Mary Jane And Your Balls

It's not entirely about the small numbers, it's about the way the "study" was done, there's no real evidence in that, way too many variables.

The criminalization of marijuana has nothing to do with whether people research if it's good or bad, it entirely 100% was a political decision bribed by the lobbyists who wanted it illegal, it remains illegal because of lobbyists, politics, not science.

I didn't say that and you know it. See above.

If there is something that is preventing it, would it really be that at all impossible to turn that into something that can cure it? Or even turn it into a vaccine that can prevent it?

In this day and age breathing is bad for your health as is ingesting most of what is available at your supermarket. As always, everything is fine in moderation.

Yes. There are plenty of ways to reduce risk factors for diseases that have absolutely no effect on the disease once you have it.

because certain people were using it as an argument to continue the criminalization of something that shouldn't have been made illegal in the first place, when the study itself should be laughed at, scientifically.

Like I said earlier: them wasting money on stuff like this is sad.



and like I've been saying, the study is in error to derive that conclusion...

It's worth looking into, but not because of that study.

Just a little sidenote, smoking pot is also supposed to cause Gynomastia. (breasts) Cigarettes still only cause death.

oh sweet 9 pages.

made 9 pages, this ***'s legit now, weather or not any of us like it.

damn. too slow.

on that note I'm out for the night.

Bacon: relax, and eat some bacon :P

The small number's wasn't at you. A lot of people in this thread are criticizing it because of the sample size.

I agree this isn't concrete evidence. But its a step in the right direction from a good source. What i find really fascinating was this:

"we speculate that it may be acting through the endocannabinoid system—the cellular network that responds to the active ingredient in marijuana—since this system has been shown to be important in the formation of sperm,"

Cause this makes sense. She now would just needs to prove this.


I have pepperoni pizza that count? lol

lol just posted in ni "forgive my shitty spelling, I've been working for 14+ hours"

maybe I'll quit posting until tomorrow....

:(

It seems a lot of people just don't understand how you go through the process of turning a hypothesis into a theory.

test it using an experiment.

It seems in this case, I'd get 1000 chimps, get 500 of them stoned out of thier *** gords, then see which monkeys lost thier nuts.

voila , I should have a theory.

PETA would be up your ***!!! lol but this made me laugh

Peta would be but I do give you credit for making a good experiment, lol.

they sure would.

to which I'd reply, maybe pot is good for primates, let me finish this study & we'll know for sure! :D

good times

Why are people so adverse to this study? Did any of you actually read the full text of the original published article? Do any of you know what the peer-review process is like? It's like the worst thing on the planet. Studies with poor methodology almost to virtually never make it through peer-review in respectable journals.

Bacon contains carcinogens.

no nikki manage(sp?) invalidates all that you say, good sir.

The restrictions on human studies are incredibly strict (for obvious reasons). Reviewers familiar with the rules know that the conditions of the study are going to be less than ideal. It's just a small piece of the puzzle that may be validated/rejected at some point in the future when a more detailed study can be performed.

Say what you want, it's true.

Hmmmm... Marijuana causes munchies, munchies increase the intake of fried and fatty foods which are known to contain carcinogenic organic compounds that increase the likelihood of cancer.

So Marijuana does not cause cancer, the increase of ***you intake due to the side effects of marijuana cause cancer.

Sources:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/your-brain-food/201007/the-munchies-marijuana-and-happiness

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1002381,00.html


... Probably just as creditable as the OP source and only took me 5 minutes.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cncr.27554/abstract

Study in question. Let's look at the numbers.

Marijuana Users
(OR, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.02-3.68)
This means that 1.94x as many of their marijuana users had testicular cancer. The 95% confidence interval(95% probability that the real percentage) is anywhere from 1.02x to 3.68x based on their data.

Cocaine Users
(OR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.32-0.91)
Again, means that 0.54x as many cocaine users had testicular cancer. 95% confidence interval is anywhere from .32x to .91x.

Marijuana Use linked to a specific type of tumor
(OR, 2.42; 95% CI, 1.08-5.42)

Looking at these statistics, it would appear that it does have an effect. While peer reviews are far from the unbiased perfection that Sylow claims, they certainly wouldn't approve anything that isn't showing a difference at 95% confidence. So in that regard, it passes. The fact that it's difficult to conduct studies on this matter would assist in getting this published despite the glaring holes.

That said, I think the most important part to focus on here is the control group.

This is good for comparing marijuana use to a control group. However, it's missing a huge (admittedly subjective) factor.

If you agree with this statement, you can't place any credibility in the study. Only 3 recreational drugs were mentioned in the study methodology, not including cigarettes. If you were to assume, say:
You've already got your statistical explanation, based simply on cigarettes influence on testicular cancer.

Of course, that last bit is solely my interpretation and other people may feel differently about marijuana users' behavior. It's still a very tiny difference and without accounting for increased smoking, increased consumption of unhealthy foods, or anything else you'd like to list as a more common behavior among marijuana smokers it's difficult to come to an accurate conclusion.

You'd have to prove that either

1.) Cocaine users are less likely than Marijuana users to smole cigarettes
2.) Cocaine has a reductive effect on testicular cancer risk

I don't have access to this ariticle without VPNing into campus, but some of your questions really depend on the full extent of the in-person interviews.

Cocaine, as a powerful stimulant, is generally a replacement to cigarettes not an addendum. While I'm sure many cocaine users also smoke cigarettes(or marijuana for that matter), the overlap isn't as direct as you'd think. Pairing marijuana with cigarettes is pretty common, spliffs and such.

Cocaine is an appetite suppressant, while marijuana drastically increases appetite in most users. Leaving out weight as a control point is poor practice, especially when it's been documented to have a significant effect on many cancers(and there is evidence toward it increasing risk for testicular).

My point is simply that there are too many factors left unaccounted for to draw anything from such a small difference. The difference in this case amounts to less than 3 people, perhaps less than 1 depending on how many marijuana smokers they have.

I have learnt as long as you don’t smoke in direct sunlight it lowers the chance of you getting skin cancer as well!

Of course, frequent marijuana use has still been linked to acting like a complete moron on forums and thinking you're much funnier than you actually are(source: above poster and 1/3 this thread). People like that are the reason everyone wants to demonize it to begin with.

lol'd

I still think that people are way too adverse to the idea that marijuana might have some negative side effects; then again, OP is way too excited about it.