The evidence is convergent. Multiple independent sources reach the same conclusion, the underlying mechanism is well-characterized, and even the field's most cautious voices treat it as worth doing.
But I want to be very clear, the effects on prolactin, meaning elevated prolactin, the effects on testosterone, meaning, at least most studies point to, reduced levels of testosterone and increased estrogen. That seems to be true for most all individuals that chronically use cannabis
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
smoking cannabis increases prolactin levels. Very, very clear. Now, you might say, "Didn't, you just describe a study "about a set of individuals whose prolactin didn't increase "and as a consequence, "their level of sexual desire went up?" Yes, there are a subset of individuals for which that's true, but people who smoke cannabis do experience increases in prolactin, and that's especially pronounced in people that smoke cannabis more than twice a week.
and in females, there's an increase in estrogen as a consequence of smoking marijuana and increasing prolactin and estrogen in parallel. Whether or not that's detrimental isn't clear, although I point out that elevated estrogen and prolactin can be associated, again, can be associated, not necessarily, and certainly, not causative, but can be associated with elevated levels or frequency of breast cancer detection.
generally I would say the the bulk of the literature actually says that cannabis would suppress prolactin not increase it that's the majority of the liter because dopamine is one of the main ways that prolactin is suppressed