes cancer.

[Androidpk]

Obviously a smear campaign by radical muslims. First they took our tall buildings, now they want our bacon!

[Showal]

Watching this thread is like surfing chat roulette looking for true love.

[AnticorRifling]

So you're saying there's a chance.

[Latrinsorm]

I wanted to contribute on the sample size issue. If you go to the study, the odds ratio is "1.94; 95% CI, 1.02-3.68". The whole point of sample size is the size of your confidence interval, and that interval is small enough to demonstrate the statistical significance pretty significantly. Disagreeing with this study on the basis of sample size just doesn't make sense.

[Reliel]

So you're saying there's a chance.

You're gonna see a lot of people jerking it before you find anyone who wants to really talk.

[Androidpk]

I wanted to contribute on the sample size issue. If you go to the study, the odds ratio is "1.94; 95% CI, 1.02-3.68". The whole point of sample size is the size of your confidence interval, and that interval is small enough to demonstrate the statistical significance pretty significantly. Disagreeing with this study on the basis of sample size just doesn't make sense.

At the end of the day speculation is still speculation.

[Latrinsorm]

Okay DAVID HUME!! burned.

[Androidpk]

Okay DAVID HUME!! burned.

That's right!

http://i46.tinypic.com/r26jc6.jpg

[crb]

Bob off the rails again?

How often do studies make the news that are obviously crap? All the fucking time. How do I know? Because I have a brain.

I'm not going to pull my penis out and slap Bob on the head with it just to show off how big it is, penis measuring isn't really necessary, but since Bob is so enamored of authority or credentials I'll point out I've actually worked on actual scientific research that was actually published in a journal (Nature).

There is immense bias in scientific research of all kinds, and there isn't a bouncer keeping stupid people out of things. There have been studies of studies that show no matter how badly humans try to remain unbiased, it bleeds through in their work, which is why the best studies are double blind. The people who design the study are not those who administer it, and yet another party is those that analyze the results.

There is a significant bias to make a conclusion that is significant with your work. No one wants to say "I spent the last 5 years working and find nothing of importance." Which is why you see lots of shaky conclusions being put forth with dubious data. Most commonly people fall to cum hoc fallacies, (correlation != causation), but there are many fails.

This kind of study is not an experiment, it does not have controlled variables, there is not the application of the scientific method. It is basically a survey. The researchers pick something they want to study, drug use and ball cancer, and send out a survey to a bunch of people, some respond, some don't. That is another problem with surveys, respondent bias (certain people are more likely to respond). Then they get the results back and look for patterns.

So, in this case, they found the incidence of marijuana use to be slightly higher among the group of 163 cancer guys, than the 292 healthy guys... in 1986-1991 (why so old?). From this they make the conclusion that marijuana use causes ball cancer. That is a cum hoc fallacy.

The people in the study are too small, for one, way way too small. Studies of this size are what gave us vaccines cause autism, which was in a peer reviewed journal, but you would have been stupid to accept that one.

There are a myriad of demographic or lifestyle factors that could potentially influence both cancer rates and drug use, with millions of uncontrolled variables you can't make a conclusion, and it could also be random chance the sample size is so small.

It is also not actual science, you want to know why? There is no hypothesis. An hypothesis is not "weed causes ball cancer." An hypothesis would be something like "Chemical X found in cannabis sativa when passing through testicular cells binds to Receptor Y which triggers DNA mutation and increases risk of uncontrolled cell division without apoptosis. " Very specific, and describing the mechanism through which the result happens. They've no clue on the mechanism here because they aren't doing actual scientific research.

That is the major weakness of these kinds of survey studies, also, it sounds like med students or residents may have done this. It was done at a medical school, and you do know research projects like this are required curriculum in most medical schools or residency programs? This is exactly the type of thing I've seen done for such assignments. Picture a student or resident sitting in front of a computer connected to a statistical database of old studies and just doing a meta analysis on it (this would also explain the old data). There is your "science."

We do however know for a fact that marijuana is high in antioxidants, and we know for a fact that antioxidants help prevent cancer through limiting the damage that free radicals cause to cells. We also know for a fact that marijuana has compounds within it that help protect the brain from brain damage. I could of course list the other actual science that has been done with the plant but it'd take too long. But that is all legitimate research. Smoking can still cause damage to your respiratory system, but ingesting it in other ways... it is sorta like a superfood actually.

[Tgo01]

So, in this case, they found the incidence of marijuana use to be slightly higher among the group of 163 cancer guys, than the 292 healthy guys... in 1986-1991 (why so old?).

I wouldn't call twice as likely to be "slightly higher."


That is a cum hoc fallacy.

You made that up.

[crb]

I wanted to contribute on the sample size issue. If you go to the study, the odds ratio is "1.94; 95% CI, 1.02-3.68". The whole point of sample size is the size of your confidence interval, and that interval is small enough to demonstrate the statistical significance pretty significantly. Disagreeing with this study on the basis of sample size just doesn't make sense.

Unless you think 400 people is an insufficient sample size to even out all the millions of different demographic and lifestyle factors that affect the human population. You can have smaller sample sizes when doing controlled experiments, this kind of observational experiment needs one far larger.

[crb]

I wouldn't call twice as likely to be "slightly higher."



You made that up.

Were you joking? On the Internet, I can't tell.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

See also here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

[Latrinsorm]

Unless you think 400 people is an insufficient sample size to even out all the millions of different demographic and lifestyle factors that affect the human population. You can have smaller sample sizes when doing controlled experiments, this kind of observational experiment needs one far larger.Aha, but that isn't something inherent to sample size the way random statistical noise is. It is possible that these people were in fact selected to control all those factors. It is not possible to simply declare that they weren't because of sample size alone, you would have to actually read the study and see what they did (and didn't) do to tell that. Are you ready for this? Evening out those "millions of... factors" is CORRELATED with sample size, it is not CAUSED by it.

Even putting that aside the logical fallacy can't be applied here because the authors never claim causation. The word they actually use is "association".
There are a myriad of demographic or lifestyle factors that could potentially influence both cancer rates and drug use, with millions of uncontrolled variables you can't make a conclusion, and it could also be random chance the sample size is so small.I'm afraid I have to insist on this point: unless you want to claim they failed at arithmetic, no it couldn't.

[subzero]

Until they can prove that ingesting marijuana via other methods (vaporized, edibles) causes cancer, what does it matter if smoking it does? I think we can all agree that the act of smoking something is not healthy. You may as well assume smoking anything is liable to cause cancer.

The only purpose putting something like this (Marijuana Use Linked With Increased Risk Of Testicular Cancer: Study) out is to try and scare people away from an issue that is slowly moving in a direction that a lot of industries don't want it to. You can't tell me after all this time, any of this is new. Why aren't they releasing studies about crack causing cancer? Or does smoking crack not cause cancer? Where are the studies against all the pharmaceuticals that are heavily abused (and readily doled out) in this country?

[Tgo01]

Why aren't they releasing studies about crack causing cancer? Or does smoking crack not cause cancer?

If I'm understanding the study right (which is unlikely) the study basically says that cocaine may reduce the chance of getting testicular cancer.


Compared with never use, ever use of marijuana had a 2-fold increased risk (OR, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.02-3.68), whereas ever use of cocaine had a negative association with TGCT (OR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.32-0.91). Stratification on tumor histology revealed a specific association of marijuana use with nonseminoma and mixed histology tumors (OR, 2.42; 95% CI, 1.08-5.42).

I'm sure Latrinsorm will correct me here.

Either way what would be the point of studying the negative effects of cocaine? It's pretty obvious to everyone (other than crackheads) that cocaine is bad, I don't think people need more reasons to stay away from cocaine.

[subzero]

If I'm understanding the study right (which is unlikely) the study basically says that cocaine may reduce the chance of getting testicular cancer.



I'm sure Latrinsorm will correct me here.

Either way what would be the point of studying the negative effects of cocaine? It's pretty obvious to everyone (other than crackheads) that cocaine is bad, I don't think people need more reasons to stay away from cocaine.

The point here is two-fold: First, when you light something on fire, there is a chemical reaction; things change. If they're studying cocaine inhaled through the nose vs smoked marijuana, it's not a valid comparison. Regardless of that, the way to determine if marijuana causes these cancers is to study the effects on subjects that only smoke it vs those who only ingest via edibles or vapors. The other point is that these studies coming out, not-so-coincidentally, at this particular time serve no purpose but to try and scare people away from marijuana, which is increasingly becoming a political issue. If they're using invalid studies, it just further shows that they're trying to bury it.

I heard of an interesting site the other day that I went back to after some of the posts today. It's isidewith.com. I didn't check all the answers and I don't have any idea how many people in any particular state voted, but each state (I guess Alaska and Hawaii don't count; they don't seem to be on there) had a majority vote of "yes" (there were more possible answers than flat yes/no, though all began such as "yes, for|but..." or "No, and increase penalties for all non-violent drug offenders") on the question: "Should marijuana be legalized in the U.S.?" -- wow @ anyone voting for "No, and increase penalties for all non-violent drug offenders"

So smoking it may cause cancer. So what? It holds true for tobacco and probably cocaine (unless that study was using smoked cocaine, which I'm in doubt of) and whatever else you want to smoke. If it's supposed to be some anti-marijuana statement, I'd say there's a precedent in place for something called tobacco that makes the whole issue irrelevant.

[Tgo01]

The other point is that these studies coming out, not-so-coincidentally, at this particular time serve no purpose but to try and scare people away from marijuana, which is increasingly becoming a political issue. If they're using invalid studies, it just further shows that they're trying to bury it.

Well isn't the perfect time to start studying the effects of something is when there is big talk about legalizing something that is already illegal? Isn't it kind of silly to have a bunch of uneducated voters (on the subject at hand anyway) going to the polls?

Then again I am talking about the US, uneducated voters is one of our biggest exports.

[subzero]

Well isn't the perfect time to start studying the effects of something is when there is big talk about legalizing something that is already illegal? Isn't it kind of silly to have a bunch of uneducated voters (on the subject at hand anyway) going to the polls?

Then again I am talking about the US, uneducated voters is one of our biggest exports.

Did you miss the whole part where it's a moot point or ignore it intentionally? It's a smokescreen. Diversion. Bullshit. Whether it causes cancer or not has no bearing on legality (unless, of course, if you want to point out that there's precedent for it NOT mattering; tobacco). Simply put, marijuana should be re-classified and the potential to cause cancer is not a factor in how drugs are classified. Tobacco causes cancer... there's no fucking voting for tobacco anymore and it's a perfectly legal substance (with the addition of, what, hundreds of other chemicals?).

Let's ignore that, though. Should the effects be studied? Yes. Do I think a lot of the studies are done with some bias? Yes. The situation here is a perfect example. They're trying to scare people away from marijuana by saying it causes cancer. I don't believe marijuana itself causes cancer. If it is proven that subjects who have never smoked it, but who have used it in other methods, have developed cancer, I'll give it some more credence. Fact is, we still don't exactly know what causes cancer. That cannot be a factor in determining the legality of something. If it were, we'd be in trouble.

They're purposefully presenting misleading information. They are not telling you anything but the negative effects that they want to highlight in order to get you to react favorably toward their position. Do you think they bothered to test vaporized or edible forms of THC? Even if they did, do you think they'd have supplied that information if the results were not what they were looking for? That's what the problem is. I'm all for people becoming educated on the matter. More and more are doing so, and more and more of the set-in-their-ways, goverment-will-do-no-wrong, older timers are fading away.

[Latrinsorm]

Until they can prove that ingesting marijuana via other methods (vaporized, edibles) causes cancer, what does it matter if smoking it does? I think we can all agree that the act of smoking something is not healthy. You may as well assume smoking anything is liable to cause cancer.

The only purpose putting something like this (Marijuana Use Linked With Increased Risk Of Testicular Cancer: Study) out is to try and scare people away from an issue that is slowly moving in a direction that a lot of industries don't want it to. You can't tell me after all this time, any of this is new. Why aren't they releasing studies about crack causing cancer? Or does smoking crack not cause cancer? Where are the studies against all the pharmaceuticals that are heavily abused (and readily doled out) in this country?Another possible purpose is that marijuana is actually bad for you.

I really don't understand the plan on the part of people supporting marijuana. Do you think it convinces anyone when you blindly cast aspersions on the scientists doing this research, or the research itself? If you have evidence that this specific scientist is on a specific industry's payroll, let's see it. If there's a specific problem with this specific study, let's see it. You and people of your ilk just look desperate when you resort to these broad brush tactics.

[Androidpk]

You and people of your ilk just look desperate when you resort to these broad brush tactics.

Funny, I could say the same exact thing about you and people of your ilk.

[Bobmuhthol]

[Imagine I quoted crb's entire retarded post here.]

Okay, now learn something about epidemiology, because you obviously know nothing.

[Bobmuhthol]

Remove yourself from what you think you know about anything in the world, or what you think I don't know, or how much work you did for someone else that they then published and rightfully took the credit for because you didn't actually do anything worth publishing yourself, etc. Don't you think that maybe, plausibly, it's conceivable that these researchers are at least good enough to not be outwitted by random fucking morons on the street who have absolutely no credentials in the area of research? This is a wild thought, I realize, but there is a nonzero probability that layman critiques of published research add absolutely no value and are baseless.

[subzero]

Another possible purpose is that marijuana is actually bad for you.

Since when does that matter? Alcohol, tobacco, countless pharmaceuticals, both prescription and OTC... Are you serious? Do you not realize ALL of that shit is bad for you?


I really don't understand the plan on the part of people supporting marijuana. Do you think it convinces anyone when you blindly cast aspersions on the scientists doing this research, or the research itself? If you have evidence that this specific scientist is on a specific industry's payroll, let's see it. If there's a specific problem with this specific study, let's see it. You and people of your ilk just look desperate when you resort to these broad brush tactics.

When things don't make sense, you have to wonder why. You can discount the very dated anti-marijuana propaganda all you want, but if you think the mentality behind that doesn't still exist, you're crazy. There are people that do not want the stuff legalized and they will do whatever is necessary (whether it's scare you with black men raping your white wimminz or by telling you it causes cancer and makes you the laziest, dumbest fuck in the world) to see that it does not reach that status. I don't understand the blind faith a lot of you have in the things you're told simply because someone in a suit told you so.

[Androidpk]

[Imagine I quoted crb's entire retarded post here.]

Okay, now learn something about epidemiology, because you obviously know nothing.

What is it you said about childish responses?

[Bobmuhthol]

I don't understand the blind faith a lot of you have in the things you're told simply because someone in a suit told you so.
I don't think anyone defending the study is doing so because of anyone in a suit?

[Bobmuhthol]

What is it you said about childish responses?
Somehow I feel like I restrained myself a little better than "are you always a dumb cunt?" Remind me when it became "childish" to let someone know that they're lecturing people on a topic that they don't understand.

[Androidpk]

My bad. Retarded cunt.

[subzero]

I don't think anyone defending the study is doing so because of anyone in a suit?[/COLOR]

Do you believe that everything they tell you about marijuana adds up and nothing seems amiss?

[Bobmuhthol]

I'm not involved in any discussions about legal theory or government statements regarding marijuana, so that's completely irrelevant to everything I've stated in this thread, which is about science.

[4a6c1]

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/11999638.jpg

[subzero]

I'm not involved in any discussions about legal theory or government statements regarding marijuana, so that's completely irrelevant to everything I've stated in this thread, which is about science.

I guess we're gonna just have to agree to disagree, but I can't put much faith in politically motivated science.

[Bobmuhthol]

... it's politically motivated when the results aren't what you want, but it's educational when they are.

[subzero]

So the timing of this coming out was just pure coincidence? I know it's not some big bomb or anything that should really shock anyone, but I'm not a fan of coincidence when it comes to politics.

[Tgo01]

So the timing of this coming out was just pure coincidence? I know it's not some big bomb or anything that should really shock anyone, but I'm not a fan of coincidence when it comes to politics.

There are probably dozens of studies done on marijuana every year with both good and bad results. It could just be a coincidence.

[Bobmuhthol]

I'm not really convinced that some professor (I don't even remember what school this came out of now) is trying to change anyone's opinion on basically anything. There would be much more effective things to lie about.

[Tgo01]

I'm not really convinced that some professor (I don't even remember what school this came out of now) is trying to change anyone's opinion on basically anything. There would be much more effective things to lie about.

I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying but I gotta admit, if you wanted to lie about marijuana to scare people away from it I think saying you could get testicular cancer is probably the most effective way of going about it.

[Latrinsorm]

Funny, I could say the same exact thing about you and people of your ilk.Ok bro. I'm the most anal feller around when it comes to making specific, overly wordy claims, so I don't think your statement would be especially reflective of reality.
Since when does that matter? Alcohol, tobacco, countless pharmaceuticals, both prescription and OTC... Are you serious? Do you not realize ALL of that shit is bad for you?Since it has been a topic of debate. No one debates whether alcohol is bad for you, or tobacco. Every time a thread comes up suggesting there might be something about marijuana that's bad for you, people immediately start debating.
When things don't make sense, you have to wonder why. You can discount the very dated anti-marijuana propaganda all you want, but if you think the mentality behind that doesn't still exist, you're crazy. There are people that do not want the stuff legalized and they will do whatever is necessary (whether it's scare you with black men raping your white wimminz or by telling you it causes cancer and makes you the laziest, dumbest fuck in the world) to see that it does not reach that status. I don't understand the blind faith a lot of you have in the things you're told simply because someone in a suit told you so.What scientists wear suits? I can only think of Neil deGrasse Tyson (TYSON OMG TYYYYYSON) when he's on Colbert.

I will agree for the sake of argument that this conspiracy exists. Can you link it directly to Misters Lacson and Carroll, Missus Tuazon or Doctors Castelao, Bernstein, or Cortessis? You're asking me to put blind faith in a vague conspiracy rather than put blind faith in the scientific method, why would you expect me to do so?

And to be honest, I don't see anything that doesn't make sense. We live in an amoral, openly hostile universe. It would make less sense if marijuana was magically benevolent than capable of doing bad things to you.

[jpatter123]

No one debates whether alcohol is bad for you, or tobacco. Every time a thread comes up suggesting there might be something about marijuana that's bad for you, people immediately start debating..

One can certainly understand why. Decades of our government lying about marijuana and by classifying it a schedule 1 kept it out of the hands of studies, which led people to look for the truth in the wrong places. It's now covered in false or unproven information on both sides of the coin(yes you who says smoking marijuana doesn't cause lung cancer). Especially those of us that are a bit older can certainly understand the immediate reaction to distrust negative information on marijuana. I think most educated people at this point realize marijuana is not harmless. Like most things we put in our bodies there are benefits and there are risks. Speaking for others (which I hate doing) I think people are super afraid that any issue with marijuana will only fuel the fight to keep the drug improperly classified.

Let's take the carrot joke (for you youngins this is what our government said about marijuana)
"carrots will rape your kids"
"carrots will make you have schizophrenia"
"carrots will destroy the world"
"carrots will take your lunch money"
"oh god carrots are horrible they must be banned" cry the people "they are so evil!"
truth - carrots are vegetables with many health benefits/ but some risks including exposure to pesticides.
People who now have bias see truth statement, but because of bias only focus on the negative message, "see we told you carrots were horrible and must be banned" continue the misinformed

yes this is a silly analogy, but if we could stop the demonizing of it and get to a modicum of truth we could start on a more rational ground on what should be done with it. You have no idea how many seniors I talk to who still believe the propaganda our government put out in the 50's-70's. It would be nice if they just said, "you know what we lied, because we thought we were protecting our country from a great threat. We acted in what we thought was the best interest for our people. Now we know more about the drug and this is it." If you want people to trust the government in these affairs they must come from a place that warrants the people placing that trust.

This got really long winded and I'm sure discombobulated, but I don't feel like going back to edit. Hopefully it makes sense though.

[subzero]

yes this is a silly analogy, but if we could stop the demonizing of it and get to a modicum of truth we could start on a more rational ground on what should be done with it. You have no idea how many seniors I talk to who still believe the propaganda our government put out in the 50's-70's. It would be nice if they just said, "you know what we lied, because we thought we were protecting our country from a great threat. We acted in what we thought was the best interest for our people. Now we know more about the drug and this is it." If you want people to trust the government in these affairs they must come from a place that warrants the people placing that trust.

Maybe the terrorists are just picking up where the Russians left off!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGRvAlqf9ME

[4a6c1]

On topic post:

http://comicspl.us/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/titan.publishing.tank_.girl_.classic.six_.png

[jpatter123]

more propaganda

homos are pedos http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3S24ofEQj4&feature=related

the original reefer madness http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLLLTntnqjk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTEHSolQqD0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpkS9rpwVoA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLsOf4Yave8

[Androidpk]

^

The worlds first carrot depleted armor-piercing leaf-stabilized discarding sabot tank round.

[Mumblz]

i am adding to the sample size of this thread in an effort to validate science

[Latrinsorm]

One can certainly understand why. Decades of our government lying about marijuana and by classifying it a schedule 1 kept it out of the hands of studies, which led people to look for the truth in the wrong places. It's now covered in false or unproven information on both sides of the coin(yes you who says smoking marijuana doesn't cause lung cancer). Especially those of us that are a bit older can certainly understand the immediate reaction to distrust negative information on marijuana. I think most educated people at this point realize marijuana is not harmless. Like most things we put in our bodies there are benefits and there are risks. Speaking for others (which I hate doing) I think people are super afraid that any issue with marijuana will only fuel the fight to keep the drug improperly classified.

Let's take the carrot joke (for you youngins this is what our government said about marijuana)
"carrots will rape your kids"
"carrots will make you have schizophrenia"
"carrots will destroy the world"
"carrots will take your lunch money"
"oh god carrots are horrible they must be banned" cry the people "they are so evil!"
truth - carrots are vegetables with many health benefits/ but some risks including exposure to pesticides.
People who now have bias see truth statement, but because of bias only focus on the negative message, "see we told you carrots were horrible and must be banned" continue the misinformed

yes this is a silly analogy, but if we could stop the demonizing of it and get to a modicum of truth we could start on a more rational ground on what should be done with it. You have no idea how many seniors I talk to who still believe the propaganda our government put out in the 50's-70's. It would be nice if they just said, "you know what we lied, because we thought we were protecting our country from a great threat. We acted in what we thought was the best interest for our people. Now we know more about the drug and this is it." If you want people to trust the government in these affairs they must come from a place that warrants the people placing that trust.

This got really long winded and I'm sure discombobulated, but I don't feel like going back to edit. Hopefully it makes sense though.It is very coherent and well written, but completely wrong. :D

No one said 'hey I'm worried that people will misinterpret/overemphasize the results of this study because of prior misinformation', people said the study was wrong, period. Quotes:
"I'm not buying it."
"The study seems pretty bogus."
"[The study's conclusion] is a cum hoc (sic) fallacy. ... It is not actual science."
Like you said, let's get past the demonizing and get to the truth. If you want marijuana to be legal, not only can you still agree that this research was done properly, you ought to... otherwise you're doing the same thing you justifiably find so distasteful in old timey government propaganda. Nobody here was involved in that or takes it seriously; you're not fighting fire with fire.

[EasternBrand]

I love it when two threads come together.


. . . cannabis impairs reaction time, etc., . . .


Bin Laden is dead?!?!?

[Tgo01]

I agree with Latrinsorm here. It gets pretty annoying to see a negative study released about marijuana and see people instantly disclaim it as false with no real basis. I guess I can understand where people are coming from, bacon is technically bad for us but most people just don't care because it tastes so damn good and it's legal. Maybe it's frustrating to see marijuana get a bad rap over and over again because it's illegal.

However I don't think you win many allies by even refusing to acknowledge that maybe, just maybe, marijuana is bad on some level. It's just like when I can't help but chuckle whenever I see someone say "Think of the billions we'll save if we made marijuana legal!" Like really? So if we just legalize more crimes we'll save money? My favorite though is when people make the claim that legalizing marijuana will not only have some noticeable impact on city/state/national budgets but it will actually solve the deficits. You don't get people to see things your way by ignoring facts and making up some of your own.

[WRoss]

Right before we go into October and ramp up campaign season, two studies come out of the media that show that marijuana might be dangerous. They get us talking and make us split the discussion into politics. Seriously, there are 1000's of studies supporting both sides. Quit being sheep.

[Back]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIaFtAKnqBU

[Jayvn]

I heard that everyone who drinks water will end up dying...

[Stanley Burrell]

I heard that everyone who drinks water will end up dying...

I cold shoot carrots in ddH2O.

Wait, back when I gave more of a crap about vitamins, I ate a bunch of β-carotene tablets each day, figuring the solubility was harmless. And it was, but I became slightly carotenemic; like, my nose and cheeks literally had a slight orange tinge to them. So, man, not really awake, I guess the jist of this thread is that you're packing the good stuff if you're an Oompa Loompa. Agh, restless. Sorry.