Marijuana Is Bad For Your Balls, USC Study Suggests

jordanschrubbe

Dennis, you make money being unbiased, reporting both the positive and negative sides of a hot-button issue, don't spell it like you are trying to be a good journalist. If you in fact were doing a comprehensive job you would have mentioned the disclaimer that the research company does not back the findings as definitive... Rather you simply did not... leading us to the impression you interpret the findings as fact. You did a terrible job reporting the data as potentially correlative. You did nothing but restate the released data, and doing so you PUBLISHED subjective findings as fact by releasing them without disclaimer. This style of reporting plagues articles that regard consumption of illicit drugs, which is why I would agree that you are in the same boat as all the other anti-legalization pundits in the main stream. I also am appalled at your tone when responding to posts. Your comments, "keep smoking..." "Thanks for proving my point..." and "look man, there's smoking, and then there's smoking too much..." All of those in response to a reader pointing out he did not like your half finished reporting? I cannot believe you are still employed. You'd think insulting your readers would be on the no-no list. Who knows, chances are Karma is not real and you will be fine; however, you are asking for a big kick in the ass. If I were you I'd be looking over my shoulder. Do not respond to posts if you cannot take criticism without dishing insults. But by all means, please get fired ASAP (in other words, please do the world a service and go join an opinion column).

zbeast

I'm sure that the people who had canser had also drank beer, watched an Will Faral movie, " a known canser causer."

trichometrist

Election time! Biased articles not even close to accurate. Israel ,Spain have been testing cannabinods for some time. Marijuana is recommended by thousands of Drs all

across the nation.

For the people who dont like science try youtube "RUN FROM THE CURE"

Rick Simpson "Phoenix Tears"

or just type "cannabis"

Statistics are easily manipulated, did any of these people use tobacco? GMO foods? Aspertame?

Statistically this article is 99% bull shit!

angelcitytv

2 Like

Funny how in all the time Marijuana has been around I've never heard of one case of this yet somehow this study claims it to be so. Hmm I wonder if USC is funded by big pharmaceutical companies because people who smoke weed are doing less and less prescription medications. You can't believe anything these studies say anymore. Geez.

thisisbadscience

2 Like

Correlation does not equal causation. Entry level science teaches us that yet these guys did an entire study ignoring that. The article also opens with a warning : The ideas and opinions expressed herein are those of the authors, and endorsement by the State of California, Department of Health Services, the National Cancer Institute, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or their contractors and subcontractors is not intended nor should be concluded.

djromero moderator editortopcommenter

@thisisbadscience True that. it's a scary correlation, though.

moreyellowjournalism

1 Like

@djromero @thisisbadscience I have smoked weed every day since I was about fifteen. (I am now 45.) I have four healthy, beautiful kids -- all made on the first try. I am in excellent health. Also, I made several hundred thousand dollars last year as a creative professional. That is also correlation. I don't claim it has any scientific value.Decades and decades of testing marijuana, and all they can come up with is more bad science. Why does Dennis Romero continue to push this nonsense?

jdk6363

@moreyellowjournalism Thanks for that article. I'm a random stranger/student who is preparing an informative speech on the positive and negative affects of marijuana, and where we might see it in the future. Do you have any legit websites that I could visit for more information on the subject? I would greatly appreciate it.

moreyellowjournalism

@djromero @moreyellowjournalism I hit them all the time. Except for Steve Lopez. He at least has the nards (while we're on the subject) to speak out against the war on drugs. I'm gonna let you have the last word, Dennis. It's your paper.

djromero moderator editortopcommenter

@moreyellowjournalism LA Weekly does come at you with a perspective and attitude. That's why we're "alternative." You want a boring narrative, there are many other choices. But I doubt you were compelled to comment on the L.A. Times version. Am I right? Thanks for proving my point.

djromero moderator editortopcommenter

@moreyellowjournalism Snide hipsterism? And yet you come back for more. (Love it when repeat customers say how much we suck).

Look man, there's smoking, and then there's smoking too much ...

moreyellowjournalism

@djromero @moreyellowjournalism Also, Dennis, while I have you on the phone, thank you for revealing, in your comments during this exchange, for all the readers to see, your profound anti-marijuana bias. "Keep smoking?" Calling me a one-man case study? Is that you being professional and objective? Or just pawning more of the snide hipster-ism that passes for writing in this paper?

djromero moderator editortopcommenter

@moreyellowjournalism A six year old study is old news. And it's self-claimed as the most comprehensive. I'll give you that there are caveats with the USC study, and nowhere do I say it's definitive.

In terms of my past writing, you clearly haven't been reading. For one, I've been a pretty balanced and invaluable source on local med marijuana news. If the movement thinks I'm the enemy, they sure didn't show it when I was first to report that Sept. 6 was the would-be date of the local dispensary ban: Pro medical marijuana folks cited it and it went viral. In my coverage you'll see many pieces that could be interpreted as pro-marijuana. So, if anything, I'm balanced.

As far as striking a nerve. No. Again, if you've been reading you'd see that I often quickly and thoroughly respond to those who who blame the messenger for the facts of the matter.

moreyellowjournalism

@djromero @moreyellowjournalism Never mind. I give up. You must be right. A case control study of a few hundred people must be irrefutable science. The online editor says it is so. See you guys.

moreyellowjournalism

@ldhorowitz @djromero Do you know that difference between the most comprehensive study ever done and one that claims that its conclusions should not be endorsed?

moreyellowjournalism

@djromero @moreyellowjournalism Does the USC study -- which, by its own admission, claims that its conclusions should "not be endorsed" -- trump the most comprehensive studies of marijuana done to date? Not to anyone who believes in science. Has there been a sudden surge in the amount of testicular cancers since 1996, when MM became legal in California? (I believe that anyone who can read is aware of your ongoing campaign against MM. No straw man there, but thanks for the lecture, Straw Man.) This isn't even my job and I'm better at it than you are. Apparently, I struck a nerve -- even without a bully pulpit like yours.

djromero moderator editortopcommenter

@moreyellowjournalism And by the way, genius, wouldn't you think a 2012 study would trump one from 2006. Come to think of it, I agree: You are a one-man case study for marijuana.

djromero moderator editortopcommenter

@moreyellowjournalism Actually, mellow, I never promised you any numbers, and this piece really has nothing to do with numbers of people who die from marijuana. What you're doing is called a straw man argument, which is deflecting the debate down another road.

When I say "one person's" I'm referring directly to your comment that somehow your singular experience refutes scientific research on multiple subjects.

You say I avoid the "actual news" but clearly you haven't been reading my ongoing coverage of marijuana and the studies about this substance. By insinuating that I engage in "yellow journalism" without even beginning to get a grasp on my work, by deflecting an argument, by disregarding the core of my point, that your experience doesn't really refute a scientific study based on many experiences, you display mad ignorance.

Keep smoking.

ldhorowitz

@moreyellowjournalism @djromero I'm no scientist, but I do know that the lungs and the balls are different... And Dennis is the news blogger, not the editor, of the L.A. Weekly. So, moreyellowjournalism, I guess it's not so easy to get all the facts right, is it?

moreyellowjournalism

@moreyellowjournalism @djromero Still waiting for those numbers, Dennis. Meanwhile, about this asinine,, profoundly non-journalistic statement: "I would much rather trust a USC scientist over someone who believes one person's experience with weed is evidence enough of its safety." Aside from being defensive and disingenuous, it supposes that Romero is unaware of any other tests regarding the safety of marijuana -- quite a statement from the editor of the alternative paper of the second largest city in America. Well, in case Dennis Romero has managed to avoid the actual news, here is an actual study from an actual newspaper. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html

moreyellowjournalism

@djromero @moreyellowjournalism @thisisbadscience When you say "one person's" do you really mean "millions of people's"? I am referring of course to the millions of people who are NOT HARMED by using marijuana every year. What's the number of deaths caused by marijuana every year, Dennis?

djromero moderator editortopcommenter

@moreyellowjournalism @thisisbadscience I'm not pushing anything, just reporting it, but I would much rather trust a USC scientist over someone who believes one person's experience with weed is evidence enough of its safety.