Bruh, how disinformation on weed still going? Yes it's bad for your heart. That hasn't been new information for over a decade
this post was submitted on 05 May 2025
20 points (85.7% liked)
Public Health
633 readers
59 users here now
For issues concerning:
- Public Health
- Global Health
- Health Systems & Policy
- Environmental Health
- Epidemiology
- etc.
🩺 This community has a broader scope so please feel free to discuss. When it may not be clear, leave a comment talking about why something is important.
Related Communities
- Medical Community Hub
- Medicine
- Medicine Canada
- Premed
- Premed Canada
- Public Health (📍)
See the pinned post in the Medical Community Hub for links and descriptions. link ([email protected])
Rules
Given the inherent intersection that these topics have with politics, we encourage thoughtful discussions while also adhering to the mander.xyz instance guidelines.
Try to focus on the scientific aspects and refrain from making overly partisan or inflammatory content
Our aim is to foster a respectful environment where we can delve into the scientific foundations of these topics. Thank you!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
It’s probably time to stop burning most forms of carbon most of the time, folks
To be fair, many of the things we do are bad for your heart
Live fast and leave a sexy corpse
It could make you grow a tail. But probably not.
I'm really confused as to why these articles make statements as if we all thought it was good for us. We're inhaling combusted plant materials, OFC it's not healthy. We do it because it makes this god awful planet a little more tolerable for the time we're stuck on it, not to be able to live here longer.
Because a significant number of people thinks and wants to keep thinking that weed is completely harmless irrespective of any evidence to the contrary (which to be fair there's not much of, but it's not like there's none).
I’d bet an ounce that there is a difference between burning bud, vaping, dabs, and edibles. This seems like it lumps everything together.
A new study offers more evidence linking [my bold] frequent marijuana use to an increased risk of cardiovascular disease.
Correlation is not causation, and the first thing I thought was "Well of course getting high and lounging around eating a ton of snacks is not going to produce positive cardiovascular outcomes."
That's my gripe with these studies as well. I just got done looking at the actual study and while the sample size was pretty big, I saw no mention of dosage (They mention dose as being how often, but not how much) or ingestion method. Considering they were using anonimized data from healthcare providers and weren't working with actual people (Comparing those who use and don't use based on ICD-10 codes), that info would be hard to actually get.
That said, I don't think this is a bad study. The fact that people who used at all showed higher risks is something to be learned and I agree with their conclusion that the public should be more aware of the potential risks with cannabis use. It's a good stepping stone on our way to better understanding the drug.
Edit: miss_demeanour commented that they found it states "smoking" specifically, but I do still worry that they may be grouping smoking, vaping bud, and vaping oil.
The results echo a 2022 study from the U.K., which found that among participants aged 40 to 69, those who reported smoking cannabis were more likely to have a heart attack compared with non-users.
--buried amongst the fluff in the article
Smoking.
Which was far more prevalent (99.9%?) pre-legalization.
Vaping and ingesting cannabis are far more common now.
I haven't forgotten the time the UK gov ordered a cannabis study and then deleted the results and tried to suppress them because it didn't like the conclusion.
Good spotting. I read most of the article but missed this.
To be fair, it's an 'ok' article, as it brings the topic to light, however it appears the self-reported cannabis use would be dominated by smokers given the relative 'newness' of alternative consumption methods.
From the study:
A total of 4,636,628 relatively healthy adults aged ≤50 years: 93,267 (2.01%) cannabis-users and 4,543,361 (97.99%) non-users. Cannabis-users were older (26 ± 8 vs 21 ± 9.5 years, P < 0.0001) and had higher comorbidities, including a nearly 15-fold higher prevalence of DD (30.63% vs 1.88%, P < 0.01) and BMI >30 (18.72% vs 3.25%, P < 0.0001). After PSM, each group had 89,776 patients with balanced demographics and baseline health characteristics.
Just ignore the 5 year age gap and 6x the rate of people with a BMI over 30...
Surely neither of those are gonna effect heart health or anything. /s
They could have narrowed down the control sample to line up with the cannabis user demographic, and then we could have gotten actual useful data out of this.
We still will if a rational person gets a hold of it and actually controls for confounding variables, but that's not gonna grab many headlines.