Marijuana use linked to increased risk of heart attack, stroke, study finds

Researchers call for more studies to understand why they're linked.

See full article...

 

[Frodo Douchebaggins]

Breathing smoke is bad for you, surprisingly.

Also smoking anything makes you look like an idiot, and is a nuisance to others. I am 100% in favor of public smoking/vaping bans, which are looooong overdue, as well as smoking/vaping in a room or vehicle if minors are present. Wanna kill yourself in private? Have fun.


In terms of useful research, I am looking forward to future research trying to determine if edibles are an issue or not in this context.

 

[jasonmicron]

I'm reminded of John Oliver's story on how the media (mostly local news) takes the results of one study and reports on the study as if it were just now "true". Beth definitely does her homework, so I know that's not the case here - indeed the entire story is based around more studies being required.

That said, I'm sure I'll be hearing about it on the local news soon about it being "fact" and already a decided matter.

John Oliver story (since its age restricted, I guess it won't allow embedding):

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Rnq1NpHdmw

Edit: Yikes, apologies, didn't realize how much real estate that YouTube video panel takes up here! Now I know. Again, apologies!

 

[HiroTheProtagonist]

Breathing smoke is bad for you, surprisingly.

Also smoking anything makes you look like an idiot, and is a nuisance to others.

Looking forward to future research trying to determine if edibles are an issue or not.

I mean, the most common edibles tend to be confectionary, so a cookie that makes you hungry enough to demolish an entire pizza by yourself might be a contributing factor.

 

[Dachannien]

Could it be the munchies?

Seriously - if people's eating habits tend to be worse when they get high, that could at least be a complicating factor for this study.

 

[AmorImpermissus]

I am willing to bet a lot of money that the vast majority of the respondents were smoking weed, because that's been the most commonly used method for the longest time, and other delivery methods have only (relatively) recently become ubiquitous. I'd be very curious to know what the breakdown looked like when the users only ever used non-combustible delivery methods.

 

[Kommi]

Huh, that's an interesting study. I'm really curious to see if they're able to break it further down into causation. Aside from smoke, I can think of a host of other reasons.

 

[Chance the Gardiner]

It's kind of a shame that studying anything cannabis related has been verboten for decades, otherwise we might have learned a thing or two before legalization.

 

[Rockchurch]

Would Taco Bell even still exist without chronic cannabis use?

 

[meisanerd]

It's kind of a shame that studying anything cannabis related has been verboten for decades, otherwise we might have learned a thing or two before legalization.

Exactly. I've got a friend with a lot of pain that has been prescribed this now because the research is finally out there supporting it as a pain reliever, but it it stupid how long it took to get that out allowed. I have no problem with restricting general access to certain drugs/chemicals until they have been proven safe, and figuring out useful doses and what side effects there might be, but it is just stupid to be potentially harming people by not allowing research into how some of this stuff works, just because of some arbitrary war on drugs. But hey, it can be easy enough to get opioids...

 

[Deleted member 388703]

Isn't pot-pinkeye a vascular thing?

 

[Uncivil Servant]

A couple of confounding variables I'd like to make sure get cleaned up are whether there's any association with being more sedentary and getting less exercise, and the second confounding variable is social isolation.

I'd want to know more about any proposed mechanism of action. CB receptors in the cardiovascular system are interesting, but I mean you'd need to show that there's an effect greater than daily use of caffeine or even amphetamine to create those kinds of risks.

 

[Mungus the Unhyphenated]

Thank you, Dr. Mole and Ars, for an article that sheds some proper light on the study and raises the valid questions that aren't being asked in a lot of the other reports on it I've seen so far. After getting past the initial hyperbole and reading descriptions of the study, I came away with some serious skepticism. Nice to see that reflected here, and with decent analysis as to why we should be skeptical.

For a bit now, I've been seeing a trend toward articles taking a slant to cast health concerns on cannabis -- just as legitimate research is starting so show that cannabinoid compounds can have definite medical benefits. It's almost as if the "OMG, WEED BAD!! SAY NO TO DRUGS!!" machine has been quietly spinning up again.

Thank you for the rational approach to what's still a contentious subject.

 

[Frodo Douchebaggins]

Would Taco Bell even still exist without chronic cannabis use?

As someone who hasn't used cannabis in multiple years but had taco bell twice this month, I sure hope so.

 

[Mungus the Unhyphenated]

Isn't pot-pinkeye a vascular thing?

THC is a vasodilator. As such, lowering of blood pressure can be one possible effect. However, other cannabinoids and compounds in marijuana can act as stimulants, raising blood pressure even as the blood vessels themselves dilate and should offer less resistance. It's complicated. And why we need a lot more impartial, genuinely scientific study.

 

[TheFooledGhost]

Thank you, Dr. Mole and Ars, for an article that sheds some proper light on the study and raises the valid questions that aren't being asked in a lot of the other reports on it I've seen so far. After getting past the initial hyperbole and reading descriptions of the study, I came away with some serious skepticism. Nice to see that reflected here, and with decent analysis as to why we should be skeptical.

For a bit now, I've been seeing a trend toward articles taking a slant to cast health concerns on cannabis -- just as legitimate research is starting so show that cannabinoid compounds can have definite medical benefits. It's almost as if the "OMG, WEED BAD!! SAY NO TO DRUGS!!" machine has been quietly spinning up again.

Thank you for the rational approach to what's still a contentious subject.

Cannabis is an odd one in that certain compounds are helpful and some are harmful. Oddly enough, full legalization might help in this. The black market has interest in breeding strains to get you high. a legal market would have more incentive to make that effect mild or breed for more medically helpful strains.

 

[Robin-3]

I admit I only skimmed the study itself (I just finished work, my eyeballs are sick of looking at screens or anything else). But while I'm also curious about the edibles vs. smoking wrinkle (as Beth discussed, and others mentioned) I'm also curious about any data on the actual amount of cannabis consumed (and whether there's differentiation between THC and CBD levels, etc).

What's the risk profile for someone who semi-frequently ingests relatively low doses of THC but moderate doses of CBD, for instance, versus someone who rarely uses cannabis but whose occasional use involves higher doses of THC-leaning products? I'll be interested in seeing any future studies that dig into this stuff in more detail.

 

[panckage]

In my psych book it mentioned cannabis causes damage to the blue cones in our eyes. It seemed kind of silly, but the rest of the book seemed legitimate. It is interesting to hear more about these things that couldn't be studied properly before.

I wish they had separated out those who vape flower from those who smoke it.

 

[bicarb]

Breathing smoke is bad for you, surprisingly.

Also smoking anything makes you look like an idiot, and is a nuisance to others. I am 100% in favor of public smoking/vaping bans, which are looooong overdue, as well as smoking/vaping in a room or vehicle if minors are present. Wanna kill yourself in private? Have fun.


In terms of useful research, I am looking forward to future research trying to determine if edibles are an issue or not in this context.

Likewise. This seems like such a simple datapoint to note if the relevant samplesize is one that regularly smokes it vrs one that exclusively eats it.

 

[Jupitor13]

Maybe the association is getting stoned, eating a few pizzas and binging on Beavis and Butthead vids?

 

[you goddamn idiot.]

Well, fuck, there goes my idea of a niacin- and weed-enriched energy drink.

 

[panckage]

Could it be the munchies?

Seriously - if people's eating habits tend to be worse when they get high, that could at least be a complicating factor for this study.

Previous studies have shown that regular cannabis users have healthier BMI's than non users. So it is unlikely to be munchies.

 

[panckage]

I have no problem with restricting general access to certain drugs/chemicals until they have been proven safe,

It doesn't work this way. The first step of the scientific method is natural observation / data collection. If you ban something before you have any data all you achieve is BIASING the data set.

Now in addition to the effect of the chemical itself, you are essential limiting data collection to criminals and you've essentially destroyed any chance of a large naturalistic study.

 

[helf]

Breathing smoke is bad for you, surprisingly.

Also smoking anything makes you look like an idiot, and is a nuisance to others. I am 100% in favor of public smoking/vaping bans, which are looooong overdue, as well as smoking/vaping in a room or vehicle if minors are present. Wanna kill yourself in private? Have fun.


In terms of useful research, I am looking forward to future research trying to determine if edibles are an issue or not in this context.

Here here! I CANNOT STAND smokers. And vaping is the most douche thing in the past decade.

 

[meisanerd]

It doesn't work this way. The first step of the scientific method is natural observation / data collection. If you ban something before you have any data all you achieve is BIASING the data set.

Now in addition to the effect of the chemical itself, you are essential limiting data collection to criminals and you've essentially destroyed any chance of a large naturalistic study.

From what I understood, because of the classification of some of these drugs, researchers couldn't even get their hands on it to do studies with volunteers. And there are a good number of drugs that should be hard to get/restricted access, without completely cutting it off. If a criminal wants to sneak around a back alley to get their fentanyl hit, that's on them, but it shouldn't be easy for general public to get it. And they shouldn't be preventing researchers from accessing and using it in studies (with all proper volunteer signoffs and such) to see if there are any chemical reactions that would be useful.

Like the THC vs CBD in cannabis, does it do pain relief because it gets you high? Or are the interactions separate?

You cant stop natural observations, but once things start showing potential negatives... Most of these bans are based off observations.

 

[samanime]

Honestly, we should be studying anything and everything having to do with marijuana. We have 50-some-odd years of catching up to do when we should have been seriously studying it along with other things all along, if it weren't for the stupid restrictions on such research.

 

[Abhi Beckert]

I am willing to bet a lot of money that the vast majority of the respondents were smoking weed, because that's been the most commonly used method for the longest time, and other delivery methods have only (relatively) recently become ubiquitous. I'd be very curious to know what the breakdown looked like when the users only ever used non-combustible delivery methods.

People have been smoking weed for several thousand years and we're still not really sure what the long term health effects are. We probably won't have to wait that long for to learn about modern delivery methods but I wouldn't hold your breath.

I'm not going to tell you what to do with your body but it's worth pointing out you only have one body, so look after it.

 

[Frodo Douchebaggins]

That's not how it works.

How it works is they go to hospital, get really sick, need lots of care, and all that care is paid for by, well, everyone else. Either health insurance or taxes or both.

I'm not going to pass judgment on them for doing it, just inflicting it on others directly.

Recreational stupidity always costs others money and that's the cost of a society with aspirational freedom of choice. If I want to be allowed to ride motorcycles or ski or jump from planes or eat pizzas and tacos and stuff and have my costs covered, I need to be willing to accept the risks and stupid shit others do. However, I do not accept that they need to put others in direct risk to do so without their consent.

Do I wish that humans never discovered smoking or drinking alcohol? Sure. But I also wish I had $100m and that's not happening either.

 

[orwelldesign]

Here here! I CANNOT STAND smokers. And vaping is the most douche thing in the past decade.

It's not the smokers' fault.

Nicotine is unbelievably addictive. I'm an addict. I haven't had recreational opiates since 2010, a drink of alcohol since 2017, and can't quit smoking tobacco/using nicotine in some fashion.

I quit heroin and I can't quit nicotine. Oh, I can cut back my smoking (and have, by a lot) but I can't quit nicotine. I've got patches. They help, some. I've got vapes. They help, some. I've got those stupid "just like chewing tobacco, but not tobacco" nicotine pouches. And they help. Some.

Nicotine is more addictive than heroin. And, frankly, a lot less fun. At least when I was addicted to drugs I got high. Now I just have a bad habit that makes me unbelievably mean if I don't indulge: mean, Short-Fused, and incredibly anxious.

Oh, and my last bad habit encourages me to litter.

Yeah, smoking sucks, but blaming it on smokers is placing the blame in the wrong place. Tobacco companies tricked whole generations into nicotine addiction.

 

[Uncivil Servant]

Well, fuck, there goes my idea of a niacin- and weed-enriched energy drink.

Green Bull? Or if you add mushrooms, Green Bullshit?

 

[iced_and_alone]

"But, the researchers do note that many studies have linked the use of cannabis to" the relief of "chronic pain, insomnia, and anxiety—all of which have also been associated with cardiovascular disease."

 

[NinjaNerd56]

Consumer for 52 years and counting. About to get an evening edible…

 

[panckage]

From what I understood, because of the classification of some of these drugs, researchers couldn't even get their hands on it to do studies with volunteers. And there are a good number of drugs that should be hard to get/restricted access, without completely cutting it off. If a criminal wants to sneak around a back alley to get their fentanyl hit, that's on them, but it shouldn't be easy for general public to get it. And they shouldn't be preventing researchers from accessing and using it in studies (with all proper volunteer signoffs and such) to see if there are any chemical reactions that would be useful.

Like the THC vs CBD in cannabis, does it do pain relief because it gets you high? Or are the interactions separate?

You cant stop natural observations, but once things start showing potential negatives... Most of these bans are based off observations.

Fentanyl can kill right away so you have your data real quick. I'm not sure how that is relevant here.

Things like cannabis and kratom are much more benign and need long term study to tease out the positive/negatives. How you can claim to know these things without proper research is disturbing. I'm sorry man, but you are living in a dream world.

 

[orwelldesign]

I'll be honest, if someone went full John Wick and took out the executive leadership and BOD of every tobacco company I'd just laugh. They're irredeemable.

I do have empathy for smokers who want to quit and haven't yet been able to succeed. I can't know how hard it is, but I know it's hard. HOWEVER… starting in the first place was a decision, no? It's not like anyone on Ars has been alive long enough for it to be a secret when they started that it's addictive as fuck and harmful as hell.

Question: In a world where I could snap my finger and make all the tobacco companies disappear as well as every tobacco plant , what would that be like downstream to the users? In the short term I'm sure there'd be wild black market shit happening, but I'm curious if in your experience it'd die off or what.

Well, two things; I'm a notable outlier in terms of when I started smoking (2010, in rehab, because there was nothing else to fucking do) but the overwhelming majority of smokers started as teens. Teenagers aren't known for their good decisions.

There'd be wild black market shit, but around here (rural NC) people would still get tobacco. It's a plant that just grows here. In fact, most everybody that's from here, really from here, has spent at least one day of their life picking tobacco, which I've heard is an extremely unpleasant job.

In jail, pinner cigarettes (about half the diameter of a joint, you can make five pinners from one actual cigarette) go for FIVE BUCKS.

On the other hand, when I was in San Diego and my cigarettes were almost 20 dollars a pack, I smoked even less than I already do. (~two packs a week, which is not a lot compared to most habits.)

There's absolutely a price via taxation where most people won't do it anymore. But this is moonshine territory as well, and it seems part of the local culture to do what "everyone" tells you not to.

 

[FreeRangeOrganicSoyLatteCappuccino]

I'll be honest, if someone went full John Wick and took out the executive leadership and BOD of every tobacco company I'd just laugh. They're irredeemable.

I do have empathy for smokers who want to quit and haven't yet been able to succeed. I can't know how hard it is, but I know it's hard. HOWEVER… starting in the first place was a decision, no? It's not like anyone on Ars has been alive long enough for it to be a secret when they started that it's addictive as fuck and harmful as hell.

Question: In a world where I could snap my finger and make all the tobacco companies disappear as well as every tobacco plant , what would that be like downstream to the users? In the short term I'm sure there'd be wild black market shit happening, but I'm curious if in your experience it'd die off or what.

While you're at it trying to ban things that are additive with serious adverse health repercussions, you should look at banning: cocaine, methamphetamines, opiates, alcohol, sodas, donuts, energy drinks.

Good luck with that.