Cannabis users 'more likely to have a heart attack'

Post Reply New Topic

Smoking cannabis dramatically increases a person’s risk of suffering a heart attack, according to a major new study.

Researchers in the United States found that, over a five-year period, regular users in their early 30s were 4.6 times more likely to have a cardiac-related illness than those who did not smoke the drug.

Users in their late 20s were three times more likely to have a heart attack.

https://themissouriinjuryblog.com/31310 ... rt-attack/

It looks like that was a study presented at a conference, and has not yet been published. That would mean it has not gone through peer review, so this represents bad science reporting. Even if it is confirmed later.

More fear mongering junk science. Last study that tried to link strokes to young marijuana smokers failed to highlight that all but one patient also smoked tobacco(just don't smoke tobacco).

Marijuana actually lowers blood pressure, stabilizes blood sugar levels, protects against diabetes type, CBD can even be used to treaty obesity and even be used to treat schizophrenia and depression.

The same junk science tries to claim marijuana leads to schizophrenia when schizophrenics are more likely to turn to marijuana to cope with their condition rather than marijuana causing schizophrenia.

So did they compare the cannabis users to non cannabis users who also drink heavily, smoke tobacco and have diabetes? It sounds like they didn't actually find cannabis specifically as a contributer...but rather that the cannabis users they surveyed have other unhealthy habits that are known contributers to heart attacks.

I figure if they took the numbers of people who don't smoke cannabis but drink heavily, smoke tobacco and/or have diabetes...they'd find a similar rate of heart attacks as the cannabis users they surveys.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3289985/

As no more reports emerge, this does indeed look like bad science reporting. If the researchers abused statistics, peer review will expose that. If they faked the data, that's actually more difficult to detect. I see nothing in the available information that will cause me to call it good or bad science.

It's a serious charge, not to be leveled without some kind of information to back it up. Calling something bad science simply on the basis of disagreement is bad logic.

Reviewing records adds a layer of uncertainty to the results since the article doesn't state where, how, or under what circumstances those records were obtained.
Is this based on self reporting? Of those many, many folks in the supposed control group, how many were not at liberty to admit they used marijuana?
The degree of disease already present before cannabis use started and age groups represented are also missing.
A much more revealing and valid study would be to take folks without such blatant risk factors already in place. Why has the OP chosen to present this information, it does not seem to have a strong foundation?
When I clicked on the link, I got a pop up indicative of a virus.

https://www.acc.org/about-acc/press-rel ... rt-failure


Twitter page of one of the authors https://twitter.com/tareksh87?lang=en
I have tweeted asking when a paper will be available.

Just more over dramatic rubbish coming from butthurt people who want weed banned for whatever ridiculous reason.

Honestly, smoking in general is bad for you, any idiot can figure that one out. Any smoke = bad for lungs. Pretty obvious. However if you consume weed in other ways it's usually fine. But tbh I find weed to be quite overrated in general, I'd rather have booze. Weed just makes me feel sleepy.