• CD Moderators: nepalnt21
  • Cannabis Discussion Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules

Marijuana, Our sperm, and the Future of the World

Jibult said:
I wasn't being an asshole, but I sure could start. I think I'll reserve that right for another time, though.

You were thinking, and I'll give you half credit for that. You miss out on 100% because you assume that a lowered sperm count means sperm is being killed off. What makes you think that cannabis is spermicidal? You're overlooking the much more logical conclusion that habitual marijuana use/abuse leads to a less efficient sperm production system, thereby lowering overall sperm count without "Raiding" a single cell.

How do I know sperm isn't being killed off? I don't. I'm building upon the knowledge that cannabis toxicity seems to be near-nonexistent.
Click to expand...

Well PM's this about wraps this one up lolll
 
CD never fails to amaze....

Keeping a cell phone in your pocket does way more harm to sperm/count than weed ever will
 
rangrz said:
OP: As one of the many members of this forum who does *real* science, like in a lab with experiments (as opposed to stoned, half baked thought experiments) I give you credit for thinking. BUT, you don't seem to have a very good grasp of either deductive or inductive logic, formal and informal fallacies, the scientific method, or the established body of knowledge in the fields you talk about. I suggest you start with reading some wiki articles/university websites on logic and fallacies, then go to the scientific method, then get a basic grasp of biology, chemistry and physics, and then being reading about the specific topics you wish to discuss.
Click to expand...

aka, unless youre the fucking man like rangrz, get back to cleaning your bong pothead
 
ShaggyFin said:
This isn't about doing science in lab. This is about Cannabis. So you can take your deductive reasoning and inductive logic and put it where the sun don't shine :D
Click to expand...

It is about science. Pharmacology, toxicology, medicine and cell biology are, in fact, science. THC and the other cannabinoids in cannabis can be studied in a lab just like the opioids in morphine or any synthetic pharmaceutical. Meaningful research on this subjects is conducted by scientists and physicians in laboratories, in line with the general methodology used in all other science. If you can't see how evaluating the (potential) toxicity of cannabis on sperm is science, then you are truly hopeless.

CD never fails to amaze....

Keeping a cell phone in your pocket does way more harm to sperm/count than weed ever will
Click to expand...

It never fails to amaze me either, with people positing that extremely weak radio-frequency exposure that only has dielectric heating effects that might amount to heating up the tissue DIRECTLY TOUCHING the antenna by ~0.1~ degrees will have any effect what so ever on sperm production.
 
rangrz said:
THC and the other cannabinoids in cannabis can be studied in a lab just like the opioids in morphine or any synthetic pharmaceutical. .
Click to expand...

That in no way makes this section of the website about science, it's about cannabis. Sure, you're allowed to talk about the science of Cannabis. But this thread is just about cannabis in relation to genetics. Nothing else. If you have nothing to talk about that is on this topic, then find a MJ science thread.
 
ShaggyFin said:
That in no way makes this section of the website about science, it's about cannabis. Sure, you're allowed to talk about the science of Cannabis. But this thread is just about cannabis in relation to genetics. Nothing else. If you have nothing to talk about that is on this topic, then find a MJ science thread.
Click to expand...

Cannabis in relation to genetics is science. Genetics is science, period. The potential mutagenic effects of a given substance is science, period.

If this was in "other drugs" and it was about some new i.e. benzofuran compound and it's potential effects on genetics, would it be science? If this was in Second opinion and about some cleaning product and it's effects on genetics, would it be science?

Finally This thread is just X in Relation to Y is your argument. To take it to it's conclusion, what is a thread about neutron scattering in relation to radiation shielding of a reactor about? Philosophy? Politics? Art? or science?
 
rangrz said:
Cannabis in relation to genetics is science.
Click to expand...

That doesn't mean you have to start talking about labs and shit here. I posted a theory. Discuss it as it was presented, or Prove it wrong. Stop making this thread something it's not.
 
Jibult said:
hey guys, check out this pretty sweet Venusaur


venusaur_RJPalmer.jpg
Click to expand...

That is pretty cool :D I wish my little brothers didn't have my old fuckin games and game boys. Now I want to play Pokémon Blue.
 
ShaggyFin said:
That doesn't mean you have to start talking about labs and shit here. I posted a theory. Discuss it as it was presented, or Prove it wrong. Stop making this thread something it's not.
Click to expand...

You posted a theory. Theories of this sort are tested in labs. Your theory seems to contradict the established scientific literature on cannabis and the mechanism behind it's suppression of sperm production. Further, your woeful lack of understanding of even basic genetics (and logic, scientific method and general biology) makes explaining it all to you a task that is far too much effort to undertake, and realistically, should be achieved by you going to school.
 
rangrz said:
You posted a theory. Theories of this sort are tested in labs.
Click to expand...

So did you test my theory in a lab, or just make an alternative theory then talk shit like you're some kind of brilliant mind?
Where are your tests?
Who were the subjects?
How many generations did you test them for?

Ass hat.
 
^ His mind is a hell of a lot more brilliant than yours.

His theory is based on scientific knowledge.

May i ask what you based your theory on? Or did you just throw up onto your keyboard?
 
ShaggyFin said:
So did you test my theory in a lab, or just make an alternative theory then talk shit like you're some kind of brilliant mind?
Where are your tests?
Who were the subjects?
How many generations did you test them for?

Ass hat.
Click to expand...

Ok, let's see. My theory is based around what I learned in my undergrad degree in Medical Science, what I've learned so far in my M.sc in physics (bearing in mind my research involves the effects of radiation on human tissues, including how DNA is affected, which gives me a decent grasp of mutagensis) What I've learned from having used to date a girl who is a Molecular biologist, from being engaged to a girl studying medicine. (I.e. spending endless hours discussing the subject with learned people and attending lectures with them at prestigious university on the subject.)

More generally, it's based around a solid background in science and the scientific method.

I have not personally tested any hypothesis of how cannabis affects sperm. HOWEVER, I have searched the scientific literature and read articles published in peer reviewed journals, written by actual experts in the subject who have done very rigorous and methodical research on the issue. I am strongly inclined to believe the hard data presented trained scientists who have done experiments and which the results of all converge on each other, converge on my hypothesis, and diverge to infinity away from your hypothesis.

Your hypothesis would require that not just the studies on this particular subject be discarded, but would require that all the theory underlying modern genetics and molecular biology be reduced to nonsense. That would in turn require the overwhelming fucking majority of all genetics and molecular biology experiments in the last 50-70 be completely erroneous or fraudulent. It is much more likely you just have no idea what your talking about and based your theory of off a combination of being stoned and having an acquired brain injury than it is that every scientist in any remotely related field is fudging the data.
 
^
And the OP goes down, burning all the way.lmao besides isnt the lower sperm production in relation to smoking tobacco? Due to longterm effects on the circulatory system and restriction of small blood vessels. Ive smoked cannabis to various degrees over 12 years and can safely say it hasnt affected my ability to have kids. Pockets to store THC....that cracked me up.
 
bunge said:
^
And the OP goes down, burning all the way.lmao besides isnt the lower sperm production in relation to smoking tobacco? Due to longterm effects on the circulatory system and restriction of small blood vessels. Ive smoked cannabis to various degrees over 12 years and can safely say it hasnt affected my ability to have kids. Pockets to store THC....that cracked me up.
Click to expand...

No, it's an effect of cannabis itself. It can also be shown in vitro by exposing sperm to cannabinoids that their motility is reduced/they swim slower.
Effects of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, the primary psychoactive cannabinoid in marijuana, on human sperm function in vitro

The reduction in sperm count is attributed to the fact that cannabis lowers plasma testosterone levels via some mechanism that is admittedly a little beyond my depth and breadth of knowledge of endocrinology and affects a few other sex related hormones thought similarly "spooky" mechanisms. The lowering of testosterone is however shown both in terms of plasma levels in vivo in human males, as well as in vitro on testes tissue cultures, suggesting cannabis directly affects the testicles. It is also shown to reduce the volume and mass of the testicles in mouse. The decrease in plasma testosterone for whole cannabis is markedly greater than for pure D9-THC, suggesting that some non-psychoactive components are involved. All of this research is done in the absence of tobacco or other drugs. (With the animal models and in vitro tests being 100% for all other variables of course.)

What theory? Your theory that this thread sucks and shouldn't be here? lol. I'm glad they taught you that in college.

Ass hat.
Click to expand...

At this point, my hypothesis is that you're a troll, or you're misunderstanding my (and others) intent with our replies. I'm not trying to put you down, I'm not trying to make fun of you. I'm just trying to share some information with you that addresses a concern or idea you have. Yes, I'm saying your idea is wrong. There is no shame in that, when you have a hypothesis, and you see data that conflicts with your hypothesis, you learn from it and adjust your hypothesis. That's what all scientists do, we're wrong all the time in our hypothesis's. Then we go do experiments, observe the results, and correct it. We build up our understanding over time and we share it with others, and ask the others what they think, we ask them what their experiments show and we integrate our pooled knowledge. When you first started the thread, people where polite to you and tried to present you with constructive input and information. You responded in a hostile manner and are still doing so.
 
Last edited:
^
Interesting little reads, thanks.:-D a 28% reduction in mobility is quite a distinct decrease and even more interesting is that it was tested at recreational levels and not blasted with insane amounts if delta 9 to provoke a result. Would be interesting to see a separate study involving the other active ingredients, cannabinols etc. unfortunate that the second link was a bit sparse, I tend to take most ice studies as not very accurate gwhen applied to human subjects
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top