A closer look at the headline scare “Weed smoking causes heart attacks”

Every now and then I hear of a new “dangerous aspect” of cannabis smoking, whether it’s shrinking your brain or increasing your risk of going insane – these reports have been circulating since the ban began.

Today we’re talking about the latest “SCARE STUDY” in which researchers claim that smoking cannabis as young adults nearly doubles the risk of heart attacks.

Correctly. According to this CNN article, the science is clear and if you are a young adult you could have a heart attack. Except, the science isn’t clear, and if you browse this study long enough it resolves pretty easily.

Photo by megaflopp / Getty Images

Today I take the old magnifying glass and look at the processes and conclusions of the research team and compare them to reality. We’ll also ask some questions along the way.

So buckle up, let’s get ready to debunk nonsense!

How was the study conducted?

This was a “cross-sectional study,” which means it is an observational study that analyzes data from a specific population at a specific point in time. The main problem with cross-sectional studies is that the way you phrase the question greatly affects the results. The parameters you choose for testing also play a big role.

In other words, a cross-sectional study can literally prove that heavy metal can lead to increased suicidal tendencies. You can also frame it so that the opposite is true. This is one of the first things we need to address before delving into the “science” behind the study.

RELATED: Cannabis Causes Heart Problems Regardless Of The Method Of Use

Second, the study was published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal by Canadian researchers using data from the United States. This is a red flag as Canada has had legal cannabis for years and may have empirical data, but the study chose to use information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) instead.

That’s what the study says;

We conducted a cross-sectional study using pooled data from the 2017 and 2018 cohorts of the American Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System survey among US adults. We analyzed the association between recent cannabis use and a history of MI using a weighted logistic regression model that took into account demographic factors, socio-economic factors, health-related behaviors, concomitant substance use, and other comorbidities. We also assessed this association after stratifying it by frequency of use and primary method of use. – SOURCE

Essentially, they took some data, made measurements they thought were important, and did fancy math. Their confidence level is 95%, which means their results can fluctuate if someone tries to replicate – say, with actual empirical evidence.

What they found

According to the researchers, their data shows that “young adults” – classified as those between 18 and 44 (WTF?) – are 1.3 times more likely to have a heart attack when they smoke up to four times a month.

Photo by Peter Dazeley / Getty Images

This age group got me thinking: Are 18 year olds and 44 year old hearts the same? Why did you include such a broad section of the population in your calculations? Would they have the same results if they were 18-21 year olds? 21-30 years old? 30-40 years old?

However, the number of these elements is not important. The 18 year old heart and the 44 year old heart are exactly the same and after eliminating all other comorbidities they came to this conclusion.

If the study contradicts itself

CNN reported that this study is “true” and is now being used by lawmakers to assess the potential risks of cannabis. Except in the study itself – buried in the interpretation area, you will find this jewel …

Although heavy cannabis use has been reported to induce acute myocardial infarction (MI), the current evidence is limited to case-control studies that are prone to bias and studies that rely solely on administrative data.

RELATED: Smoking marijuana is not good for your heart, says the American Heart Association

In other words, they’re relying on data that doesn’t tell them the whole picture. I’m not saying cannabis has no cardiovascular effects – to say that would be unscientific.

However, drawing conclusions about administrative data is also not scientific. Though they used complex math to come to their conclusions.

Why we need better studies

It seems to me that there are still a lot of studies trying to boost the harms of cannabis, and while this isn’t necessarily a “bad” thing, there need to be equivalent studies looking at other aspects of cannabis.

If you are constantly looking for the pathological ill effects of everything – you will find it. Especially when you know how to play around with statistical prevalence.

Right now you are going to start talking to people about the inherent risks of cannabis and cardiovascular health based on this study that will influence the international discourse on legalization. This affects how we legalize and is disingenuous to the truth behind the plant.

Photo by boonchai wedmakawand / Getty Images

Because of these studies, Prohibition has been able to thrive for so long. They claim that these guidelines are designed to protect us – but what we need is not protection, but adequate education.

Everything carries an inherent risk. Water in the right amount gives you life sustaining hydration, but if you ingest too much water you will be deprived of all nutrients, which will end up with some serious physiological consequences.

However, the fact that water has this inherent risk doesn’t mean we are restricting people or letting the government dictate how much we should or shouldn’t drink.

Likewise, we need in-depth studies to inform us about our consumption, and it is time to end the grants for those flimsy studies that have no real value and say, “We need more research!”

As citizens, who often fund these studies with our taxpayers’ money, it is imperative that we scrutinize these types of grants and question whether the money we spend on our better information is actually doing its job. For now, the study has far too many factors that will alter the results for it not to be taken seriously at all.

This article originally appeared on Cannabis.net and was republished with permission.