In the latest example of "research that really didn't need to be done," science types at the University of Buffalo spent nine years examining 634 couples just so they could prove that married couples who smoke weed consistently are less likely to hit each other, or in the words of a study that is working way too hard to prove it was necessary, "there may be an overall inverse association between marijuana use and IPV perpetration in newly married couples," where IPV equals a guest shot on COPS (or, intimate partner violence).
I know what you're thinking. Anyone who's toked a little in their lives understands that marijuana brings with it a delightfully calming, disoriented sensation which isn't really conducive to violence (unless that violence comes in "Call of Duty" format). Additionally, one of the drug's side effects is lack of short-term memory which makes it hard to hold a complete thought in your head, let alone get angry about anything more important than equal Funyun distribution. In other words, anyone's who's been high knows that fighting is the last thing you want to do.
Okay, okay, enough dismissing a decade of someone's life's work, let's get down to the facts. By taking into account several different factors like economic standing, history of spousal violence and alcohol use, the team at the University of Buffalo was able to do a more complete study than any institution previously. According to the Washington Post, findings from other studies, "have been mixed: some studies found links between marijuana use and/or abuse and domestic violence, while others did not." What makes the Buffalo study unique is that it was done over a long period of time as opposed to the majority of previous studies where data was collected all in one go. In other words, the results of this utterly pointless study are definitely way more reliable than the results of other similarly useless studies performed at other universities who were most likely looking to get baked and get some research credit for it.
So, what did these science people find out about the link between marijuana use and spousal beat downs? "[W]e found that more frequent marijuana use by husbands and wives predicted less frequent IPV perpetration by husbands. Husbands' marijuana use also predicted less frequent IPV perpetration by wives." So, moral of the story: if you're a man in a loving relationship, it's to your benefit to be sedated.
Even further, the study's abstract proclaimed, "Moderation analyses demonstrated that couples in which both spouses used marijuana frequently reported the least frequent IPV perpetration." Correction on previous moral: if you're anyone in a loving relationship, it pays to be sedated. Again, this isn't news. Connecticut WASPs have been using Xanax to the same effect for decades.
Moving on, the study also determined, "[t]here was a significant positive association between wives' marijuana use and wives' IPV perpetration, but only among wives who had already reported IPV perpetration during the year before marriage." This little tidbit appears to prove that if you're a woman who likes to hit men, being stoned could help curb the urge (though I can't understand why you'd want to; men respond well to light abuse). The reasoning is pretty clear. Marijuana use lowers a woman's IQ to the point where she can finally understand the chimp to whom she's been legally shackled.
What's the opposite of a groundbreaking study? Because that's what the University of Buffalo has on their hands. It's over now, though, so they can get back to those other pressing projects they've got lined up. There's a six month trial that proves being tired means you're sleepy and a two-year long survey that hopes to collect controversial information pointing to the fact that Doritos are crunchy. First up, though, of course, is the University's shocking study which aims to prove that traffic actually is more dense when you're in a hurry. Really cutting edge, worthwhile stuff here, guys.