Marijuana Use Linked With Significant Heart and Brain Issues
An increasing number of studies are showing that marijuana may not be so harmless after all.
In two new studies, to be presented later this month at the American Heart Association (AHA) Scientific Sessions 2023, researchers found that regular marijuana use increased the risk of heart attack, stroke or heart failure — even after factors like type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure and obesity were taken into account.
“Prior research shows links between marijuana use and cardiovascular disease like coronary artery disease, heart failure and atrial fibrillation, which is known to cause heart failure,” lead study author Yakubu Bene-Alhasan, M.D., MPH, a resident physician at Medstar Health in Baltimore, said in a statement. “Marijuana use isn’t without its health concerns, and our study provides more data linking its use to cardiovascular conditions.”
Funny how both studies focus on smoking though, it's almost as if inhaling smoke isn't healthy 🤯.
My biggest complaint with most cannabis research is the failure to subgroup results by delivery mechanism.
Do people that don't smoke at all but use oral cannabis have higher heart complication risks, and if so how much are they elevated compared to the norm and compared to the subgroups that smoke?
But no, it's usually just catchy headlines about "cannabis correlated with X" when I get the feeling many times it's really "smoking things correlated with X."
Study probably paid for by alcohol and police lobbies. Always villainise.
"Don't attribute to malice what you can attribute to incompetence."
Except when it's a study that completely ignores very obvious alternative causes for its outcome. In that case, it's reasonable to suspect malice.
I'm wondering about vaping and CBD/hemp too: I use a dry herb vape with hemp to quit smoking cigarettes. Works great but now I'm a little worried. My resting heart rate is 50 bpm and I get a decent amount of physical activity so hopefully I'm OK.
I heard vaping gives you wet popcorn lung and kills you faster than smoke.
/s
Also, drink alcohol it’s way better for you than marijyana
If you're vaping BHO extracted products/products with added terpenes, then you are doing damage to your lungs. Dry herb vaping and live rosin excluded.
You have to be so careful with the extraction methods and diluent agents when it comes to vaping concentrates (that includes regulated vape carts--not just black market carts).
The terpenes used in vape carts to dilute and reintroduce flavor and aroma (which is lost in some extraction methods, like BHO) also produces harmful byproducts when vaped. [2]
Another problem with cheap vape pens and e-cigs is the cheap atomizers/coils used. There have been confirmed cases of these coils/atomizers leeching heavy metals into the vapor produced.[3]
It's always important to consider the risk-mitigation approach, but a lot of people don't comprehend that not all vaping concentrates/methods are equal, and some should absolutely be avoided.
Vaping can give you popcorn lung. Its just not as common as everyone says.
It's been too many years since I've had this argument to remember the details, but it's linked to specific additives that are usually in specific flavors. IIRC the mitigation is to not buy from sellers who use cheap flavorings and to avoid certain buttery flavors.
Vitamin E acetate. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6952050/
Well now you've made me google. 🙂
IIRC that's a different problematic component.
The component that causes popcorn lung is diacetyl. https://reason.org/backgrounder/debunking-the-myth-that-vaping-causes-popcorn-lung/
I no longer vape, but when I did it wasn't too hard to find sellers who would provide lab results or other certification that they did not use diacetyl in their flavorings.
Your link also distinguishes between the two:
You can look at my comment above.
BHO extracted products and ones that use additional terpenes for flavor/as a diluent agent should be avoided. This does not only apply to black market/vitamin E acetate containing carts. This very much includes mainstream carts available on the shelves of dispensaries.
THC does cause heart distress, regardless of consumption method.
CBD should be fine.
Either are better than nicotine anyway.
But it didn't and even says so.. I'd take this with a grain of salt. It's not very scientific IMO.
Important to note that the population of the study all had a history of cardiovascular health issues, and were not representative of the rest of the population.
Also important to note is the failure to assess a distinction between combustion and non-combustion consumption.
Combusting marijuana results in particulates, carcinogens [1], lack of oxygen, and off-gasses benzene. [2] These are very important factors to control for, and this distinction was not addressed at all.
Definitely in need of further studies on the topic. This is an interesting area to explore, but this study falls a little flat in addressing any causation.
First, fuck the shitty sellout who came up with the clickbait title. Smoking use was linked to those issues, not marijuana.
Second, are there any studies that show consuming edibles has negative effects?
And that is definitely not weed in the picture.
I'm on my phone so it's a pain to try and find the original studies, but I see that in one, they didn't account for smoking vs eating edibles, and the other seems to have mostly focused on smoking.
No surprise there. My first thought was that this was more correlation than causation - people who take cannabis are more likely to do a range of things that cause heart problems. But you may be onto something with smoking. Smoking breaks things down into all sorts of nasty carbon particulates.
Not that this rules out cannabis damage to the heart or brain, mind, but the phrase "more study is needed" cannot be emphasised enough.
In my experience ingestion route doesn't make a difference; smoked or eaten, marijuana definitely makes my heart beat significantly faster and more irregularly and spikes my blood pressure.
I stopped smoking after I got the 'rona, because it totally ratfucked my lung capacity, but I saw the same physiological effects either way (minus smoking-specific ones like coughing and lightheadedness).
And due to bad study design, this research will answer exactly 0 of these these very legitimate questions.
That sounds like an improper dosage issue to me, tbh. I only use a dry herb vape occasionally (maybe once every couple of days, sometimes I go weeks without it), but some strains with higher potency effect me like how you describe. However, I started getting super light strains (<10% THC) from the dispensary and it made a huge difference. Also, if I only take like one puff, I still get a relaxing buzz but none of that heart racing you speak of.
Anywho, worth considering.
6ish years of pretty decent on/off use only edibles and vape. My BP actually drops during use (I monitor due to previous HBP issues). This is going to be like any medicinal use, everyone will have different sides/severities.
It definitely makes a difference.
Given the extensive research around smoking and heart health, a 'placebo' group that was regularly smoking wood chips in blunts (or any kind of burnt vegetation) would be expected to have heart complications.
That smoking isn't the only factor here is probable, but that it isn't a factor at all is extremely unlikely.
Which is why research really needs to break out subgroups based on delivery mechanism.
Even if BPM is affected by non-combustion, it doesn't mean the carcinogens, particulates, lack of oxygen, and benzene from combustion couldn't play a key role in the cardiovascular health problems in the studies.
IMO, an elevated heart rate after smoking could be a result of some underlying form of anxiety as well. And some strains seem to aggravate the situation.
Yay! More bad science for click baity articles
All the new marijuana hate junk science articles will stop coming along in such numbers after Ohio's election. Just watch.
So does tobacco use. If people are going to use this study as a reason to ban marijuana, then shouldn't we ban tobacco as well?
Yes. From a medical standpoint tobacco is terrible, hence regulations make it more difficult to smoke all over the world.
The issue is that there are so many smokers, that they are a force to be reconned with.
If tobacco was introduced now, it would probably be on the same legal status as meth. Same with alcohol.
Uk just did today and your comment has made me realise cannabis will never be legalised in the uk
I stopped smoking entirely because I was worried about shit like this. I've moved on to edibles and feel sooo much better....but now this has me nervous. Is marijuana in general? Or smoking in particular?
Smoking, this is a pointless article and clickbait
Patients with cardiovascular health issues who smoke marijuana more likely to have heart health issues?
Given all of the things we as humans consume that are known to be bad for us, (here's looking at you processed sugar) I'm in the who fucking cares camp. Let me burn a doobie and be mellow. I am definitely not trying to live forever.
yeah pot might be a bit bad but its probably as bad as sugar and caffeine tbh
shit keeps getting studies and it keeps being harmless
sugar is literally legal cocaine its made the same way and produces the same effects and even looks the same, yet it tastes good so we cant regulate it.(or even honestly say how much is in our products in the US, EU nutrition facts r nice)
As a person who has used pretty much daily since 1966 and who knows many others who have done the same it has not been my experience that people are having ANY health issues due to the use of cannabis. I spend my summers with a bunch of ancient musicians. We drink alcohol, smoke pot and play music most if not all are in good health and mentally capable. We are all in our 70s and 80s. Every year we lose someone but we have not been blaming cannabis for people dying in their 80s.
That's fair.
The other side of the coin is my ex-husband who rolled 14 joints every morning to take to work ... and he smoked every one of them by himself.
There are people who are addicted, sometimes because of massive trauma they faced as a child/youth.
It would be unethical to disregard a study that simply disagrees with your personal preference or experience.
I do not see this as the other side of the coin. I have been using pretty much daily since 1966 except for a 3 week tolerance break once a year. I use much more than your ex and have never considered myself an addict as cannabis is not in any way addictive. I have zero trouble quitting for 3 weeks every year.
Nah.
It’s not surprising they had more health problems if they were consuming whenever is spilling out of the pill bottle in the thumbnail.
It looks like they got an eighth out of evidence lockers after 15 years and used that for the stock photo
Just by doing a little sleuthing I found out some things that really point to this article being a bit more flawed than one might think.
From: https://themessenger.com/info/about-us
First; the news outlet breaking this story? It's new. Brand Spanking New. So new that not even Wikipedia would recognize this site as notable.
A noble ethos; but they really haven't been around long enough to be able to assign a lean to their content yet. I think this is telling of their goals...to publish articles on topics that they feel are getting biased coverage.
From: https://professional.heart.org/en/meetings/scientific-sessions
Hmm....
From the article: https://themessenger.com/health/marijuana-use-heart-attack-heart-failure-brain-issues
HMMMMMmmmmm......
Yeah these dates don't match; and the author clearly did not attend this symposium to ask questions or do appropriate research on the matter.
From: https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1006523 (Emphasis added)
Hmmm. I'm beginning to suspect this study is still kind of a pre-print and it's not yet fully finished. Not to mention the issue that this is from a news release and lots of paraphrasing is probably at play here. If I'm understanding this correctly; the primary investigation did not even consider or take into account the effects of coronary artery disease nor would it appear that the study was crafted to screen for or account with people who already have coronary artery disease or similar problems or risk factors.
Hmmmmm. Do we have a bit of an agenda maybe? It's hard to say for certain; but it sounds like they actually do want to cast doubt on the issue with relatively weak scientific evidence.
I see. So we have an outsized number of older participants; who are far more likely to be at risk for heart problems.
Ah. Yeah. If we have been paying attention to the four year period between 2016 and 2022, we note that had a pandemic during that period too; which I suspect might also be problematic.
Yep. Older adults. It feels like they carefully selected subjects and data that would support their conclusions. Obviously this was Not a randomized controlled trial, and it should not be treated like one.