Personally I'd wager a bet it's the tobacco and/or smoking that is the harmful part, but it kind of dumbfounds me they failed to account for "details" like "duration and amount of cannabis use", that feels like a very vital thing to control for. Nothing is good for you in too great amounts, even water, so not taking that into account seems to not really give reliable and trustworthy results.

but sure, still lets make to account by other "legal" substances (alco, tobacco, cocaine, pharmaceutics and other "lifestyle choices" infecting cardiovascular system) and way they are consumed(smoked, ingested, pure or with say tobacco)

would love see data for a group who consumes cannabis by ingestion and especially not via smoking!

also- do they differ different thc/cbd grades used (high/low thc, "medical")?

im regards "research demonstrates something does this.." for many years alcohol was considered "healthier" over non consumption, just becauses non-drinkers were together with those of abstinent ex-alcholics.. thus average score was lower than for those who drunk minimal amounts and were considered "healthier".

I would assume that cannabis use correlates with a few other important heart health variables and we would expect the odds ratio to be lower when accounting for those (alcohol doesn't have an OR more than 1.0, tobacco smoking ~1.5)

I'm sure that cannabis use is bad for cardio health but the reported odds ratio is very high. I personally do not use cannabis.

Edit:

Realized this comment sounds like fear mongering, so decided to dig up some actual sources. The wiki page I needed to find was:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_cannabis

Also, the CDC page mentions it:

https://www.cdc.gov/cannabis/health-effects/heart-health.htm...

And links to this paper (though I can't read past the abstract bc no institutional access):

https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1552-4604.2002.tb06005.x

about the 'study': I do not trust anything that comes out of meta studies given how many base studies are found to be either garbage or very lacking in controls. And without knowing an accurate life history it is hard to rule out or quantify damages done much earlier in life.

https://www.med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2022/04/marijuana...

Now I stimulate the Vegas nerve in the morning and at night with breathing regiments

Its hard to quit as there is a lot it does for you neurologically like caffeine does but I finally realized it was giving me neuroinflammation and wrecking my sleep quality so I stopped. Likely other long term health problems but those are harder to see/feel.

Now my body does biphasic sleep and I journal at night and read books. Never liked to do either. Get crazy amounts of energy now and people constantly comment on the difference in me.

Goodluck, you can in fact regulate this shit out of your daily habits if you find a way to do a cellular reset. Its not easy.

I quit smoking cigarettes and checked drinking way way easier than cannabis

> Since both studies were limited by their retrospective nature and the meta-analysis was limited by the challenges inherent in pooling data from multiple studies, researchers said that additional prospective studies would help to confirm the findings and determine which groups may face the highest risk.

Here's the thing that both the alarmists and the naysayers keep ignoring: all this data is new, it's recent, and decades of effective global prohibition have meant the only sources of reliable data came from either post-war/pre-prohibition studies (often by Defense Departments) or from "anecdata" gathered retrospectively among large cohorts. We still lack a substantial amount of direct, quality, long-term data on drug use and Nth-order impacts on the body, and these studies are the first steps towards getting more data from higher quality research to draw better conclusions from.

If anything, I try to be quite open with my Doctors about my own use precisely because I know that data is thin and dated, and any contributions from patients in an honest manner is going to help draw better conclusions for healthcare guidance tomorrow. Letting alarmists use these thin precursors as justification for a return to total prohibition is the wrong move.

Substances approved by the FDA are done based on specific treatments, with multiple trials and approval per use case

Substances declared scheduled are illegal by the substance itself, instead of per use case

paradoxically because there is no FDA approved use case and almost no way to get one

meaning that places in the US that diverge in legality and are ignored by the federal government have done so without any clinical trial, which would be some level of peer reviewed objective information by use case instead of the whole substance

we can’t even get a simple list of side effects, or a disclaimer about what kind of users shouldn’t use it

only anecdotes

that annoys me and it’s not just about weed

What I like more is some of the people that will agree with me would crucify if the topic was about ADHD meds.

it's as stupid as smoking/vaping and not even black box warnings will get people to stop

now if you need pain management I can respect that 100%

but you need to investigate Palmitoylethanolamide and Geraniol as alternatives

* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48700498