Howstuffworks.com mentions in their “How Marijuana Works” article that marijuana “has also been linked to heart attacks”. I haven’t heard this before and was curious as to whether it’s true or not.
Here’s the article:
That article is probably referring to a study in 2000 which found that the heart rate increase caused by marijuana (~40 bpm) increases the risk of a heart attack in middle-aged people by almost five times in the hour after smoking.(Link):
Those results confuse me. Does that mean smoking marijuana is no more dangerous than say, jogging?
Its all to do with raised heart beats, basically whatever raises your heart beat could possibly give you a heart attack. So if the exercise you performed raised your heart beat more than smoking dope did it is technically more likely to give you a heart attack. It isn’t as simple as saying ‘exercise is more dangerous than smoking marijuana’ becasue exercise is also beneficial to your health.
So sparking up is like an aerobic workout? Duuuuuude.
I think it’s saying that smoking pot is twice as dangerous as jogging. Unless you’re out of shape. Then you might as well just smoke pot.
D
The introduction of any foreign substance into your body probably increases your risk of heart attack, to varying degrees, with the increased risk being in relation to the substance.
Even additional sugar in your diet or excessive water consumption may increase your risk of heart attack if only slightly.
The results of any study on marijuana need to be weighed against the agenda of the group doing the study. I know this sounds paranoid, but an open, unbiased study on marijuana has yet to be performed.
A good example of marijuana mis-information is the latest round of marijuana commercials on the TV. The ads relate car accidents to marijuana usage by saying that road side tests (urine tests) show that marijuana is a contributing factor in a high percentage of auto accidents. What they don’t tell you is that you can test positive for marijuana weeks after using it and that simply testing positive has no bearing on whether you were driving under the influence of marijuana.
If this testing mechanism is used to associate marijuana with other issues the results will also be incorrect or misleading.
Not only does smoking marijuana raise the heart rate, but it also tends to constrict the coronary arteries. Unlike aerobic exercise, which tends to leave them the same or even relax them. Tobacco has a similar acute effect on the heart.
So there is an increased risk of acutely causing a heart attack in someone with coronary artery disease. There’s also a growing body of evidence that chronic marijuana use may in itself increase the risk of coronary artery disease, a la tobacco use.
And no, smoking is not equivalent to an aerobic workout.
QtM, MD
Not paranoid, per se, just incredibly dogmatic. Now that you’ve made the claim, care to back it up with facts?
It is hardly dogmatic to suggest that, given how emotionally and politically charged the issue is, we should be particularly skeptical of reports on the medical effects of marijuna.
Whenever a study is funded by a group with a political agenda, it makes sense to ask what that groups agenda is in order to evaluate the study. Fast food institute study shows that the harmful effects of trans fats have been greatly exaggerated? What a surprise.
Marijuana has been illegal for almost a century, and the federal government has created a signficant bureacracy aimed at telling us of the evils of smoking marijuana.
It is not paranoid to suggest that these factors may have some bearing on whether its possible to find unbiased medical information on the effects of marijuana.
Do you, Carnac have any “facts” to back up what you seem to be claiming: that there are plenty of studies done by neutral parties with no axe to grind?
Qadgop, i always heard that marijuana does not constrict the arteries as tobacco does, but actually does the opposite.
Per standard rules of GQ, the original sweeping proposition–"… an open, unbiased study on marijuana has yet to be performed"–must be defended, not my request for documentation of that assertion.
While I tip my hat to your inelegant strawman, do note that I never disputed the need for healthy skepticism, per se. Rather, I objected to sweeping statements that suggest all research to date is biased. The fact that any research–marijuana related or no–is conducted against the backdrop of societal and political acrimony is meaningless.
As to your interrogatory–"Do you, Carnac have any “facts” to back up what you seem to be claiming: that there are plenty of studies done by neutral parties with no axe to grind?–per GQ (and not GD) protocol, it is not my responsibility to demonstrate the existence on unbiased data. Those who make extraordinary claims must support it with extraordinary proof.
cite?
I’ve read that cannabinoids relax the coronary arteries and, when given chronically, reduce blood pressure and heart rate. Also, that tolerance to the adverse cardiovascular effects developes rapidly.
sorry guys, but if marijuana were just about THC, then one could be confident that it served as a vascular relaxing agent. But unfortunately it’s full of lots of other chemicals. The initial vascular response to inhaling superheated, low-oxygen content smoke which contains tar and cyanide is to constrict. Granted, once the THC kicks in, dilatory effects may override. But that is not much condolence for the 55 year old with a 70% coronary lesion that just went to 99% due to the spasm, got hypoxic cardiac tissue, and went into a pulseless-nonbreathing state like ventricular fibrillation. I’m not saying it’s common, I’m saying it is a risk. And this study says both those things too:Triggering myocardial infarction by marijuana
Long-term studies on the effects on the vascular system are difficult to find, due the the problem finding subjects who’ve restricted their drug use to only marijuana for decades. Most are also tobacco smokers, and many also use cocaine, at least intermittently. So clean data is scarce. But there is a body of evidence that marijuana smoke causes endothelial injury, as does tobacco smoke.
If you’ve got something to contribute to this quest, NIDA is looking for good data: http://www.drugabuse.gov/MeetSum/MarijuanaRecommend.html
Here’s an anecdotic case study of a stroke triggered acutely by marijuana use: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/423573_print
In all, marijuana is probably a minor health risk compared to tobacco and alcohol. But it is still more risk than not smoking it. And its medical benefits are far, far overstated. And I’m saying this as a medical marijuana advocate. I think it has a role in both the treatment of malignant pain and chronic wasting syndromes, and I think the gummint ought to leave it up to the bona fide medical community to decide its utility. But I won’t sit back and see it touted as a wonder drug for whatever ails ya, when it is definitely not.
QtM, MD
YOW!! That myocardial infarction link I posted froze up my computer big time!! My apologies. Actually, the gist of the article is as follows:
From: Circulation.2001;103:2805-2809 (A very reputable journal)
[quote]
Triggering Myocardial Infarction by Marijuana
Background- Marijuana use in the age group prone to coronary artery disease is higher than it was in the past. Smoking marijuana is known to have hemodynamic consequences, including a dose-dependent increase in heart rate, supine hypertension, and postural hypotension; however whether it can trigger the onset of MI is unknown.
Conclusion; Smoking marijuana is a rare trigger of acute myocardial infarction. Understanding the mechanism through which marijuana causes infarction may provide insight into the triggering of myocardial infarction by this and other, more common stressors.[\quote]
Here’s a cleaner link: http://www.gdpn.org/dpna/resources/research/myocardial.htm
Anyway here’s the point I’m trying to make regarding the OP!! (I’d forget my butt if it wasn’t attached so firmly!)
From the above link
So yes, Marijuana smoking does increase the risk of an acute infarction.
The original claim that all research is biased is far-fetched. But, it isn’t unreasonable to assume, that in the US, given the government and mainstream social attitudes, it is difficult to reasonably ascertain which studies are relatively free of bias, irrespective of whether they are or not.
So, what about eating cookies or drinking it as tea? What would be the health effects of ingesting just THC (Marinol) assuming it is one day, dispensed OTC (just a speculative example).
Well, Marinol has been rigourously tested in order to get approval from the FDA. If an association between its use and increased risks of MI had been noted, it would have been reported.
I see that marinol is approved for anorexia and nausea. I see it has side-effects including both hypotension and hypertension. I don’t see any reasons to use it other than what its approved indications are for; although it could be an adjunct to pain therapy.
What do you want to use it for?