Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ahfoo t1_j9wuwob wrote

Reply to comment by PPQue6 in Daily use of marijuana raises risk of heart disease, study finds by TheDodoBird

Yeah, in the peer-reviewed world, we're seeing the exact opposite.

Over 150,000 people were studied and they found strong evidence of reduced blood pressure among long-term cannabis smokers. Published in Nature this month.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-22841-6

45

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.

12

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.

9

CrowVsWade t1_j9wz2he wrote

Plenty of studies also showing potential problems caused by cannabis use, outside cardiovascular concerns.

−17

MAGICHUSTLE t1_j9yc2zp wrote

Link some of them!

18

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 [https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=FTW9DgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR1&dq=scholarly+articles+health+risks+cannabis&ots=-jg_5_7lpS&sig=LL6e3Nl0kVsdwjhtAziFzptfmGg#v=onepage&q=scholarly%20articles%20health%20risks%20cannabis&f=false] 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 - https://www.biologicalpsychiatryjournal.com/article/S0006-3223(04)01310-1/fulltext

Adverse effects of cannabis on health: An update of the literature since 1996 - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278584604000855

Epidemiologic review of marijuana use and cancer risk - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0741832905001126

Testing hypotheses about the relationship between cannabis use and psychosis - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0376871603000644

Cannabinoids and psychosis - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0074774206780102

Associations between modes of cannabis use in daily life with concurrent and longitudinal hazardous use and consequences - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306460321003932

Cloudy with a chance of munchies: Assessing the impact of recreational marijuana legalization on obesity - https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.4598

Health outcomes associated with long-term regular cannabis and tobacco smoking - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306460313000257

Is the relationship between early-onset cannabis use and educational attainment causal or due to common liability? - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0376871613002998

​

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.

−4

CrowVsWade t1_ja1z1lm wrote

See, you two are so stoned you can't click straight.

1

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.

2

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.

1

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.

1

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.

1