Pot Use May Mellow Out Men's Sexual Function

[cynatnite]

Marijuana users sometimes report that pot enhances their desire for sex. But a new review of research on marijuana and sexual health suggests that male smokers could be courting sexual dysfunction.

Research on the topic is contradictory and few studies are high-quality, said study researcher Rany Shamloul, a physician with appointments at the University of Ottawa and Queen's University in Canada as well as the University of Cairo. But recent research – including the finding that the penis contains receptors for marijuana's active ingredient – suggests that young men may want to think about long-term effects before rolling a joint, Shamloul told LiveScience.

"It's a strong message to our younger generations and younger men," Shamloul said.

Shamloul reported his findings online Jan. 26 in the Journal of Sexual Medicine.

Sex and drugs

Scientists first began to study marijuana and sex in the 1970s. Some researchers found that cannabis seemed to have the effect of a love drug; in one 1982 study published in the Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 75 percent of male pot smokers said the drug enhanced their sex lives. Meanwhile, another study published in the same journal the same year found that erectile dysfunction was twice as common in marijuana users – not such good news for lit lotharios. Other research suggests a dose effect, in which small amounts of marijuana have little impact on sexual dysfunction, but more marijuana makes for fewer erections.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20110214/sc_livescience/potusemaymellowoutmenssexualfunction

[marmar]

1. "Research on the topic is contradictory and few studies are high-quality"

....but yet, SHAMloul says: "It's a strong message to our younger generations and younger men."

[Playinghardball]

2. Bullshit...

[Warpy]

3. Or it "may" stimulate it

All they've found are the receptors. The leap to assuming it causes dysfunction is an astonishing one.

Watch those weasel words, folks, and especially watch the researcher who leaps to conclusions he thinks will get him official pats on the head.

[Cronus Protagonist]

13. Why would the body have receptors to LIMIT sexual function?

Like you, I suspect they would more likely STIMULATE sexual function and increase the chance of species survival. Studies on this are limited, but they send a strong message to the youth of today... your penis wants Cannabis!

[EOTE]

4. Really? I thought pot turned me into a swarthy rape machine.

And before marijuana turned me into a demotivated slacker who could be absorbed by his couch, I was told it would turn me into a serial arsonist or murderer. I guess now the scientific consensus is that pot will turn me into a rapist with erectile dysfunction.

[TheKentuckian]

5. Makes me Randy, baby!

[FormerDittoHead]

6. How about FIRST making it legal, THEN we "wait for more results..." n/t

[superduperfarleft]

7. My wife can only hope. n/t

[WatsonT]

8. Well then no problem:

the inclination towards marijuana use will be bred out of us.

Either way it shouldn't make a difference in legalizing marijuana use: people can do as they please with their own bodies.

[jaysunb]

9. I thought it was diabetes and high blood pressure

and all along it's been my 50 year indulgence in the herb. Silly me :evilfrown:

[notesdev]

10. LOL

Now the reason to ban it is the exact opposite of one of the original reasons to ban it.

We're left with the only remaining consistent elements to prohibitions being innocents thrown in jail and criminals making excellent profits.

[Lucian]

11. Alcohol has that effect on me.

[walldude]

12. Yeah and oral sex causes cancer.

Guess what? No matter how many studies are published, no matter how many scare tactics are used, no matter how many people tell me my dick is going to fall off, there are two things in this world you will never ever stop me from doing.

Fucking, and getting high.

Why do people waste time on this shit? This article, right in the first paragraph says: " Research on the topic is contradictory and few studies are high-quality" so they start off by saying "this is all bullshit but... and it gets reposted here with a title that seems to state a fact.

Laughable at best.

[11 Bravo]

14. Wait, does this mean "Reefer Madness" was slightly inaccurate?

[Boswell]

15. funny how many current and ex pot smokers

have kids then ain't it? just the same old reefer madness BS trotted out every few years

[woofless]

16. "Erectile dysfunction" is all in your head.

I call bullshit.

[madmom]

17. So then the "family values" bunch should love this, legalize it! It would only help, right?

[stevenleser]

24. No, the family values bunch wants hetero-married couples to produce lots of children. n/t

[madmom]

25. But only if they are good "christians", other wise they should want everyone else to imbibe.

[Warren Stupidity]

18. Is the OP at all embarrassed about posting this nonsense?

[stevenleser]

19. Why would the OP feel embarrassed about posting a link supported post about a peer-reviewed study?nt

[Warren Stupidity]

20. Did the OP read the article he posted?

[spanone]

21. 'coud be' 'may' sounds real scientific to me

not

[stevenleser]

22. The strong negative reaction to this post is interesting to me.

I'm barely in support of legalization but am pretty close to ambivalent on the subject. The vitriol aimed at the OP for posting about a peer-reviewed study is mind-boggling to me.

How do the rest of you feel about peer reviewed studies about climate change?

[superduperfarleft]

23. What is the claim of the study that is peer-reviewed?

It seems to me that the article is a bunch of barely supported conjecture, ending with a definite proclamation that pot will make your dick fall off.

[Warren Stupidity]

30. There is an indirect link to a study that found THC receptors

on the penis. There is then a huge leap of bullshit that is neither peer reviewed nor based on any direct research that makes the claim cited in the OP and in the linked article. It is the usual WOD bullshit.

The strong reaction is to the 40 year program to directly harm people with Law Enforcement Impairment Disorder, all justified by just this sort of pseudo-scientific idiocy, wrapped in a smug pile of moral sanctimony.

[superduperfarleft]

31. Well, that's pretty much what I thought. n/t

[Myrina]

29. +10

thank you.

[Mojeoux]

26. Lame excuse for a post. As if scientists actually "Studied" MJ in the 60's and 70's

ANY goventment studies up until this century, were granted only to scientists who had theories.....
RE: Pot is bad.

JUST LIKE the so called 60s "study" about damaging genes and/or DNA by using LSD. It was soft science, easily disproved, but the reproductive doctor in this work made a lot of money from the Government at the time.
Also the public believed it and whole families were torn apart.

Also it was the SAME DOCTOR arrested in the 90's for inseminating hundreds of his patients with HIS OWN SPERM, and charging them for expensive sperm-bank products especially chosen by the prospective parents.

[Mojeoux]

28. This post makes me appreciate the "unreccomend" device. np

[Myrina]

27. I've got living proof of that ...

... dated a 40-year-daily-joint-smoker for several months last summer and he couldn't keep it up for longer than 3 or 4 strokes ... :(

[superduperfarleft]

32. Had to be the weed.

Couldn't be anything else at all... :eyes:

[WilliamPitt]

33. .

:smoke: