Yahoo: Marajuana Linked to Aggressive Testicular Cancer

[Forehead]

Hey, a bunch of you wanted to know how it could be potentially harmful or kill you, well, here's something to chew on. Enjoy yourselves, I'm going to go ahead and protect my boys.;)

And no, I'm not condemning anyone's use, and this study is by no means fact set in stone, but it is interesting and begs discussion. And yes, I included text at the end which questions the study.

Link to Full Story (http://news.yahoo.com/s/hsn/20090209/hl_hsn/marijuanalinkedtoaggressivetesticularcancer)

MONDAY, Feb. 9 (HealthDay News) -- Smoking marijuana over an extended period of time appears to greatly boost a young man's risk for developing a particularly aggressive form of testicular cancer, a new study reveals.

In fact, researchers found that men who smoked marijuana once a week or began to use the substance on a long-term basis while adolescents incurred double the risk for developing the fastest-spreading version of testicular cancer -- nonseminoma, which accounts for about 40 percent of all cases.

"Since we know that the incidence of testicular cancer has been rising in our country and in Europe over the last 40 years and that marijuana use has also risen over the same time, it seemed logical that there might be an association between the two," said study co-author Janet Daling, an epidemiologist and member of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center's public health sciences division in Seattle. "And when I analyzed the data, we found a fairly strong relationship with this aggressive type of testicular cancer."

No link was found between the drug and a less aggressive and more prevalent form of the disease, known as seminoma, which strikes 60 percent of testicular cancer patients.

The findings were published in the Feb. 9 online issue of Cancer.

According to the U.S. National Cancer Institute, testicular cancer is very rare, accounting for just 1 percent of cancers among American men. Nevertheless, the disease is the most common type of cancer for American men between the ages of 15 and 34, the study noted.

Across North America, Europe, Australia and New Zealand, testicular cancer rates have increased by 3 percent to 6 percent in the past half-century. That has led some researchers to suggest that the upward trend might be the product of increased exposure among young men to one or more external factors, including a simultaneous and comparable rise in the use of marijuana.

Along those lines, the researchers noted that the testes could be particularly vulnerable to the effects of marijuana, given that the organ -- along with the brain, heart, uterus and spleen -- carries specific receptors for tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the principal psychoactive ingredient in marijuana.

As well, previous human and animal research has indicated that marijuana use might lead to reduced hormonal production (particularly testosterone), poorer semen quality and impotency in men.

Daling and her team explored the notion of a marijuana-testicular cancer connection by analyzing data on 369 testicular cancer patients that had been collected by the Adult Testicular Cancer Lifestyle and Blood Specimen Study.

Participants were between the ages of 18 and 44, most were white or Hispanic, and all were residents of the Seattle-Puget Sound region. All had been diagnosed with the disease between 1999 and 2006. The men reported any history of marijuana use, as well as alcohol and smoking habits, and the same information was collected from about 1,000 healthy men.

The researchers found that current marijuana use was linked to a 70 percent increased risk for the disease. Independent of known risk factors, nonseminoma risk was particularly high among men who used the drug at least once a week and among those who had started using it before age 18.

Though Daling emphasized that the findings are preliminary, she suggested that attention should be paid. "We know very little about the long-term health consequences of marijuana smoking," she cautioned. "So, although this is the first time this association has been studied and found -- and the finding does need to be replicated before we are really sure what's going on -- this does give some evidence that testicular cancer may be one result from the frequent use of marijuana. And that is something that young people should keep in mind."

But the prospect of a causal relationship between marijuana use and testicular cancer raised a lot of unanswered questions for Gary Schwartz, an associate professor in both the department of cancer biology and the department of epidemiology and prevention at Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, N.C.

"The consensus is that most testicular cancer is thought to originate with lesions in utero, and that the peak age for testicular cancer to actually occur begins, really, right after adolescence," he noted. "That's when hormones released during puberty appear to promote [full-blown] cancer by essentially throwing fuel on the lesion fire, following a relatively long latency. The point being that you don't suddenly wake up one morning with a tumor. So it's a little hard to understand how exposure to marijuana beginning at that point could somehow play an immediate causal role."

"But certainly, the idea that cannabis may cause cancer cells to proliferate is interesting," Schwartz acknowledged. "It could, however, also be that recreational drug use is simply a marker for affluence, since we know that testicular cancer is traditionally a disease that is more common among the affluent. Or it could be a marker for some other event that comes along with it, that triggers lesions that lead to tumors. So, at this point, it's just not clear to me how exactly the association between marijuana and testicular cancer would work."

[MattFancy]

doesn't everything cause cancer these days? this doesn't surprise me

[Drop]

i'm calling MAJOR bs. I have yet to see one weed smoker die from cancer. Any type of cancer. If they do, it's because they smoke cigarettes too, and tend to get lung cancer.

This is the line that made me LOL...

"Since we know that the incidence of testicular cancer has been rising in our country and in Europe over the last 40 years and that marijuana use has also risen over the same time, it seemed logical that there might be an association between the two,".

Logical!? LMAO! That's the most ILLOGICAL statement i've ever read concerning weed. So because cancer has been rising, and because cannabis use has risen, there might be a connection between the two? Ummm, what about everything ELSE that has risen over the years? It couldn't have anything to do with cigarettes, alcohol, other hardcore drugs, environmental pollution, hormones that are injected into our foods, genetically altered/produced foods, foods from foreign countries.......all of which have also risen since cannabis use has risen.

And all that crap about decreased semen and impotency.....more bs. All these studies about weed smokers are horse crap. I want a study done on weed smokers who ONLY smoke weed. No prescription pills, no smoking cigarettes, no drinking alcohol....just a group of people who like to smoke a lil weed every now and then. That's the ONLY way to get a true study with accurate results about the effects of cannabis use on people. The thing is, there aren't too many folks out there who smoke ganja, but don't drink, smoke cigs, or take prescription meds as well. So the impotency and the cancer and all that crap, sorry, but i'm not buying it. The studies aren't reliable enough to provide true answers about what effects just cannabis can have on you.

This study has VERY little merrit....just like most of the biased, and uninformed studies about marijuana that are out there.

[PokerPacker]

gee, and I read that marijuana has been shown to reduce tumors.

[ixcuincle]

gee, and I read that marijuana has been shown to reduce tumors.

Read that too. However that study is from 2008...and this is more recent. Seems to be some kind of inconsistency...we'll see what happens

[Mufumonk]

It's a conspiracy by the government to reduce the population! :paranoid:

[Titaw]

This is complete bs, besides don't cigarrettes cause cancer and alcohol cause cirrohsis?

Also, the entire article is littered with "may"s and "could"s. The title of the article should be renamed to read:

Marijuana May be linked to Aggressive Testicular Cancer

The only reason I say this is the article is not as difinative as the Title alludes.

[renaissance]

Where is acw???

[fwo40]

This is complete bs, besides don't cigarrettes cause cancer and alcohol cause cirrohsis?

Also, the entire article is littered with "may"s and "could"s. The title of the article should be renamed to read:

Marijuana May be linked to Aggressive Testicular Cancer

The only reason I say this is the article is not as difinative as the Title alludes.

What does the 1st part of your response have to do with anything? Why can't pot ALSO be bad for you?

[AsburySkinsFan]

i'm calling MAJOR bs. I have yet to see one weed smoker die from cancer. Any type of cancer. If they do, it's because they smoke cigarettes too, and tend to get lung cancer.

This is the line that made me LOL...

"Since we know that the incidence of testicular cancer has been rising in our country and in Europe over the last 40 years and that marijuana use has also risen over the same time, it seemed logical that there might be an association between the two,".


You know, I love it when people quote somebody and cut the quote off at the comma, as if that was the end of their statement...why don't you try quoting the full quote next time?

"Since we know that the incidence of testicular cancer has been rising in our country and in Europe over the last 40 years and that marijuana use has also risen over the same time, it seemed logical that there might be an association between the two, And when I analyzed the data, we found a fairly strong relationship with this aggressive type of testicular cancer."

[TheKurp]

The major problem with studies like this is that it doesn't take into account the variety or the source of the marijuana. I think what is too often overlooked is that there is no standard or regulated way of growing marijuana. Growers can and do spray the plants with pesticides and use a wide range of fertilizers that no doubt wind up in the lungs of smokers via plant uptake during the growing phase.

[Rocky21]

There is also a direct correlation between the increase of ice cream sales and the rate of drowning deaths.

That does not, however, mean there is a cause and effect relationship.

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

[Drop]

You know, I love it when people quote somebody and cut the quote off at the comma, as if that was the end of their statement...why don't you try quoting the full quote next time?

"Since we know that the incidence of testicular cancer has been rising in our country and in Europe over the last 40 years and that marijuana use has also risen over the same time, it seemed logical that there might be an association between the two, And when I analyzed the data, we found a fairly strong relationship with this aggressive type of testicular cancer."

What exactly is your point?

The last part of the sentence is null and void because the first part is complete bs. i didn't quote the whole thing, because the last part of the sentence is based off of innacurate tests and studies. So the guy found a link, big deal! Who's to say the link isn't due to something OTHER than marijuana? Just because marijuana use has gone up, and cancer has risen, that means their's a definitive link between the two? How about the jackass who conducted the study, consider other things may be at work besides just the marijuana. He's drawing a PRETTY large conclusion without stopping to think what else could be at work here.

[Drop]

There is also a direct correlation between the increase of ice cream sales and the rate of drowning deaths.

That does not, however, mean there is a cause and effect relationship.

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

Couldn't of said it better myself.

[Buford]

So, is it the smoking part?

What about using a vaporizer for the THC?

[Prosperity]

aww this sucks



gee, and I read that marijuana has been shown to reduce tumors.

lung cancer tumors


So, is it the smoking part?

What about using a vaporizer for the THC?

it's the THC part


the article says they still don't know the mechanism so it may be correlation and not causation, but if it were a cause I doubt the method would effect much since the testes have THC receptors, and not much access to the other smoke particles (I'm guessing)

[Bang]

There may be something here, but I note at the end of the article they say that it might just be that recr4eational drug use is a sign of affluence, since this form of testicular cancer strikes many more affluent people for ome reason.
So maybe keeping your wallet in your pocket isn't such a good idea if it's stuffed with cash.

~Bang

[DeanCollins]

Gives new meaning to the phrase "smoking your balls off" :silly:

[Skinz4Life12]

anyone else hate/scared checking themselves down there?

i kindof avoid it i'm so paranoid....which is well...dumb...

[Forehead]

I just want to make sure that everyone here realizes I'm in no way endorsing this one way or the other, I just want to see what kind of discussion there is.

FWIW, I also thought the title should have contained the word "may" but in keeping with the forum rules, I posted exactly what was on Yahoo!

I still think it's an interesting possibility that needs to be researched further. I'd hate it if some of my more "recreational" friends suddenly were unable to have kids.

I'm surprised ACW isn't in this thread yet, but he may be off hating Valentine's Day.;)

[Titaw]

There may be something here, but I note at the end of the article they say that it might just be that recr4eational drug use is a sign of affluence, since this form of testicular cancer strikes many more affluent people for ome reason.
So maybe keeping your wallet in your pocket isn't such a good idea if it's stuffed with cash.

~Bang

So now money causes ball cancer but, cures AIDS? Who'd have thunk it. Look out Magic cancer says "All your Balls are belong to us!"

[Drop]

also remember, people with bizarre first names are more likely to commit crimes. smoking marijuana is a crime. therefore, people with bizarre first names are more likely to smoke marijuana.

if your name is david you probably don't smoke marijuana.

haha, greatest post of all time. Close thread.

[Special K]

When I read the study I knew it was going to get a rise out of militant pot advocates everywhere who continue to thinking the drug is one bazillion percent beneficial and there are no risk factors whatsoever. Posts in this thread have not disappointed, lol.

DROP - This study does not definitively say marijuana causes testicular cancer. This study suggests there may be a LINK between marijuana use and a particular form of cancer...that's why they use relatively ambiguous terms like "may" and "possible" and "link." This study does not suggest the marijuana is a direct cause, but there is a possibility of a link and further studies are necessary to thoroughly examine the matter.

If you want to bury your head in the sand and not pursue any possible detrimental effects of marijuana just because all the pot-smoking people you know are just fine, okay. But don't start going ape**** about studies that suggest links between MJ and certain health problems and recommend further studies.

Clearly there are beneficial effects of marijuana, particularly in regards to decreasing nausea and vomiting and stimulating appetite in chemo patients or stimulating appetite to combat wasting in AIDS patients. Yes. But the fact of the matter is that there has not been a ton of research in regards to this drug and its individual ingredients.

There are known carcinogens in marijuana according to many researchers, so this is not a perfectly safe drug....if you believe otherwise, you are completely deluding yourself. The bottom line of what this study and many other researchers suggest is that MORE research is needed because there is a lot that is still unknown about the drug interactions. I'd say I agree with that, I'm all for thoroughly researching all drugs and their interactions so people have a large knowledge foundation upon which to base their lifestyle decisions.

[Rocky21]

When I read the study I knew it was going to get a rise out of militant pot advocates everywhere who continue to thinking the drug is one bazillion percent beneficial and there are no risk factors whatsoever. Posts in this thread have not disappointed, lol.

DROP - This study does not definitively say marijuana causes testicular cancer. This study suggests there may be a LINK between marijuana use and a particular form of cancer...that's why they use relatively ambiguous terms like "may" and "possible" and "link." This study does not suggest the marijuana is a direct cause, but there is a possibility of a link and further studies are necessary to thoroughly examine the matter.

If you want to bury your head in the sand and not pursue any possible detrimental effects of marijuana just because all the pot-smoking people you know are just fine, okay. But don't start going ape**** about studies that suggest links between MJ and certain health problems and recommend further studies.You sound like a cop. Are you a cop?

[DRSmith]

anyone else hate/scared checking themselves down there?

i kindof avoid it i'm so paranoid....which is well...dumb...

Better to find out before it starts spreading because once it does it will spread fast and go to either the liver or the lungs

[Forehead]

You sound like a cop. Are you a cop?

Tell me Rocky, what exactly are your feelings on cops?;)

[skinsfan_1215]

So, is it the smoking part?

What about using a vaporizer for the THC?

It shouldn't be the smoking part that affects your balls... That makes no sense. It would have to be the THC, or some other substance in the pot...

[Taylor4Life]

When I read the study I knew it was going to get a rise out of militant pot advocates everywhere who continue to thinking the drug is one bazillion percent beneficial and there are no risk factors whatsoever. Posts in this thread have not disappointed, lol.

You know, that's all fine and dandy to suggest that inhaling smoke of ANY form may eventually cause harm to one's body. I don't think that any rational person would deny that.

But the problem is that throughout history, there has always seemed to be some sort of campaign to demonize marijuana in one way or another. Take a peek at Reefer Madness, and keep in mind that it was once a SERIOUS anti-marijuana propaganda piece. It's gotten old and completely ridiculous, and this study isn't even fit for toilet paper.

[Destino]

That link looks like complete BS to me.

[Predicto]

This may or may not be true.

At least they are finally doing some studies instead of just ASSUMING that pot makes you so insane that you stick your head down the kitchen garbage disposal.

I'm all for more studies. From what we definitively know NOW, Pot is less dangerous than tobacco and alcohol, both of which are legal.

[LeftCoast Skinz FAN]

:bsflag:

What is that smell...............

[Bang]

So now money causes ball cancer but, cures AIDS? Who'd have thunk it. Look out Magic cancer says "All your Balls are belong to us!"

It's the greatest catch-22 in history!

~Bang

[Vicious]

Marijuana is not, is not, is not illegal for health reasons.

[BigMike619]

You know, that's all fine and dandy to suggest that inhaling smoke of ANY form may eventually cause harm to one's body. I don't think that any rational person would deny that.

But the problem is that throughout history, there has always seemed to be some sort of campaign to demonize marijuana in one way or another. Take a peek at Reefer Madness, and keep in mind that it was once a SERIOUS anti-marijuana propaganda piece. It's gotten old and completely ridiculous, and this study isn't even fit for toilet paper.

reefer madness was made a long time ago.

didnt they also claim that tape worms were good for losing weight?

I think we all know that your lungs were not meant to inhale smoke like that. I believe that marajuana smoke has more tar/resin on it then a cigarette too. I know that when I used to smoke that when you got to the end of a blunt or joint the resin would be all over your fingers and if thats going in to your lungs then you are pretty much knowingly screwing yourself over.

[Predicto]

reefer madness was made a long time ago.

didnt they also claim that tape worms were good for losing weight?

I think we all know that your lungs were not meant to inhale smoke like that. I believe that marajuana smoke has more tar/resin on it then a cigarette too. I know that when I used to smoke that when you got to the end of a blunt or joint the resin would be all over your fingers and if thats going in to your lungs then you are pretty much knowingly screwing yourself over.

I'm sure it does have more stuff per puff, but not many people have a 2 pack a day marijuana habit either. Even Cheech and Chong would have trouble wth 40 joints a day.

[GibbsFactor]

I'm sure it does have more stuff per puff, but not many people have a 2 pack a day marijuana habit either. Even Cheech and Chong would have trouble wth 40 joints a day.

Apparently, one joint is equal to about 4 cigs of tar.

[Vicious]

what self respecting pot head smokes joints?

[Drop]

When I read the study I knew it was going to get a rise out of militant pot advocates everywhere who continue to thinking the drug is one bazillion percent beneficial and there are no risk factors whatsoever. Posts in this thread have not disappointed, lol.

DROP - This study does not definitively say marijuana causes testicular cancer. This study suggests there may be a LINK between marijuana use and a particular form of cancer...that's why they use relatively ambiguous terms like "may" and "possible" and "link." This study does not suggest the marijuana is a direct cause, but there is a possibility of a link and further studies are necessary to thoroughly examine the matter.

If you want to bury your head in the sand and not pursue any possible detrimental effects of marijuana just because all the pot-smoking people you know are just fine, okay. But don't start going ape**** about studies that suggest links between MJ and certain health problems and recommend further studies.

Clearly there are beneficial effects of marijuana, particularly in regards to decreasing nausea and vomiting and stimulating appetite in chemo patients or stimulating appetite to combat wasting in AIDS patients. Yes. But the fact of the matter is that there has not been a ton of research in regards to this drug and its individual ingredients.

There are known carcinogens in marijuana according to many researchers, so this is not a perfectly safe drug....if you believe otherwise, you are completely deluding yourself. The bottom line of what this study and many other researchers suggest is that MORE research is needed because there is a lot that is still unknown about the drug interactions. I'd say I agree with that, I'm all for thoroughly researching all drugs and their interactions so people have a large knowledge foundation upon which to base their lifestyle decisions.

Known carcinogens in marijuana? lol, please, do tell me what some of those are.......without looking it up on the internet. Since these carcinogens are SO well known, hell you should be able to list about half a dozen of them for me without going to wiki or google or some other website right?

i'm still calling bs. it suggests there MAY be a link, and i'm suggesting maybe the link lies somewhere else.

Please do show me where i said that pot was "one bazillion percent beneficial and there are no risk factors whatsoever" involved with it. You're gonna have a hard time with that seeing as i've never said such a thing. Pot has it's cons just as anything else. Hell, take a look at the Xanax's and Zoloft's of the world, the list of side effects is longer than the list of benefits that the drug may or may not even provide you. The fact of the matter though, is that the CONS do NOT outweigh the Pros of cannabis. Now before you go putting more words in my mouth, i didn't just say that the Pros outweighed the Cons. I simply said the Cons don't outweigh the Pros.

I think perhaps you're mistakening me for some hardcore pot activist or something. I'm not an activist for anything. I AM however, an advocate of using your own brain, using common sense, and properly educating yourself on matters like these since the government won't.

Maybe you should chill out and smoke something. Might enlighten you a little. ;)

[Drop]

and to everyone bringing up the issue of the tar.....go google "Vaporizer". Pot smoking, just like anything else, has come a long way. Use a vape, and the tar arguement is about as valid as an expired coupon.

[GibbsFactor]

what self respecting pot head smokes joints?

Well it's the amount most equal to a cigerrette. So if you're a gravity bong dude, do your own math.

:silly:

[Vicious]

lol math becomes difficult

[Titaw]

Well it's the amount most equal to a cigerrette. So if you're a gravity bong dude, do your own math.

:silly:

A gravity bong uses FAR less weed than a joint. You only need 1-2 hits to feel the effect you would from a joint that is roughly 1/10th ther tar you get out of a joint.

[Special K]

You sound like a cop. Are you a cop?
No, but I stayed at a Holiday Inn last night.

[Koolblue13]

After $800 billion worth of WoD research they came up with a "maybe". Good job. Keep it away from the children so they don't take a hit and run for a needle.

Now, we know grilling foods gives us cancer. When does that become illegal for the better good?

[BigMike619]

Apparently, one joint is equal to about 4 cigs of tar.


I'm sure it does have more stuff per puff, but not many people have a 2 pack a day marijuana habit either. Even Cheech and Chong would have trouble wth 40 joints a day.

Gibbs is right. smoking 5 joints or blunts a day will equal a pack a day. and i knew lots of stoners who could smoke that easily.

[Toe Jam]

Another marijuana thread.

Another reason to hate the human race.

[DButz65]

Another marijuana thread.

Another reason to hate the human race.

You must hate god, because HE put it here on this earth

[MrMarcus1914]

Light me up.

[Toe Jam]

You must hate god, because HE put it here on this earth

No.

I hate the debate.

I hate those who say it can ZERO negative effects.

I hate those who say it causes too many problems.

Personally, I won't do it. But that's my choice. A friend of mine decided to be an idiot and smoke pot while driving one night. Now, whether that had anything to do with the fact they were picking him up piece by piece off the pavement later that same night is unknown. I'll never know for sure.

But I've been high and I don't want to risk it. Call me a wuss, whatever. Doesn't matter to me.

Now.. would I condemn people that do it? Hell no. I'm not a self righteous ass. I just hate the debate because nobody knows what the **** they are really talking about.

[Vicious]

Being under the influence of anything while operating a huge hunk of metal that flies around at 60 miles an hour beside other huge hunks of metal is not a good idea. It's one of those reasons that I can understand until the technology is there to avoid such incidents we need to lower the availability of things like alcohol and drugs.


edit: just to give some stats about 16,000 people in the united states die from just alcohol related crashes. That's about 5 times as many that died on 9/11. We're not even calculating those injured or paralyzed.

[Chachie]

Love it or hate it, it's just like anything else. Too much of anything is bad. Even orange juice or carrots.

The key in life is moderation.

[Special K]

Known carcinogens in marijuana? lol, please, do tell me what some of those are.......without looking it up on the internet. Since these carcinogens are SO well known, hell you should be able to list about half a dozen of them for me without going to wiki or google or some other website right?
You're right, I'll have you look it up. You can start at the American Cancer Society home page. :)



Please do show me where i said that pot was "one bazillion percent beneficial and there are no risk factors whatsoever" involved with it. You're gonna have a hard time with that seeing as i've never said such a thing. Pot has it's cons just as anything else. Hell, take a look at the Xanax's and Zoloft's of the world, the list of side effects is longer than the list of benefits that the drug may or may not even provide you. The fact of the matter though, is that the CONS do NOT outweigh the Pros of cannabis. Now before you go putting more words in my mouth, i didn't just say that the Pros outweighed the Cons. I simply said the Cons don't outweigh the Pros. I will not show you where you talked about pot being "one bazillion percent beneficial" because you did not say that. However, a lot of people I talk to about marijuana, even patients I've dealt with seem to be of this mindset that pot is harmless, that's what I was more referring to...the mindset of various pot smokers I've dealt with.

What I predicted, was that proponents of marijuana would immediately jump on this study and try their best to invalidate it using their own emperical evidence of "people they know who smoke pot and are fine therefore pot is fine". I was right. :)

IMO, people should be open to all research and be open to all medical outcomes of that research, at least as something to think about and mull over...instead of instantly discrediting reports. I'm all for more research and I'm open to all results.

As far as I'm concerned, the current literature does show cigarettes and alcohol to be much larger health concerns in this country than marijuana. But that's not the point. We aren't discussing legality issues here, we're discussing possible health issues stemming from marijuana use. This study doesn't definitively say marijuana is a direct cause of this form of testicular cancer, but it says there could be a link and we should check it out. I think that's a pretty reasonable conclusion.



I AM however, an advocate of using your own brain, using common sense, and properly educating yourself on matters like these since the government won't. Me too...kinda why I went into the field I did.

[DeanCollins]

I just want to make sure that everyone here realizes I'm in no way endorsing this one way or the other, I just want to see what kind of discussion there is.
;)

Phoward, just want to say that I skip over all of your posts and at least the one below yours, to avoid having to look at your psychotic flashing sig, the hurts my eyes. I can't be the only one. Do you really require that much attention. give us a break :doh:

[Vicious]

Well if true the good news is that there is a way to prevent potheads from polluting gene pools in the future


yeah we certainly would not want any more Micheal Phelps' or Barack Obama's running around.

[artmonkforHOF]

I'll take ball cancer over dealing with reality any day.

chances are I'll be too old to even use the boys when I get it, or if I get it sooner, they can lop off one of the boys and I can be like Lance Armstrong-less wind resistance while biking and I can win like 12 tour de France's.

Or if both have to go, then I'll be shooting blanks, get to take steroids & testosterone legally. So I won't need a condom and probably improve my physique since I will have all this extra synthetic testosterone in me.

Is this news suppose to scare me out of smoking or make me roll another one?

[VASkins540]

yeah we certainly would not want any more Micheal Phelps' or Barack Obama's running around.

Or any number of musicians, artists, writers, actors/actresses, comedians...

[Toe Jam]

yeah we certainly would not want any more micheal phelps' or barack obama's running around.

:ols:

[Forehead]

Phoward, just want to say that I skip over all of your posts and at least the one below yours, to avoid having to look at your psychotic flashing sig, the hurts my eyes. I can't be the only one. Do you really require that much attention. give us a break :doh:

Okay, that had plenty to do with the discussion. Kind of shoots your whole complaint in the foot when you're quoting my post, obviously you read it. My sigs usually have to do with things from my childhood or young adult years. In the past, I've had sigs from Star Control 2, from Ren and Stimpy, etc.

It really has nothing to do with attention, but if I happen to put up something new at work, I have a few parameters I have to work within.

1. Many pictures are blocked by work filters.
2. I don't know how to resize pictures, so I have to use whatever is within forum guidelines and less than 200 high.

And who could possibly dislike Mike Tyson's Punch Out?

In short, you can eat me.:finger:


Now back to the discussion of whether pot causes cancer.

[Special K]

I'll take ball cancer over dealing with reality any day. Lol :cheers:

[Prosperity]

Well if true the good news is that there is a way to prevent potheads from polluting gene pools in the future

it's been used for thousands of years

and will continue to be

[rincewind]

I like the word 'linked'. Its like the played 6 degrees of seperation with pot and ball cancer.

[Drop]

just hate the debate because nobody knows what the **** they are really talking about.

Why do you think nobody knows what they're talking about? There have been scientific studies done that have proven plenty of things about marijuana. That it causes cancer of any form though, is not one of them. Sounds like the debate itself just annoys you TJ.





Love it or hate it, it's just like anything else. Too much of anything is bad. Even orange juice or carrots.

The key in life is moderation.

Good point, good post. :applause:





Well if true the good news is that there is a way to prevent potheads from polluting gene pools in the future

lol, this is an ignorant post. At least i hope it's ignorance and not stupidity. Polluting gene pools? Hoping pot gives people cancer so they can't reproduce? You have issues.

[AsburySkinsFan]

What exactly is your point?

The last part of the sentence is null and void because the first part is complete bs. i didn't quote the whole thing, because the last part of the sentence is based off of innacurate tests and studies. So the guy found a link, big deal! Who's to say the link isn't due to something OTHER than marijuana? Just because marijuana use has gone up, and cancer has risen, that means their's a definitive link between the two? How about the jackass who conducted the study, consider other things may be at work besides just the marijuana. He's drawing a PRETTY large conclusion without stopping to think what else could be at work here.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that the research scientist who did the study never imagined that there might be other factors, and probably never would have done anything to try and eliminate those from contaminating the sampling. You had better write him and inform him of those things that are taught in high school science classes.:rolleyes:

What's more is that the first sentence that you quoted is called an hypothesis, that is used by research scientists and 6th grade students everywhere to find out if their initial thoughts are accurate.

[ACW]

I call :bsflag:
Besides, what is this marAjuana? :D

[Mufumonk]

Well if true the good news is that there is a way to prevent potheads from polluting gene pools in the future

I feel somewhat inspired to make a deposit at the local sperm bank.

[Dictator]

i find it funny that when a study comes out saying something...anything bad about pot, a lot of the same people here dismiss it. They'll call it propoganda, or government bias. But if a study is released that says something good, then it becomes the gospel.

[Drop]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that the research scientist who did the study never imagined that there might be other factors, and probably never would have done anything to try and eliminate those from contaminating the sampling. You had better write him and inform him of those things that are taught in high school science classes.:rolleyes:

What's more is that the first sentence that you quoted is called an hypothesis, that is used by research scientists and 6th grade students everywhere to find out if their initial thoughts are accurate.

Did the scientist specifically say he made sure to exclude those other factors? No, he didn't. So i'm glad that you're so sure that he eliminated those when conducting his research. I'm not sold, and if i were to put money on it, i'd bet he didn't take anything into account other than the fact that the people he studied smoked marijuana.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Did the scientist specifically say he made sure to exclude those other factors? No, he didn't. So i'm glad that you're so sure that he eliminated those when conducting his research. I'm not sold, and if i were to put money on it, i'd bet he didn't take anything into account other than the fact that the people he studied smoked marijuana.

Did you read his paper on this or an article written about it?

[Drop]

Did you read his paper on this or an article written about it?

I read the article that was posted, and that was it. I've read enough of these "studys" over the years to know that researchers RARELY test people who's sole substance of use is marijuana.

There just aren't that many people out there who smoke weed, but don't drink alcohol, take prescription meds, smoke cigarettes, or dibble dabble in other substances.

[Koolblue13]

Did you read his paper on this or an article written about it?

I think the reason pot defenders get so up and arms and dismiss these types of reports is because they are usually long shots and reaches, designed to smear the name of pot, rather than prove it very harmful.

For example, look at the negative research against pot, compared to the research against Mercury.

Pot is illegal because of misinformation more than anything. Mercury is a known killer, yet because of it's presence in Vaccines and now CFL's (that are now going to be mandatory, as regular lightbulbs are made illegal), it has now been deemed safe by the FDA.

Real problem, without the major smear campaign, gets over looked and nobody cares. Minor problem, with major bad advertising, people care.

[elkabong82]

the number of people who have eaten McDonald's has risen over the past 40 years as well, so maybe McDonald's is causing testicular cancer. Gas prices keep rising as the number of testicular cases rise also, so it seems "logical" there might be a correlation there, lol.

I can't believe that because testicular cancer and marijuana usage have both risen over the past several decades that an actual scientist thinks its logical to investigate the 2. There's more here than meets the eyes, and I'd like to know who this researcher's funder is and what other motivations there might be.

[elkabong82]

I think the reason pot defenders get so up and arms and dismiss these types of reports is because they are usually long shots and reaches, designed to smear the name of pot, rather than prove it very harmful.

For example, look at the negative research against pot, compared to the research against Mercury.

Pot is illegal because of misinformation more than anything. Mercury is a known killer, yet because of it's presence in Vaccines and now CFL's (that are now going to be mandatory, as regular lightbulbs are made illegal), it has now been deemed safe by the FDA.

Real problem, without the major smear campaign, gets over looked and nobody cares. Minor problem, with major bad advertising, people care.

Good points. You are absolutely right about the misinformation. I remember when mercury was found in fish, and everyone freaked out. But now because someone can make a buck, mercury is ok. There was a time when they had begun to stop putting mercury even in thermometers. Yet pot, which has never directly killed anyone, is this evil drug that's got the highest class rating for a drug you can get, which bans most studies of it in the US, and basically means in the government's eyes alcohol is better for you than pot, which is total BS.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I read the article that was posted, and that was it. I've read enough of these "studys" over the years to know that researchers RARELY test people who's sole substance of use is marijuana.

So what you're saying is that based on an article you are able to confidently dismiss this guy's research that you yourself have not seen nor read, nor understood his methodology? Sooo, with that you are asking for empirical evidence and then not bothering to study the empirical evidence from a study whose conclusion disagrees with your own preconceived notion.

Which actual studies have you read? Please provide links. Keeping in mind that none of those give any bearing to this study unless they were done in the same manner, which you are unable to speak intelligently about because you haven't studied his research to see if the conclusions that he reached are indeed valid.

And people give me crap about me faith lacking objectivity.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I think the reason pot defenders get so up and arms and dismiss these types of reports is because they are usually long shots and reaches, designed to smear the name of pot, rather than prove it very harmful.

And yet by their own admission they haven't even read the research.

IMO, it would be much more honest to just say, "Ok, that's what this guy found, I don't care I'm still gonna smoke my ganja."

[Predicto]

yeah we certainly would not want any more Micheal Phelps' or Barack Obama's running around.

Or 90 percent of the Class of 1980 at rich, suburban McLean High School.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Or 90 percent of the Class of 1980 at rich, suburban McLean High School.

That's where my mother and father both graduated from, albeit a tad earlier than 1980.

[DeanCollins]

Or 90 percent of the Class of 1980 at rich, suburban McLean High School.

I think you're reffering to Langely, Mclean = not as rich :laugh:

[Forehead]

Or 90 percent of the Class of 1980 at rich, suburban McLean High School.

Predicto, why are you throwing our alma mater under the bus like that? We didn't all smoke weed;)


I think you're refering to Langely, Mclean = not as rich :laugh:

Well, this is true. It takes a lot to make a place like McLean look poor, but Langley manages the trick. Is that where you went to school?

[BigMike619]

Or 90 percent of the Class of 1980 at rich, suburban McLean High School.

picture this..I went to High Point High School in Beltsville.

yeah, you can imagine I tried to live up to the school's name :cheers:

[Drop]

So what you're saying is that based on an article you are able to confidently dismiss this guy's research that you yourself have not seen nor read, nor understood his methodology? Sooo, with that you are asking for empirical evidence and then not bothering to study the empirical evidence from a study whose conclusion disagrees with your own preconceived notion.

So are you telling me that you HAVE in fact DEEPLY educated yourself in the research contained within this, and other studies about marijuana and it's relevance as far as health is concerned? Because if you haven't, then i don't think you should be pointing fingers at people who have read more research on the topic than you probably know exists. This one, flimsy study, is no different than others that i come across ALL the time which loosely base claims that marijuana MAY do this, or it MAY cause that. When someone finds some godamn concrete evidence about what marijuana does to your body negatively through a study that isn't flawed, then i'll start recognizing the substance of the research. You can stand on your high horse and cry about "empirical evidence" all you want. I don't care what this guy observed until he shows me somewhere that he 100%, without a doubt ONLY studied individuals whose ONLY substance of use is marijuana. He won't be disclosing that information though, because uh, i'm willing to bet ya it's untrue. So please, since you're a know-it-all.....link me to where this researcher promises me that this study was conducted on those who smoke only marijuana, and put NO other substances into their bodies. BETCHA CAN'T DO IT.




Which actual studies have you read? Please provide links. Keeping in mind that none of those give any bearing to this study unless they were done in the same manner, which you are unable to speak intelligently about because you haven't studied his research to see if the conclusions that he reached are indeed valid.

And people give me crap about me faith lacking objectivity.


You only need to see so many of these studies before you can call bs with your eyes closed. Your so hung up on the fact that i haven't looked more deeply into this guys research. Wann know something? If he disclosed all the information that he should of, i wouldn't HAVE to delve any deeper to find if this guys study was legit or not, because he would have readily disclosed that information.

So, you want links to studies? Knock yourself out genius. :cool:

http://blog.norml.org/2008/09/12/over-17000-cannabis-related-studies-who-knew/ --- Over 17,000 official studies done concerning cannabis. told ya there were more than you had any idea existed. :rolleyes:

http://www.nida.nih.gov/infofacts/marijuana.html

http://news.illinois.edu/news/04/0608oralcancer.html

http://www.peak.sfu.ca/the-peak/2005-3/issue9/ne-mj.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html

http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=3475

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080205161239.htm

http://paranoia.lycaeum.org/marijuana/facts/mj-health-mythology.html

those are just a few studies from recent years. some of that stuff is pretty accurate, some of it's bs. some of it's half accurate and half bs. Since you know so much about marijuana, you should be able to decipher what is what right off the bat huh?

[AsburySkinsFan]

So are you telling me that you HAVE in fact DEEPLY educated yourself in the research contained within this, and other studies about marijuana and it's relevance as far as health is concerned?

LOL, you seem to think that I'm the one discounting the research done here when in fact it is you, as such the onus is on you to disprove the research not me. I never once advocated for or against, however you seem assured that you can dismiss this guy's research without having ever actually seen his research. So, please do yourself a favor and build you strawman on someone else's lawn.

*edit
I also find it funny that you never indicated which one's you've actually read, and whether or not you have the training to decide whether or not the research in those studies is valid or if you're just taking the word of some ganja advocate from a website.

*edit part deux
What's more is your notion of 100% is simply childish, name me one thing that you can prove with 100% certainty, find me one study that shows with 100% certainty that ganja is safe and doesn't cause testicular cancer. Oh wait you will only accept that kind of standard for those who oppose your drug of choice but you don't hold yourself to that same standard. tsk tsk.

[SkinzFoLife]

so, from "One Nut Wonder" to "One Nut Stoner"

[DeanCollins]

Predicto, why are you throwing our alma mater under the bus like that? We didn't all smoke weed;)



Well, this is true. It takes a lot to make a place like McLean look poor, but Langley manages the trick. Is that where you went to school?

No, but my neiborhood Chain Bridge forrest (north Arlington) bordered both McLean and Langley. I had friends in both schools. I spent most of my school years in Georgetown. In grade school RFK jr. was in my classes several years and JFK jr. was down the hall.

[Mooka]

i'm calling MAJOR bs. I have yet to see one weed smoker die from cancer. Any type of cancer. If they do, it's because they smoke cigarettes too, and tend to get lung cancer. I'm calling major BS that you know the first thing about diagnosing cancer.