You may have seen a recent article claiming that using cannabis increases your risk of heart attacks and strokes. But, is it true? Or, is it just more of the scare tactics we’ve seen for decades.
I saw the headline last week and wanted to write about it, but then I saw that Catherine Goldberg, who writes on Substack under the name, Senior Savvy Cannabis, had already handled it, and since I decided that I couldn’t do much to improve on her article, I decided to post some of it here, with a link so you can finish it on her Substack page.
I like what Catherine’s doing on her page, and I recommend you subscribe, assuming the subject is important to you. She’s truly smart and substantive, with a very direct and easy to understand style.
Anyway, Catherine starts out by making a very salient point about the so-called research:
“You’ve probably seen headlines like this: “Marijuana users at greater risk for heart attack and stroke.”
It sounds alarming—maybe even definitive. But then you dig in and realize the study behind it was based on just 55 people.
A study based on 55 people? Catherine explains the myriad of reasons the United States is still behind when it comes to cannabis research. Here are the highlights:
- She points out that the lack of standardized products makes any research difficult at best. “Imagine trying to research Tylenol, but every bottle had a different formula. That’s what researchers face with cannabis.”
- “Big pharma studies often include thousands of participants and span years. Cannabis studies? You’re lucky to get 80 people and a two-week check-in,” she says.
- Her article also reminds us that cannabis is still a Schedule I substance under federal law, “classified alongside heroin and considered to have no medical value,” she explains.
- She also points out that medical research “needs blinding and control groups,” and “many cannabis studies have neither,” Goldberg says.
Catherine closes by pointing out what she describes as the Catch-22 that we’ve been living with for decades.
- Cannabis is federally illegal → so it can’t be easily studied.
- Can’t study it → so we don’t gather enough data.
- Don’t have data → so it stays illegal.
“It’s a cycle that keeps cannabis science stagnant,” Goldberg explains. “Meanwhile, millions of people are using it—without guidance, without oversight, and often based on trial and error.”
My conclusion…
For decades, in this country, it was illegal to research the cannabis plant, unless the “research” was being done to point out negative aspects of cannabis use. As a result, the vast majority of the so-called research conducted in this country on cannabis has always been shoddy, at best, and it’s only beginning to improve.
Personally, I’m not going to worry about whatever 55 people using some unknown form of THC did over a handful of years.
###
Skip to content
