Mary Jane And Your Balls

no, THC is a drug.

<3 NJ, Chris Christie, and the Daily Show

Doing test studies is a part of the scientific method so yes, its still "science"

I don't its really showing as "proof" but more that their studies have so far support the idea.

It's not a joke.

1) She's an Asst. Professor at the Keck School of Medicine
2) She specializes in Urology.
3) She does research USC Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center
4) Her research was publish in a peer-reviewed Cancer journal.

Her research and her institution are subject to scrutiny the minute she put her name on that paper: USC, Keck School of Medicine, and Norris Cancer Center on that research is what no one actually seems to understand. Do you really think she is going so lightly put on research or anyone from a recognized name college? NO.

Her university and department would be up her *** if she put anything out that was blatantly a lie or a joke.

And like Elanabelle mentioned either. Its extremely difficult to perform research on weed AND on humans. There are long lists of conditions. So before people on this thread start coming down saying this woman and her research are a joke they really need to look into her curriculum vitae, the conditions of her research and restrictions she was faced.

Her research is a joke

There's a difference between forming an opinion and looking at research, and looking at research and forming an opinion.

It goes both ways btw.

yeah, they are jokes.

1. I don't give a *** who she is, it's a bad study.
2. again, don't care.
3. apparently bad research.
4. I'm surprised they didn't rip it apart, because it should be.

Apparently she did as anyone who reads it who has a brain can tell the flaws in that "study"

I'm saying it's a joke because there's flaws.

Not really, a joke is a joke.

Maybe if it means to just further investigate it, but to even publish it with such a small sample size is sad...



But I won't change you or Mr. Mensa's minds on this, so don't go getting your panties in a knot.

FTFY Elan

Guess I'm the only one who didn't know that Mary Jane meant pot, but that's because I'm a sheltered kid.


I really was hoping to see something about Mary Jane Watson because OMGWTFBBQSAUCE redheads are freaking amazing.

edit: and she's on my balls? *** yes!

too many variables, and "people said X" and "people didn't say Y" therefore Z doesn't really constitute as science.

REDHEADS GIMP! And hi, i was wondering when you would chime in since ever thread i post in you post in it seems. we might even derail is like before :x

Ok if thats the case explain why her research isn't be scrutinized by peers yet?

If you and EVERYONE on this forum think her research is extremely flawed contact her department and university.

This is the part that gets me the most:


poor way to gather data aside, didn't they consider the fact that some people just wanted to smoke pot, and not try to ruin their lives with cocaine use?

Like I said, too many variables, and a joke.

you missed something sir:

Haha funny I forgot to laugh. I don't have humor on matters regarding harsh criticism of research. Particularly with someone with a solid curriculum vitae.

I feel bad for saying this but I never noticed tbh. I thought this was something of mild to average interest so I clicked on it.

For people hating on pot

Your not the only one in grad school. Relax, you're not going to convince everyone.

Like I said man, its a laughable topic.

Sad on whom? Her or the U.S. government who is imposing restrictions on her research?

So are you saying that no research should be publish or performed until the U.S. lifts current restrictions on THC/marijuana research?

The fact the cocaine might some how have an effect to cure testicular cancer is interesting because if they can find what in it does that, they could be able to turn that into a cure to get rid of it. How is that a bad thing exactly?

because you're blinded by the title and can't see the research for what it is: half assed, even me can tell that there's too many variables to reach that conclusion, and that she assumed things when she shouldn't have, it's a joke.

If that's "truly" how research is done, then it's no wonder why they haven't cured cancer yet, they've been wasting money on these *** "researches."

Sad on both, and that isn't real research.

I am relaxed. I just wish people wouldn't be so harsh on small number research and realize the limitations the U.S. government has on researchers. I personally want more research conducted on THC and research restrictions to be lifted. Because that will w/o a question of doubt legalize it or not.

So then no research should be performed on marijuana that's fantastic lol People want marijuana legalized, but not willing to let researchers test it because the U.S. government has limitations on it. Seems everyone is at a loss.

Wow, it's a non-clinical, human study. It's obviously going to be less than concrete. But this ***'s a necessary step towards conducted non- "half-assed" studies. Not sure why it's being taken as a personal affront.

that isn't a fact at all, how in the hell did you derive that?

Risk reducer, actually. Not a cure.

There's a difference between preventative effects and a cure. Take care there, they really are two different things.

Edit: late
Edit2: but not as late as that lol

I'm sorry, I didn't mean it as an absolute "fact" but the idea (backed by a small study) that it can do that, is something worth looking into.

You should know what I mean. Don't get into semantics.