You must log in or register to comment.

SgtWaffleSound t1_j9vg1wq wrote

> Notably, the new study was not able to tease out whether different types of cannabis use — such as consuming edibles versus smoking weed, for example — made a difference in a person’s risk of developing CAD.

This is an important factor. Everyone knows smoke of any kind is harmful, but there are many ways to consume MJ without smoking it these days


EconomistPunter t1_j9vgn54 wrote

Most of the findings for marijuana (both benefits and costs) are correlary, rather than causal. This sphere is filled with terrible studies pushing agendas.


NPVT t1_j9vh0bd wrote

Okay. So does cigarettes and those are legal.


EconomistPunter t1_j9vi8jr wrote

The growing lit suggests many of the benefits of marijuana are overstated, or that they disappear when correctly accounting for trends. It’s not some anti-cannabis conspiracy; it’s growth in an area with significant research limitations until recently…


Actual_Dinner_5977 t1_j9vikpv wrote

So I need to smoke hourly is what you are saying? Just saying Snoop Dog looks fine.


xiconic t1_j9vjb9a wrote

In the UK cigarettes and rolling tobacco are sold in a horrible dark green packet that isn't allowed to have any branding, only health messages like "smoking kills" and such and are also taxed at an insane rate. But I always argue that if tobacco gets treated this way then why can I still walk down the alcohol aisle of a store and see all the bright coloured branding on that? Alcohol can kill you much much faster than smoking and can cause much more harm to others than second hand smoke. If I can buy a relatively inexpensive alcohol with brightly coloured branding all over it to pickle my liver with, why can't I buy a cheap packet of cigarettes with clear branding to know its the ones I want so that I can relax after a stressful day?


PEVEI t1_j9vjvfy wrote

I agree, and this unreviewed study with a modest sample analyzed with MR is one of those.

Having said that there have been some longitudinal studies on the harm of smoking marijuana, which is generally argued to be the most harmful way to take it, they've proven unable to find even a corollary.

There have been a few which find a very slight signal of possible lung cancer risk in heavy marijuana smokers after a 40 year follow-up, but it's tenuous.

Still others have looked at links between coronary vessel disease and marijuana, with the benefit of peer review and publication. They found nothing.

Some studies attempted to find a link between marijuana use and stroke or myocardial infarction, but they inevitably fall apart when confounding factors such as smoking, drinking, and other high risk behaviors are accounted for.


PEVEI t1_j9vkl23 wrote

The short answer is that alcohol has been part of the accepted culture since the dawn of writing, whereas tobacco was a relatively recent import from the 'New World' for non-indigenous people. There is also the relatively recent lesson in the failure of alcohol prohibition which is deeply ingrained in Western culture.

None of this should be taken as an argument in favor of drinking, I just wanted to offer some context for contemporary attitudes, which aren't shaped by accurate risk assessment; few human policies and attitudes are shaped by accurate risk assessment.


EconomistPunter t1_j9vkov0 wrote

And some of the early marijuana laws specifically targeted a substitution relationship between opioids and marijuana, which have largely evaporated in more recent studies. That’s certainly harm understatement.

Marijuana research suffers from both attenuation bias and bias that increases the magnitude of results. It’s a glorious mess in the sphere.


hotassnuts t1_j9vm5iv wrote

Getting stoned raises my blood pressure pretty high. People with hypertension should be careful especially if they eat salt, or drink caffeine.


AutumnFan714 t1_j9vmfyy wrote

And according to a Reddit news article yesterday it was good for blood pressure issues.


pegothejerk t1_j9vo8r2 wrote

Good sources for data are critical, but even more important is good methodology in extracting information from that data. Are those people using marijuana because they’re already sick and therefore the sample pool automatically has a higher incidence of heart issues? That’s why studies and review are important, so seasoned researchers can say “well, you haven’t taken samples from people who have had no reason to be entered into a database, let’s collect seasoned marijuana users who haven’t been entered into these systems and compare”


ColdRest7902 t1_j9vqwtg wrote

COVID has done more damage to my heart than 23 years of smoking cannabis.


doppleganger_ t1_j9vr3xb wrote

Smoking raises heart rate and blood pressure? Colour me shocked!


bonkly68 t1_j9vrx66 wrote

I wonder how pot smoking compares with other factors that can contribute to coronary artery disease? Such as drinking, tobacco, highly processed food, hydrogenated oils.


pegothejerk t1_j9vtju2 wrote

My point is they may have missed something a seasoned researched would have issue with in peer review, it happened thousands of times a day. They might have accounted for everything they though of, but didn’t consider marijuana might have compounded effects with some other illness or medications, or that marijuana being smoked raises risk of effects short term but after months of abstinence the risk disappears (this is the finding of several recent studies). That’s why peer review is critical, to catch things imperfect but smart people might miss for the trees.


Art-Zuron t1_j9vtrbc wrote

I think the point they were making was that the data will likely be biased towards those that are already ill, and even taking that into account may not actually provide an accurate representation of reality.


Actual__Wizard t1_j9w1g2g wrote

Not really surprising. Most daily marijuana users likely smoke it and we already knew that smoking anything was pretty bad for the heart.


bpon89 t1_j9w5mxt wrote

Can I counteract with some additional heart vitamins? 😅


moishepesach t1_j9w7b6d wrote

With all the shit people eat, drink and breathe worrying about weed is at the bottom of my list. Jah love forever...


whitelightnin1 t1_j9wcs5n wrote

P-hacking I'm sure (selective reporting). They build the selective reporting into the study. I'll need to actually see the article published first aka peer reviewed and "mostly" legitimate.


JohnGillnitz t1_j9wdccx wrote

People do get heart palpitation from THC in any form. Usually when it first starts to kick in. It doesn't last long and is no different from going through a haunted house or drinking a double espresso. If anything the longer period with less stress and anxiety would be better for heart health if you get some exercise too.


rustylucy77 t1_j9weygy wrote

There is also a significant decrease in fucks given


Brilliant-Force9872 t1_j9wj0j6 wrote

Hopefully this means the ah whose my father will die sooner rather than latter


IPA___Fanatic t1_j9wp6iv wrote

Smoking of any kind raises the risk of heart disease. Just use edibles.


ChaoticRoar t1_j9wv9sz wrote

So mr mackey was right?

Drugs are bad MKAY.


lifesprig t1_j9wybq1 wrote

Whatever. Dying while stoned sounds like a nicer way to go


CrowVsWade t1_j9wythe wrote

CNN aside, there's a growing body of academic research finding significant issues and concerns around heavier Marijuana usage, especially related to mental health. While it's also true there is research showing some possible benefits for some conditions, too, agenda doesn't really apply. We just don't know enough, yet.


Basrazdaz t1_j9wyvga wrote

HMO and Prescription drug company BS propaganda. Wouldn’t be surprised if alcohol and tobacco are a part of it. Fuck your study honestly. You think any stoners give a flying fuck lmao. Study deez nuts


ahfoo t1_j9wzelg wrote

No, smoked marijuana actually reduces blood pressure over the longer term according to a study of 150,000 just published this month in Nature, a peer-reviewed journal.

The important factor is that the paper that is being hyped by CNN is simply a political hit piece that is not peer reviewed. It is nearly certain that CNN is pushing this disinformation precisely because of the big Nature story about the cardiovascular benefits of smoking marijuana long term.


BagHolder9001 t1_j9xk8b9 wrote

so does stressful work, can we ban that as well???


Alioshia t1_j9xrm01 wrote

I feel like one day somebodys gonna post an article that says living for longer periods of time increases risk of problems...


gunburns88 t1_j9xvpu8 wrote

News just in.... everything will kill you, except cottage cheese


Puzzleheaded-Ease-14 t1_j9xwwpe wrote

So what’s the downside? I’m not seeing it. I get to enjoy a blissful chill & the number of days I have to exist in present society is potentially reduced?


Jealous-Elephant t1_j9yxkj7 wrote

“The study - which has not been published -“........... also it’s just basic macro correlation statistics. Keep studying it sure but this is a nothingburger


simbrono t1_j9yzl8w wrote

Welp…a glass of red wine a day offsets it…so blaze one up and have a cup!


genaio t1_j9zsebe wrote

From the linked study:

>Nevertheless, the small association in BP differences between heavy cannabis users and never users or between current cannabis users and never users remain too small to adopt cannabis-blood pressure policy in clinical practice.

That's not strong evidence.


genaio t1_j9zt1xu wrote

You keep linking this study and making claims without understanding 1) The effect size was small and couldn't be isolated from confounding factors and 2) BP is not the same as cardiovascular disease.


Kittydander503 t1_j9zu5zd wrote

Full disclosure...was at the local dispensary the other day and the 'seemingly' knowledgeable sales associate was telling me that edibles high in THCV had a 'focusing' effect ad that users had told him that they had actually given up use of adderall. So, lot's of hearsay. This store is pretty particular about the brands they carry and this particular edible was made by a brand called Garden Society. Here in California...the whole bag was $16.


edgeplayer t1_j9zx9ua wrote

This has no credence after the butter fiasco.


donmeekie t1_ja0mu8g wrote

Willy Nelson...who needs "science"..I rest my case.


Powbob t1_ja15ylq wrote

Inhaling smoke into your lungs is bad for you? Shocking.


m0atzart t1_ja196kk wrote

Snoop seems pretty healthy.


CrowVsWade t1_ja1a68b wrote

Happy to, but if you're sincerely interested this wouldn't be difficult to search for yourself, even on Google Scholarly. This subject so often just devolves into people being 'pro weed' in some fashionable pop-culture Facebook-as-source sense, versus serious academic consideration. Hence all these stoned downvotes.

A good starting point might be here [] as it lists a large array of clinical areas with existing research and known risks and also benefits, per condition. Within each section you'll find references out to many supporting studies, source and commentary.

If you want more:

Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol effects in schizophrenia: Implications for cognition, psychosis, and addiction -

Adverse effects of cannabis on health: An update of the literature since 1996 -

Epidemiologic review of marijuana use and cancer risk -

Testing hypotheses about the relationship between cannabis use and psychosis -

Cannabinoids and psychosis -

Associations between modes of cannabis use in daily life with concurrent and longitudinal hazardous use and consequences -

Cloudy with a chance of munchies: Assessing the impact of recreational marijuana legalization on obesity -

Health outcomes associated with long-term regular cannabis and tobacco smoking -

Is the relationship between early-onset cannabis use and educational attainment causal or due to common liability? -


Again, 5-10 mins of a real search will find countless results exploring this area. Clinical and scientific research into the pros and cons of cannabis use either recreationally or clinically is a quickly growing area. The idea cannabis is simply good/safe/doesn't pose serious health risks is simply false. We don't know that, and really the opposite - we already see it has numerous risks that require more research, as with the benefits. Also, a regular user of cannabis, for clinical benefits, and opposed to its illegality. Neither of those mean it's known to be safe.


clevariant t1_ja1epqh wrote

What the heck doesn't increase the risk of heart disease?


Abalone_Admirable t1_ja20nuf wrote

Oh well.

I'm sure my high blood pressure, shitty eating and anxiety will kill my heart faster than the weed


Ins0mnia1 t1_ja436ms wrote

I have smoked mj daily since I was 19, I am 74 now. My wife is 76 and she also smoked everyday since she was 20. We are both in perfect health. My blood pressure is 110/70. I walk on a treadmill for 40 min every day to stay in shape. I have had a successful life and have a comfortable retirement. No heart problems for either of us and it has been years since either of us were sick with anything.


f0rkster t1_ja59d1n wrote

Do ya suppose it’s linked to an increase of appetite and gettin the munchies?


m1sterlurk t1_ja60pzq wrote

I feel I should point out you replied to your own comment here, but there's another more pressing matter here.

The dynamic of "totally safe" vs. "marijuana will make you murder your family" exists because that is one of the many ways that prohibition damages society.

If possessing a substance carries criminal penalties, any level of nuance to the conversation about the substance flies out the window. Those who support the prohibition of the substance view users as "under the control of the substance" and will use that view to justify dismissal of anybody who argues against the prohibition. Because of this demand for purity, those who use or know anything about the substance are not going to be inclined to associate with people who will shit on them for having an opinion.

The people who do not support prohibition but do not view a drug as totally harmless are removed from the conversation. They cannot research the drug without risking criminal penalties and loss of rights for possessing the drug. If they speak their mind, they can be potentially subject to investigation that is intended to find a way to punish them for having spoken out.

This leaves those who are hardline supporters of the drug in the conversation: those who are willing to face incarceration or death in defiance of prohibition. Like the prohibitionists, this group leans towards an extreme. Therefore, they will also tend to speak in more "absolute" language. Unfortunately, the "middle of the road" crowd is unable to reason with them for the same reason they cannot reason with prohibitionists: prohibitionists will find a way to punish them for saying something other than "this drug makes you murder your family".

Do note that the prohibitionists are responsible for both sides of this silencing of moderates and not just their own debate. Those who support ease of access to whatever drug aren't going to send moderates to forced labor camps for disagreeing with them. They also don't send prohibitionists to forced labor camps for disagreeing with them, but considering how much harm prohibition has done to society perhaps doing so might serve as a deterrent.


CrowVsWade t1_ja6d7do wrote

The politicization of cannabis and related plants has very little to do with the scientific realities of what we do know about the pros and cons, and the far larger amount we don't know. The same can be said for most large cases of prohibition. That's usually a political decision.

My comment was focused on the latter, related to actual clinical and scientifically sound research on same, and growing evidence that the impacts might be far more mixed (at best) than the decidedly non-scientific pro weed lobby would like to be the case, or like to have acknowledged in open discussion. The cannabis debate, such as it is, is highly partizan. Scientific research doesn't hold much similarity to public debate.


m1sterlurk t1_ja838xn wrote

You don't seem to follow what I was getting at.

This clinical research that you wish to promote over the "pro-weed" lobby is somewhere between 50 and 60 years behind because prohibition was a hard obstacle to that research being conducted. Marijuana has been prohibited at the federal level since 1937, when its prohibition was passed with motivations provided and promoted by one Harry Anslinger. Anslinger believed marijuana caused the degenerate races to think they are equal to the white man and that smoking marijuana would cause our youth associate with Jews. The variance between the "paraphrase" I present and the "actual quote" in both of those instances is negligible.

It doesn't matter if the "pro-weed lobby's" research is 100% full of shit or 100% true. The "pro-weed" lobby didn't forcibly stand in the way of researchers with more neutral intentions. Prohibitionists did. You could "technically" conduct research on marijuana throughout prohibition, but the weed was grown at one government farm and you had to apply for permission to access it for research. If your hypothesis even hinted at trying to prove that marijuana caused less harm than government propaganda stated, you weren't getting permission.

We had the option of being more clear on the concept that "just because it takes a massive quantity of THC to cause a fatal overdose doesn't mean the quantity that will cause you to develop schizophrenia isn't unattainable". We would have found that out sooner if our laws did not operate on the assumption that smoking one joint will turn you into a permanent rapist.

Cannabis and its relationship to cancer: both in terms of what products in cannabis can be of benefit to those with cancer as well as dangers of cancer presented by various means of cannabis consumption, would be better understood if cannabis consumption of any type were not considered "getting stoned". I feel that the cancer risks from smoking it are a "no shit sherlock" thing. I used to smoke a pack and a half of Marlboro Menthols a day. I have never smoked a volume of marijuana equal to the volume of that tobacco in less than a week and I have had some periods of VERY heavy usage in my life. Research into cancer risks from other means of consumption were fully impeded by prohibition.

Idiots who think something cures everything exist across the medical and pseudo-medical fields. Have you had your chakras realigned with a tincture of 0.00001% vegan mineral oil and a shiny blue rock up your ass? You know that is a horrible idea because mineral oil and shiny blue rocks are not criminalized. When legal prohibition doesn't stand in the way, the researchers with the intentions you desire: whether it be a truly neutral approach or an approach that is predicated on the the assumption that the substance presents danger from the onset, works as a force to suppress the extreme nonsense as a natural force. Because prohibition broke that dynamic, you now see what happens when you force research "underground". Good job. It's you, hi, you're the problem it's you.


Always_0421 t1_ja8t8i1 wrote

Let me know when thos "study" has been reviewed and published


chadthecrawdad t1_jabh2rl wrote

I’m a extremely heavy smoker for very long time . I’m a 40 male . Quitting cold turkey this weekend. I feel it in my chest . Good thing I don’t smoke cigs too


CrowVsWade t1_jaeld8t wrote

You're not reading or communicating. You're simply rebroadcasting an agenda I've said nothing about, other than to also critique the pointlessness and counter-productivity of prohibition.

The historic prohibition of cannabis doesn't make research of the last 20 years somehow invalid. That's not how good science operates. Behind where it could have been if we'd started in 1940? Sure, but we can't revisit that now. Again, you're conflating political/cultural with scientific. They're just not the same arena.

My original point was singularly that there is a growing body of scientific research that's raising questions about the negative (as well as positive) impacts of cannabis. Most pro-cannabis people aren't aware of this.