Take a look at this

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2012/s3587045.htm

what ya think bout that shit huh ?

I think it's bullshit. I'd be nutless right now after 5 decades. Another little thing they spend billions on looking for reasons to keep you away from pot.

smoke it cause you like it not cause your scared

I think (hope) Australia should consider the source.

Here in the states most info is slanted to achieve a profitable goal. You need to know the source of the funding, the amount the reporting agency made for their efforts, are there any missing reports, samples, or people. Multiply that to the amount to possible profits, minus human rights and or liberties, +/- 2% of better sense.

Even if it were true, i would just say goodbye to my nuts

Waaay too many holes in this...just start with:
1. How long did the people in the study smoke?
2. Maybe it's the nutes and not MJ.
3. Rumor had it in the '70's that the government in Colombia was spraying their plants with something that would injure our lungs...maybe that attack our balls.
4. Maybe it's a dye used in edibles?
5. Like nothing else causes this rarity.
I've been smoking this stuff since 1964 and none of my friends have any of this crap....1 in 5,000 get it and what per cent of that 1 smoked? Sheesh, these studies have no place until there is a link showing a reactive substance in the plant that causes this crap. Many folks today use the phrase, "Just saying" which I hate...must have been issued from the deparment of redundancy department
My $0.02 after taxes

Basically it's a stupid "study" when they asked if they had used it. Not how much or was this current use. Additionally, those that did smoke - where was this "pot' from, what method did you use to smoke and way more. A search warrant would not have been issued with this paucity of facts.

We all know Mon smokes with his balls, I'd talk about my dick but Mon thats a Long story.

Grandpapy said:

I think (hope) Australia should consider the source.

Here in the states most info is slanted to achieve a profitable goal. You need to know the source of the funding, the amount the reporting agency made for their efforts, are there any missing reports, samples, or people. Multiply that to the amount to possible profits, minus human rights and or liberties, +/- 2% of better sense.

Click to expand...

Well said. These reports need to be taken with a grain of salt. Sounds like hyped-up anti-pot propaganda to me.

How about the long list of horrific "possible side-effects" you hear at the end of all those pharma drug commercials? Y'know like, "May cause TB, bleeding of the nose, throat, eyes, and ears, and anus. Some users reported a mild case of nightmares. If you experience an erection lasting more than six hours, seek professional help immediately. Pregnant women should not use, handle or even look at _____________."

lol just thought yall would want to see that. My nuts might wanna smoke one to

When we read propaganda pieces like this, I encourage everyone to post comments at the bottom of the article... speak out for our rights.
It is always fun to engage the martini and valium crowd in a little battle of logic on why they should quit supporting the arrest of people for pot.
Plenty of dumb dumbs try to say "this is a great reason to keep the federal prohibition"... I say, it's MY nuts... My choice. I'm voting Gary Johnson 2012.
I'll never again vote for any candidate that doesn't openly support legal weed.