home
RSS
Marijuana use may raise risk of testicular cancer
Marijuana use may be associated with testicular cancer in young men, a new study finds.
September 10th, 2012
03:39 PM ET

Marijuana use may raise risk of testicular cancer

Marijuana may double the risk of testicular cancer among young men, particularly tumors that are more severe, according to a new study published in the American Cancer Society's journal, Cancer.

"This is a very consistent finding now that marijuana seems to be associated with the worst kind of testis cancer that occurs in young men ... (it) may well be causal," said study author Victoria Cortessis, an assistant professor of preventive medicine at the University of Southern California's Keck School of Medicine in Los Angeles.

Two previous studies in 2009 and 2010 found similar associations.

According to the National Cancer Institute, testicular cancer occurs most commonly in young or middle-aged men. Of the 8,590 new cases estimated in the United States this year, about 360 men will die. The cause of most cases is unknown, according to the American Cancer Society.

The rates of testicular cancer in men are increasing– as much as doubling every 20 to 30 years, Cortessis said. At the same time, marijuana use has increased, often in young males.

"It may be that marijuana use is actually interfering with hormonal signaling in a way that disturbs function of the testis," she said. "That's a possibility - that's something that we can now formulate specific hypotheses about and try to understand."

In the study, researchers examined the self-reported history of recreational drug use among 163 men who had testicular cancer. All were between the ages of 18 and 35 when diagnosed in Los Angeles County between 1986 and 1991.

Researchers asked questions about their family history of cancer and their own use of various drugs, including if they had ever used them and, if so, the years they did so and the average number of times per week of use.

They compared these histories to that of 292 healthy men of the same age, race and ethnicity.

"We saw a pattern of dose response that we didn't expect," Cortessis said. Men who reported long-term usage of marijuana did not face greater risk, she said. The findings suggest "early experimental use," which would be short-term, may trigger increased cancer risk.

"But that is speculation, and something we're going to look into with data in the future," she said.

"... That certainly seems plausible because we know that hormonal signaling governs a great deal of the sexual development of the testis," she added. "It may be that guys who, when they're still pretty young, going through puberty, if they are experimenting with marijuana, it may be that that is the most harmful period when this could happen, but that's only one possible interpretation of those data."

The findings suggest that the possible effects be taken into consideration both in personal decisions regarding recreational drug use, in addition to times when marijuana and its derivatives are being considered as medicinal treatment for young males.


soundoff (394 Responses)
  1. Stopthemadness

    This article and all the findings submitted with in are fraudulant put forth by big pharma and federal drug agencies. As it has been proven in europe less than 5 years ago to reduce risk of all forms of cancer. So while the sheep bleet and follow remember this is basically to justify the Massive spending we are doing on this fake war on drugs.

    September 10, 2012 at 19:19 | Report abuse | Reply
    • MrBo

      Given that not all forms of cancer are even understood, I find it questionable that anyone can ever assert that any particular substance can categorically reduce chances of reducing all types of cancer.

      September 10, 2012 at 19:26 | Report abuse |
    • Cap'n Bob

      I agree with most of the posters. I'm a healthy 65 year old male who started smoking pot in the late 60s. There has not been many days when I did not smoke in the last 45 years. I just today had a complete physical, and show no adverse affects from smokin. Although, I must admit, I did not check the box on the form or tell my physician that I do (let em wonder). Think how much tax payer dollars could be saved if they/us/"We The People", legalized pot. I successfully completed a 40 year career and retired, and still enjoy a good smoke.
      Cap'n Bob

      September 10, 2012 at 19:34 | Report abuse |
    • Firewalker

      MrBo clearly hasn't fact checked the medical journals in all countries not America... which is a lot. Why would big pharm not just make a synthetic? Because they would have to admit the merits of cannabis out way the dangers and ie void the validity of the war on cannabis. The federal Government used to collect tax revenue on cannabis until W.R. Hurst wanted a monopoly on paper from wood product instead of from hemp sources. It never had anything to do with health or crime.

      September 10, 2012 at 20:01 | Report abuse |
    • jggm

      What a big fat lie! Idiots, marijuana does not cause cancer, marijuana cures cancer!

      September 10, 2012 at 20:25 | Report abuse |
    • sam stone

      Cap'N: I just sparked one up to toast you.

      September 11, 2012 at 05:23 | Report abuse |
    • jesus

      hey hey hey.

      smoke weed, every day.

      September 11, 2012 at 08:06 | Report abuse |
    • whtswrngwths

      Saaaaay nooooo to medical pot is all that article says. It also says the cause of cancer is unknown. In same page its trying to convince you using cannabis will cause cancer of the balls. The study was a self report study. They did not produce any results in a lab. They probably gave the healthy subjects different questions/tests. Its whats known as flawed science...when they are out to prove something or confirm a hypothesis. Be careful what you read an believe. Cannabinoids are non carcinogenic.

      September 11, 2012 at 08:37 | Report abuse |
    • Jimmy

      I got testicular cancer diagnosis 12-23-2010. I have a history of asthma and never smoked anything, ever. I hate articles like that that imply that the ill person may somehow be to blame. In addition, I feel for grieving parents of sons who have died from TC who may think to themselves, "did my son smoke pot and could I have stopped it?"

      September 11, 2012 at 09:11 | Report abuse |
    • whorhay

      You all need to chill out. This study found that the risk doubled, but they specifically said it might not be causal. That is to say that the pot may not actually be what doubles the incidence of testicular cancer. It could be that smoking pot and hence lowering one's inhibitions leads to some other behaviour that actually raises the risk.

      And all that said doubling your risk sounds big but is negligible in reality. They predict what, 8600 new cases this year out of a male population of say 150 million? That means that if your chances for developing it stayed the same for 80 years you'd have a 1 in 218 chance, very roughly speaking, of ever having testicular cancer. Even then what are the odds it'll be malignant. So if you currently have less than a 0.5% chance of being diagnosed in your lifetime and your chances double, you still have a less than a 1% chance. That is so negligible that unless you are one of those people who is seriously intimate friends with thousands of pot users and non-users you'd never see it evidenced in your personal life.

      September 11, 2012 at 09:36 | Report abuse |
  2. robert

    This just in,Being Alive increases your chance of Cancer!

    September 10, 2012 at 19:20 | Report abuse | Reply
  3. Anon

    I've been smoking pot for over 30 years (since the age of 11) and had no problems related to it. This is simply FUD sponsored by those who want to stop the legalization of a miracle substance. It has the potential to bankrupt the drug companies so the medical people are being told to make it look bad.

    September 10, 2012 at 19:26 | Report abuse | Reply
    • MrBo

      Why would marihuana bankrupt the pharma companies? They'd just come out with their own branded pot products..

      BTW, just because you haven't had testicular cancer yourself doesn't disprove claims that it may increase the chance of testicular cancer. You are only one data point, and do not represent 100% of the people.

      September 10, 2012 at 19:29 | Report abuse |
    • Mark

      I've been running across the highway for years and haven't been hit, yet!

      September 11, 2012 at 00:20 | Report abuse |
    • jesus

      they already did, mrbo. MARINOL

      marijuana is a huge threat to the lumber industry as well as big pharma.

      September 11, 2012 at 08:07 | Report abuse |
    • SorryScientists

      Mark, you made me chuckle, but that's a stupid analogy.

      September 11, 2012 at 08:13 | Report abuse |
    • whtswrngwths

      Its a form of science thats flawed. They want x y an z facts. So they try to prove them through a study. Which, they did not do a lab study, just a questionnaire on about 400 people.

      September 11, 2012 at 08:39 | Report abuse |
    • Hugh Jass

      You could take the same group of men and collect evidence that Cheetos increase the risk. All they really have to say is that men who live a certain lifestyle are more at-risk for a certain type of cancer.

      September 11, 2012 at 11:49 | Report abuse |
  4. chazzz

    ..just another on the negative laundry list about marihuana...Just one Question now: How many people have died from an overdose of marihuana in history...the answer is NONE !!

    September 10, 2012 at 19:29 | Report abuse | Reply
    • NEUengineer

      How many people have died from an overdose of cigarette smoke?

      How many people die yearly from heart disease, the leading cause of death in the United States?

      Next time, think before you speak.

      September 10, 2012 at 21:55 | Report abuse |
    • SorryScientists

      Talk about thinking before you speak there "engineer". How many people who just smoke pot have died from any of those diseases you mentioned? That's right.....none, zero, nada, the big goose egg, etc., etc.

      September 11, 2012 at 08:15 | Report abuse |
    • bfpiercelk

      Hah, asking an Engineer to think before they speak, now THAT's a good one.

      September 11, 2012 at 09:01 | Report abuse |
    • Hugh Jass

      Chazz, hashish has been known to kill people. Just eat a great big piece of it . . . bhang can be toxic too.

      September 11, 2012 at 11:54 | Report abuse |
    • Hugh Jass

      SS, that dawg won't hunt. There are 'primary' cases of all these diseases, caused by nothing discernible. I'm sure plenty of weed-only health freaks have gotten cancer and heart trouble, just not in huge and statistically-relevant numbers. It's almost the same as zero, but not quite.

      September 11, 2012 at 12:29 | Report abuse |
  5. tateman

    It this were true, it probably would be from the pesticides that are used in Latin and Central America and Mexico. They use tons of pesticides on marijuana crops. If you smoke marijuana make sure you know where its from. Buying foreign grown marijuana supports drug cartels and mayhem.

    September 10, 2012 at 19:30 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Donald Thomas

      Aloha,
      Excellent point. By now ALL Rastafarians should be impotent if not dead, if these "studies" had any real merit. All medical evidence should be respected but unless you can extract all toxic exposure out of a person life, to say it's the pot is just bad science

      September 10, 2012 at 19:56 | Report abuse |
    • Curious

      I bet you are right. The pesticides used are particularly carcinogenic to males. They effeminize male fish, amphibians and other wildlife, which makes them less fertile. This of course could be the reason why some marijuana studies have been linked to infertility and others have not. Who knows what kinds of pesticides are used!

      September 10, 2012 at 21:52 | Report abuse |
  6. Naters

    I don't understand why the pro-marijuana people are so opposed to this article. Early "experimentation" of any controlled substance should not occur. Nothing beneficial comes from a teenager trying any substance which removes the control of a bodily function by means of chemical alteration to their brain or body (weed, alcohol, steroids, or anything else). Even the marijuana legalization efforts want to make marijuana use similar to alcohol use. A person has nothing to gain from uneducated teen marijuana use, only potential downfalls. Why not wait to use it as an adult? That is what the article is saying. Not the supporting of evil pharmaceutical companies who will lose everything if everyone smoked pot.

    September 10, 2012 at 19:37 | Report abuse | Reply
    • tateman

      Your point is well taken. A brain is not fully formed until at least 18 years old. The side effects of any drug are multiplied and possibly very negative on a young brain.

      September 10, 2012 at 20:08 | Report abuse |
    • Aezel

      People are opposed because it is bad science. In the end what is suggested here may be true, but you absolutely CAN NOT reach the conclusions they are endorsing here. USC should be embarrassed to have their name attached to this woman.

      September 10, 2012 at 23:29 | Report abuse |
    • bfpiercelk

      The problem is the study (like most study's you hear reported in the news these days) is terribly short on data, and massively high on supposition.

      As a scientist myself, I'm appalled this person would even give a quote to the media on this until they've actually finished analyzing the hypothesis.

      I mean she actually goes out to say 'this may very well be causal" with barely a shred to back that up with.

      Those of us who are pro want facts about it, not wild hypothesis.

      September 11, 2012 at 08:59 | Report abuse |
    • Hugh Jass

      "Why not wait to use it as an adult? That is what the article is saying. " Their study shows no harm from long-term use, just from one or two uses, which is another clue to there being no causal link. Next, a five-year study of a much larger group? or just take the money and smile and set about proving that Pepsi© causes more cancer than Coke©, or vice-versa depending on who pays.

      September 11, 2012 at 11:59 | Report abuse |
  7. StupidGovernment

    Just more government BS to justify their failed war on drugs. I don't smoke pot and don't plan on it but there are worse things out there. Government needs to get out of everyone's lives and do their job. Pass a budget or something.

    September 10, 2012 at 19:42 | Report abuse | Reply
  8. ChurnTheNews

    What a pantload, marijuana has been shown to be effective in battling all types of cancer, more BS brought to you by the real death merchants, big PHARM!

    September 10, 2012 at 20:06 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Hugh Jass

      "effective in battling all types of cancer" No way. It's good for chemo side effects but don't count on it as a cure.

      September 11, 2012 at 12:22 | Report abuse |
  9. warytraveler

    Oh no! Guess I should switch to booze and cigarettes.

    September 10, 2012 at 20:07 | Report abuse | Reply
  10. cpc65

    Ha Ha Ha. Stoners gonna lose their b*lls!

    September 10, 2012 at 20:07 | Report abuse | Reply
    • NEUengineer

      Doing their part to help raise the national I.Q. – taking themselves out of the gene pool. Darwin would be proud.

      September 10, 2012 at 21:58 | Report abuse |
    • Hugh Jass

      Yeah, you guys hold your breath waiting for that to happen. Maybe you'd finally get laid, eh?

      September 11, 2012 at 12:21 | Report abuse |
  11. Wow

    Victoria K. Cortessis, Ph.D. More Sharing ServicesShare | Share on facebookShare on emailShare on favoritesShare on print

    Research performed at: USC Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center
    Specialty/Research Area: Pediatric Urology
    Award Year: 1999

    Career Summary: Dr. Cortessis is Assistant Professor of Research at USC Keck School of Medicine. She received her Ph.D. from UCLA in 1993.

    Year STOP CANCER Award was received: 1999 Seed Grant

    Details of research performed with funding from Stop Cancer: Dr. Cortessis is researching urinary bladder and colorectal tumors in children and adults.

    Results of research: Dr. Cortessis has conducted case-control studies in which histories of diseased patients are tracked and compared statistically with those of a control group without the disease. She has examined risk factors such as genetic inheritance, meat and water intake, and alcohol consumption.

    September 10, 2012 at 20:08 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Hugh Jass

      I'm sure she's sincere, but I'd like to know who financed the study. Generally this money comes from grants.

      September 11, 2012 at 12:24 | Report abuse |
  12. Jason

    Really? Cause my balls seems to be doing just fine.

    September 10, 2012 at 20:09 | Report abuse | Reply
    • NEUengineer

      That's like saying it's safe for everybody to consume tons of sugar on a daily basis just because it doesn't give you type II diabetes.

      September 10, 2012 at 22:00 | Report abuse |
    • easye123

      @NUEngineer, moderation my friend... moderation. No one is talking tons of anything here.

      September 10, 2012 at 22:09 | Report abuse |
  13. Weird Science

    Prestigious medical universities (Harvard, Sloan Kettering) and 1000's of double-blind research experiments and a US PATENT US6630507_Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants ALL prove that Cannabis, particularly the cannabidoil elements of the plant are effective in treating a wide variety of illnesses from Parkinson's, Stroke and yes many forms of Cancer.

    http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=0pcNAAAAEBAJ&dq=6630507

    Patent Abstract:
    Cannabinoids have been found to have antioxidant properties, unrelated to NMDA receptor antagonism. This new found property makes cannabinoids useful in the treatment and prophylaxis of wide variety of oxidation associated diseases, such as ischemic, age-related, inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. The cannabinoids are found to have particular application as neuroprotectants, for example in limiting neurological damage following ischemic insults, such as stroke and trauma, or in the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease and HIV dementia. Nonpsychoactive cannabinoids, such as cannabidoil, are particularly advantageous to use because they avoid toxicity that is encountered with psychoactive cannabinoids at high doses useful in the method of the present invention.

    September 10, 2012 at 20:28 | Report abuse | Reply
  14. Bjorn

    Just a Minute!

    The Government and Department of Health and Human Services hold a Patent on ...... Marijuana.

    What! What about all those people, nearly 750,000 every year they arrest for using Cannabis.

    Isn't that a little DOUBLE MINDED? End the insanity and take Cannabis off Schedule 1.

    ..... Better yet end the $100Billion per year war on drugs.

    September 10, 2012 at 20:36 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Kris

      They can't hold a patent on it because it is a plant that grows in the ground and a naturally occurring substance. That's one of the reasons why it is still illegal. They can't make any money off of it because people could just grow their own.

      September 11, 2012 at 09:53 | Report abuse |
  15. Carol

    If it was not for a grant she would not have written this trash. Her job is about writing grants. She is not a MD or even a
    "proven" medical scientist. Google her.

    September 10, 2012 at 20:37 | Report abuse | Reply
  16. mistamista

    We all have to go one way or another. Pick your poison and get busy living, or get busy dying...but it's of NO significance either way. You will still die///why not live a little?

    September 10, 2012 at 20:37 | Report abuse | Reply
  17. Epidemiologist

    As an Epidemiologist, I'm ashamed that this would even be printed on CNN. The type of study cited here, a case-control study, is by far the worst of all studies in determining causality. It's very irresponsible for this doctor to talk causality when you're asking for recall associated with recreational drug use 30-35 years ago. There are too many technical issues here to even was time refuting, but one of the major one's is recall bias, where individuals who have gone through a traumatic event (such as cancer) are more likely to recall their past history. I won't even get into the issues of sample size and power. Besides that, the statement that increases in testicular cancer and increases in marijuana use in society have any correlation is a joke. There has also been an increase in a million different chemicals in the past 20 – 30 years that can cause doubling in the testicular cancer rate. It's studies like this that give a bad name to my field, and I'm ashamed that this is front page news on CNN. If the author would have said, "this is an interesting finding and one that needs to be looked at in a longitudinal study of testicular cancer in men" that would be appropriate. But to claim possible causality is foolish, irresponsible, and reckless.

    September 10, 2012 at 20:38 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Karl

      Thanks so much for weighing in–I wish they'd only let people with a background in epidemiology or statistics write these articles.

      September 10, 2012 at 21:02 | Report abuse |
    • Aezel

      That's because Victoria Cortessis is a hack. Go read her bio. I wouldn't even take her on as a post-doc worker in a lab environment.

      September 10, 2012 at 21:16 | Report abuse |
    • PhD candidate

      Furthermore, their "control" (non-cancer) size is 2x more than their experimental size (cancer). In regression analyses, having a larger sample size increases the likelihood of seeing no correlation (hence, no correlation in the control group), and accordingly, having a narrower sample size increases the likelihood of seeing a correlation (hence, correlation in the experimental group). Not to mention that an ODDs ratio is different than probability.

      September 10, 2012 at 21:29 | Report abuse |
  18. omdmp

    Having testicles raises the risk of testicular cancer.

    Everything in this world causes cancer. Guess what, we start dying the minute we're born. Gonna be something, nobody lives forever. Gonna roll a fatty once I get home for sure...may die of nut cancer but at lease I've had fun.

    September 10, 2012 at 20:50 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Steve

      Puppies cause cancer?

      September 11, 2012 at 00:27 | Report abuse |
  19. bananaspy

    Been smoking almost daily for 6 years now, and my nuts are great.

    September 10, 2012 at 20:54 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Task Master

      If this is true pot should be legalized. This could be an easy way to stop these dopers from producing another crop of deadbeat dopers.

      September 10, 2012 at 21:45 | Report abuse |
    • easye123

      @Task Master, not true. I've been hitting the bong since high school. Now I'm 41, have a master's degree, and 3 kids: one a petroleum engineer major at LSU, and the other 2 off to other good things.

      I'd be willing to bet money that you're a loser in life though 😛

      September 10, 2012 at 22:04 | Report abuse |
    • brian

      Hey taskmaster .How is your burger flipping going ? I have smoked pot since i was a teenager now im in my late 30's . I have produced 4 wonderful children in the past 12 years who are all damn near straight A students . Get off the internet and go back to your mcjob , i would hate to have to payfor your unemployment .

      September 11, 2012 at 09:22 | Report abuse |
  20. Aezel

    What a bunch of complete and utter bulls***. In no possible way can a passive self-reporting survey like this be used to reach such over-reaching conclusions.

    This is BAD science, and an embarrassment to the research community. If one of my graduate students submitted this and tried to draw these conclusions they would fail their defense of the paper.

    September 10, 2012 at 21:08 | Report abuse | Reply
  21. Those arent real

    Nothing in that study actually proves any correlation. Actually given that long term use didn't increase risk it seems to suggest that pot is not the cause. It still could be but it probably isnt.

    September 10, 2012 at 21:10 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Bob

      Right – you notice how many times the word "may" appears in the article?

      September 10, 2012 at 21:57 | Report abuse |
  22. jobi

    What about the pesticides They put into Our food Chain ?, the Fluroide in Water ?, really........The Goverment \ Studies are Fradulent. another way to keep from Legalizing it and getting Us Outta of Debt !!!!!

    September 10, 2012 at 21:28 | Report abuse | Reply
  23. mike

    It better not.

    September 10, 2012 at 21:30 | Report abuse | Reply
  24. Dave

    Is that what the say "Smoke till your balls falls off"?

    September 10, 2012 at 21:30 | Report abuse | Reply
  25. PhD candidate

    Their "control" (non-cancer) size is 2x more than their experimental size (cancer). In regression analyses, having a larger sample size increases the likelihood of seeing no correlation (hence, no correlation in the control group), and accordingly, having a narrower sample size increases the likelihood of seeing a correlation (hence, correlation in the experimental group). Not to mention that an ODDs ratio is different than probability.

    September 10, 2012 at 21:34 | Report abuse | Reply
  26. Syd

    Of course it's not ALL GOOD, it's smoke. Still no reason to outlaw it and still no worse for you than a thousand brands of booze.

    September 10, 2012 at 21:37 | Report abuse | Reply
  27. Adevilson

    That's not what I learned watching South Park!!!

    September 10, 2012 at 21:45 | Report abuse | Reply
  28. ManTex

    Perhaps it is not the pot but the increased forn i cation

    September 10, 2012 at 21:47 | Report abuse | Reply
  29. Bob

    "Smoke pot and your nuts may fall off" – is this really how desperate the "war on drugs" has become???

    September 10, 2012 at 21:56 | Report abuse | Reply
  30. bryce

    Yet another hysterical, over the top article by the wanna be important Jewish princess, Cohen. PATHETIC !!!

    September 10, 2012 at 22:10 | Report abuse | Reply
  31. Hooligan

    That's strange... since my friend who SURVIVED Testicular cancer was given a doctors order during his chemo treatment to smoke it.

    I am not buying this for a second.

    September 10, 2012 at 22:19 | Report abuse | Reply
  32. plenty

    Sounds like Bill Bennett BS

    September 10, 2012 at 22:23 | Report abuse | Reply
  33. infonomics

    Hey dude, you're not suppose to smoke it with your .... Capice?

    September 10, 2012 at 22:24 | Report abuse | Reply
  34. Orso

    I know many other things that can cause your nuts to fall off...

    Jealous ex girlfriends
    5 year old Nephews running head first into your crotch area
    baseball accidents
    Lorena Bobbit
    etc.

    Should all of the above be banned?

    September 10, 2012 at 22:55 | Report abuse | Reply
    • brian

      Yeah ban 5 year olds !! Them suckers are dangerous to ballsacks EVERYWHERE !!

      September 11, 2012 at 09:25 | Report abuse |
  35. CNN your a joke

    What is with this propaganda against marijuana lately? I may just stop coming on here for news. You people are running out of ideas to write about. How about an article with job postings rather than this stupid trash of a posting??

    September 10, 2012 at 23:08 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Steve

      If you can't find job postings on the internet you must be high.

      September 11, 2012 at 00:26 | Report abuse |
  36. Mark

    Wait, if I get testicular cancer from pot can I smoke pot because I have cancer now? Like a stoner mobius strip.

    September 11, 2012 at 00:25 | Report abuse | Reply
  37. jimbo

    Oh no, your going to make all the pot head 1osers mad saying bad things about their wonder drug that lets them function in life because they are too pathetic to do so without chemicals.

    September 11, 2012 at 08:06 | Report abuse | Reply
    • SorryScientists

      says a guy named Jimbo. I don't think it would be a far cry to believe that you drink alcohol right? Pot is a naturally growing plant. Yes there are "chemicals" that give it's effect when used, but if you're going to make a claim like you did, then there are chemicals in everything you eat, drink, and within yourself. Get educated hillbilly

      September 11, 2012 at 08:10 | Report abuse |
    • Hugh Jass

      " I don't think it would be a far cry to believe that you drink alcohol right?" Are you kidding? He sounds about twelve years old to me.

      September 11, 2012 at 10:18 | Report abuse |
    • Clint Eastwood

      " too pathetic to do so without chemicals" I hope you get diabetes one day, or one of 100 other things that leave you dependent. Heck, I hope you get them ALL.

      September 11, 2012 at 10:20 | Report abuse |
  38. SorryScientists

    This story reeks of DEA PROPAGANDA!!! If this were even remotely true, there would have been an obvious link to these two things a long @$$ time ago!! But I guess some trolls are dumb enough to think that if it's on the internet, then it must be true, and that the Government/DEA would never stoop so low as to send out a BS report like this.

    Just legalize it already and let's see how quickly the national debt gets eradicated through the profits from the tax!!!!!!!

    September 11, 2012 at 08:07 | Report abuse | Reply
  39. biglifter

    It's also linked to being an idiot

    September 11, 2012 at 08:18 | Report abuse | Reply
    • SorryScientists

      Amazing insight. I've heard that the same results occur in people who make broad generalizations.

      September 11, 2012 at 08:27 | Report abuse |
    • Josh

      Watch any of those youtube videos.... teens smoke some weed, and then do some stunt that smashes their nads.

      September 11, 2012 at 08:45 | Report abuse |
  40. stevieweevie

    But, but, but alcohol...

    September 11, 2012 at 08:26 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Hugh Jass

      Oh, for the purpose of this study we are ignoring alcohol completely. We weren't paid to make alcohol look bad.

      September 11, 2012 at 08:53 | Report abuse |
    • Guest

      They weren't comparing the effects of alcohol to THC. Alcohol is 100% irrelevant to this study.

      September 11, 2012 at 09:44 | Report abuse |
    • Hugh Jass

      "Alcohol is 100% irrelevant to this study." Absolutely! They are looking for another reason to increase penalties for possession, and they are focused on finding what they set out to find. Generally, you want to keep an open mind about what you will discover, unless your name is Lysenko and you already know how the experiment will end.

      September 11, 2012 at 10:16 | Report abuse |
  41. Guest

    It's always funny to watch the normally docile pot smokers pick up their pitchforks whenever an article suggests that there may be some negative side effect to pot use. Heck, he didn't even say that it causes the cancer. He said it "may well be causal."

    Despite what you may want really badly to believe, this isn't just random BS on the internet. It's peer-reviewed science. If the government stirred up a bogus study for propaganda purposes, scientists would call it out. That's the point of the peer-reviewed part.

    It's not the end of the world guys. We legalized lots of stuff that's bad for us. People who drink too much or smoke too much tobacco know what risks they are taking, there's nothing wrong with learning what risks you might be taking when you smoke something else.

    September 11, 2012 at 08:30 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Mike

      Saying it "might" is the same as "might not".

      September 11, 2012 at 08:39 | Report abuse |
    • Guest

      I suppose that's technically true, but it's not especially relevant to the author's conclusion. The fact is that in this study, the data suggests a correlation and the study's author seems to think the data suggests the possibility of a causal relationship. He didn't claim to have discovered any sort of causality, just that he could see the possibility.

      Medical studies over different times reach different conclusions all the time. It's entirely possible another group will do a similar study that finds no correlation, but this is still peer-reviewed science which is the standard for reliable conclusions.

      September 11, 2012 at 08:51 | Report abuse |
    • Hugh Jass

      " It's peer-reviewed science. " Not very impressive design, either. They take a group of people who have a wide range of experience and home in on one point, as they are paid to do. I'd be willing to bet that I could sample the same group of t-cancer sufferers and link it to video game consoles, energy drinks, cell phone use, basketball and football games, or dating loose women. It would depend on what my employer wanted me to find! Come on, you know junk science when you see it.

      September 11, 2012 at 10:05 | Report abuse |
  42. inquiring

    I have to laugh at some of the comments here.

    Marijuana cures cancer? Really? Interesting.

    Is it bad for you? Highly doubtful.

    Cheers.

    September 11, 2012 at 08:32 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Hugh Jass

      What's bad for you is huffing cigarettes as if they were joints. You pull the smoke way in, and you get emphysema; and that's a well-proven link. Surgeon General and I say to give up tobacco if you puff weed, because your chances aren't good.

      September 11, 2012 at 10:07 | Report abuse |
  43. Wes

    Everything causes cancer and everyone will get cancer, benign or malignant. If you live long enough you will have the effects of unregulated cell growth. Cancer is nature's clock that keeps populations from overfilling the bottleneck. I would be far more concerned about the girl that drives into my lane while text messaging her girlfriend. Cancer is medicine's money maker.

    September 11, 2012 at 08:39 | Report abuse | Reply
  44. Josh

    "It may be that marijuana use is actually interfering with hormonal signaling in a way that disturbs function of the testis,"

    That's been known for like 30 years now.

    September 11, 2012 at 08:43 | Report abuse | Reply
  45. Hugh Jass

    ""But that is speculation, and something we're going to look into with data in the future," she said." Damn right you will. It's just as likely to be caused by having relations with multiple wild women every night as by weed. All you know is people from a certain lifestyle have higher incidence. Certainly MY balls are doing just fine, thank you.

    September 11, 2012 at 08:49 | Report abuse | Reply
  46. Groo

    Gosh and to think all the people I've known through the years that smoked pot also smoked tobacco. That was totally unexpected that pot would increase the risk of testicular cancer and not regular cigarettes. /sarcasm

    This article is stupid, and the people that wrote it need to drink less alcohol when they write stories or gather information for a story.

    September 11, 2012 at 08:53 | Report abuse | Reply
  47. John Blaze

    I laughed at this gem buried deep in this pile of trash: "But that is speculation, and something we're going to look into with data in the future," she said. LEARN2SCIENCE?

    September 11, 2012 at 08:56 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Guest

      You know the best part? She was saying that the data suggest that long-term use doesn't correlate with increased risk, but early experimentation (as in children smoking, not adults who have been doing it for a long time) does. But hey, she was just speculating anyway.

      September 11, 2012 at 09:21 | Report abuse |
    • Hugh Jass

      I suspect that their control group also ate a lot of ramen noodles and played a lot of Warcrack. Child's play to link those to the cancer as well. Did they watch Spongebob? That causes your balls to shrink for sure.

      September 11, 2012 at 10:09 | Report abuse |
  48. RodRoderick

    It was also discovered that these people also ate pop tarts and Ho Ho's which are also subject to causing Testicle Cancer...

    Give me a break. This is anti-pot hogwash.

    September 11, 2012 at 08:56 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Hugh Jass

      How about staying up too late, going to clubs, listening to loud music? What the study fails to show is a direct link; lacking that, it's just some kid's science project. Try a bigger group? Over a longer period? See, if I went looking for a statistical link I could prove bread caused cancer. Everyone with cancer ate bread before they got sick, so there! All this proves is that guys with chancy lifestyles have an increased risk, which is good to know but not surprising.

      September 11, 2012 at 10:13 | Report abuse |
  49. Guest

    The torch-and-pitchfork crowd is growing by the minute! Read the article again, this is an article about the results of a study published in a *peer-reviewed scientific journal*. That doesn't mean they couldn't possibly have an agenda, but it does mean that if their science was bunk, it will be called out as such.

    I'm really not anti-pot. I couldn't care less what people do in their own lives, and I actually think the prohibition of it has done a lot more harm than the substance itself. That said, however, there are probably risks involved with its use and there's nothing wrong with getting a little education about what those risks might be.

    September 11, 2012 at 09:00 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Hugh Jass

      " if their science was bunk, it will be called out as such" No, if it gets published, it's not going to be derided by the journal. Either they turn it down or they publish it. Tune in three months later and read the letters to the journal and you may see some fireworks.

      September 11, 2012 at 11:40 | Report abuse |
  50. Sam

    CNN editors will write just about anything to get a click. The study actually shows that smoking more pot is better and reduces the risks of testicular cancer, not increases it.

    September 11, 2012 at 09:11 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Guest

      Uh..no, it definitely does not draw that conclusion. You should actually go check it out instead of just reflexively rejecting it because it doesn't conform to your views.

      September 11, 2012 at 09:14 | Report abuse |
1 2 3 4 5

Post a comment


 

CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.

Advertisement
About this blog

Get a behind-the-scenes look at the latest stories from CNN Chief Medical Correspondent, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, Senior Medical Correspondent Elizabeth Cohen and the CNN Medical Unit producers. They'll share news and views on health and medical trends - info that will help you take better care of yourself and the people you love.