Since it seems that marijuana tends to lower testosterone levels in men, it's not surprising that marijuana use might cause some sexual dysfunction. Maybe it's really not the miraculous substance some would have us believe.

Well, this is one of the most confusing studies that JTO has reviewed to date. Which is it -- did subjects "have problems reaching orgasm" or did they "experience premature ejaculation"? And since when has the fact that a male "reached orgasm too slowly" been defined as a problem, particularly by his sex partner? Marijuana has been used as an aphrodisiac for thousands of years. The ancient Indian Ayurvedic medicine systems used cannabis to increase libido, produce long-lasting erections, delay ejaculation, facilitate lubrication and loosen inhibitions. Some Tantric sex practitioners drink a substance called bhang, a sort of spiced marijuana milkshake to enhance the sexual experience. In 19th century Serbia, female virgins were given mixtures of lamb’s fat and cannabis on their wedding night to make sex less painful. Morocco, Egypt, Lebanon and other Middle Eastern and Northern African cultures used cannabis for sexual purposes in a potent form known at kif as recently as the early 20th century. (Just Google "marijuana aphrodisiac" for more documentation.) The only person who would describe marijuana use as problematic to his sex life has never had sex while using marijuana. Unless, of course, he doesn't know how to do either.

According to The Journal of Sexual Medicine Abstact, these were self-reported problems in sexual function. That is to say the men themselves were saying they weren't satisfied with their performance.

I should have read the JSM abstract before responding earlier, because the study looks pretty flawed. The conclusions are based on self-reports of around sixty men (out of a telephone sample of over 8,000), with no adjustment for anything other than demographic factors. Thus, researchers appeared not to adjust for alcohol, tobacco or other drug use (all of which would affect sexual function) among those sixty men before coming to their conclusions. (Given the exceedingly small sample size, those statistical adjustments would be difficult, if not impossible.) They also ignored men who used cannabis less than daily (which is the modal pattern for cannabis users) in their analysis, limiting their comparison to daily users vs. non-users. It is also telling that women who were frequent cannabis users did not report excess sexual dysfunction problems. Again, this study is highly suspect and it would be nice to be able to access the entire study on-line (which does not appear to be possible).

I wonder if the potency of today's marijuana has anything to do with these adverse effects? Bernie refers to the effects and use of much more "natural" marijuana, very different from the last decades of bio-engineering.

The need of researchers to publish anything regardless of merit is only exceeded by the need of luornal editors to fill their pages.

It's funny how any study that is negitive to marijuana is junk science and and pro marijuana study is the honest truth.

In response to Robin, the average potency of cannabis has increased (about 50% in the past decade, not the 1,000-3,000% increase claimed by the ONDCP), which experienced cannabis users adjust for by using less to achieve the desired effect (titration being a routine response to increased potency of any psychoactive substance, including alcohol and tobacco). It is more likely that concurrent use of other substances may account for the observed differences. As for John, it is useful to be trained in research methods so that deficiencies in research designs can be identified. For example, the previous JTO story about cannabis use being associated with a lower incidence of head/neck cancers used large sample sizes (for both cases and controls) and controlled for other substance use (e.g., alcohol, tobacco) that might account for the presence or absence of these cancers. This latest Australian study did not apply any of those basic research requirements for obtaining more meaningful results. Thus, the results are suspect.

I have never seen a pro marijuana study on this sight ever be called junk science.

One of the things about JTO that I am thankful for is the opportunity it provides both to stay abreast of drug policy-related research and to use this forum (I prefer that name rather than "sight" or, more properly, "site") to discuss this research. I think other readers would be happy to read any critiques about any research that is posted here. That is what free and full discourse, and intellectual freedom, look like. Thanks again to JTO for what you do, for the informed and uninformed alike among us. (I said nothing about "enlightened" since that is an evolutionary process and subject to one's current perspective as well as her/his honesty, open-mindedness and willingness to change (not to mention who writes his/her paycheck).

Just for the record Mr. Bernie Ellis are you pro or anti- Marijuana use. Just checking from what perspective you are coming from. That should give a good idea of how you tend to evaluate an article.

My record, Jose, is pretty well established here and elsewhere, as you would know if you had been here a while. But just to extend my record, I am in favor of reclassifying marijuana to Schedule III (or lower) in the Controlled Substances Act to allow it to be returned to appropriate medical use. I am in favor of decriminalization of marijuana for non-medical use by responsible adults. I am in favor of preventing the onset of any psychoactive substance use by anyone until they are mature. I am in favor of substance abuse treatment on demand -- regardless of the substance -- and for funding those services to serve everyone in need. I have spent my professional career working to reduce substance abuse at the local, tribal, state, national and international levels. I view substance abuse as a public health problem, and am proud of the research programs I established that provided models for studying it in that fashion, including the first state-level substance abuse epidemiology research program in any state health department (for New Mexico, in the early 90s.) Besides, since I use my full name here, you can find out more about me if you'd like by Googling my name, an opportunity I cannot have with you. Any more questions?

(With the indulgence of the moderator, I'd like to expand my last answer.) Regardless of my personal knowledge, attitudes, beliefs or behaviors re: marijuana; they do not prevent me from using my training and experience to assess research on that substance or any other substance abuse-related topic. I do not use alcohol but that does not prevent me from understanding research on the reductions in heart disease that accompany moderate alcohol use. I am allergic to codeine, morphine and similar drugs; but that does not prevent me from understanding research on their therapeutic role as well as their potential for abuse. Scientists attempt to dwell in the reality-based world. True believers slant everything to their own prejudices. I do enjoy being the former and have no time or patience for the latter. Any more questions?