Cannabis use and myocardial infarction in young adults: a cross-sectional study • Hacker News Board

Re: Cannabis use and myocardial infarction in young adults: a cross-sectional study

#91

Post by tombert » Tue, Sep 07, 2021, 6:07 PM UTC

zerobits wrote: post #18

It’s strange that all of the comments are looking for ways to dismiss this result (and this seems to happen generally with negative cannabis findings online). Is it not entirely possible a drug and method of consumption which stresses the cardiovascular system increases odds of an adverse cardiovascular event?

I think there’s been a bit of an overcorrection about weed in the last couple years. Weed smokers have been on the defensive against a lot of bullshit (and untrue/hyperbolized) propaganda for almost a century, and thus a lot of them have gotten somewhat inoculated against any negative findings about cannabis, to a point where they will dismiss virtually anything that has even a remote chance of making weed look bad.

Re: Cannabis use and myocardial infarction in young adults: a cross-sectional study

#92

Post by retrac » Tue, Sep 07, 2021, 6:08 PM UTC

borvsky wrote: post #69

halfmatthalfcat wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like therapy would be very useful then. If you’re having to self-medicate to maintain sanity, the substances are only a crutch. Speaking from personal experience.

Funny how no one ever says this about caffeine intake. Surely you also think people who drink coffee every day are relying on a crutch and are drug addicts that need therapy.

I do have doubts about whether caffeine every day long-term is effective. We seem to develop tolerance, and at least personally, I eventually need it in the morning just to get back to baseline. But caffeine as a situational stimulant has been my practice since early adulthood. Rarely it is daily use for short stretches when very busy. But usually just one or two cups of coffee a week, in the early afternoon when I'm feeling sluggish. It's a drug and like any other it has its uses and its downsides :)

Re: Cannabis use and myocardial infarction in young adults: a cross-sectional study

#93

Post by colechristensen » Tue, Sep 07, 2021, 6:08 PM UTC

zerobits wrote: post #18

It’s strange that all of the comments are looking for ways to dismiss this result (and this seems to happen generally with negative cannabis findings online). Is it not entirely possible a drug and method of consumption which stresses the cardiovascular system increases odds of an adverse cardiovascular event?

Notice this more. When people have a side on a topic they tend to find every excuse for its shortcomings and easily believe every positive.

People seem to have a lot of trouble accepting that things they favor have negative aspects and things they don’t have merit. The world isn’t just good and evil, most of it is striking a balance between positives and negatives and we all need to get better at doing this objectively instead of picking a side and afterwards finding a justification.

Re: Cannabis use and myocardial infarction in young adults: a cross-sectional study

#94

Post by elliekelly » Tue, Sep 07, 2021, 6:13 PM UTC

bialpio wrote: post #81

notJim wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's any marijuana use, not just smoking: The primary exposure for our study was any recent cannabis use, categorized as a binary outcome. In the BRFSS, participants were asked, “During the past 30 days, on how many days did you use [marijuana or hashish (2017)] [marijuana or cannabis (2018)]?” We defined any recent cannabis use as using cannabis 1 or more time during the past 30 days.

Results for other methods of consumption were not statistically significant: "Similarly, a higher odds of history of MI was observed with vapourization as a primary method of cannabis consumption (adjusted OR 2.26, 95% CI 0.58–8.82) and other forms of cannabis consumption, including edibles (adjusted OR 2.36, 95% CI 0.81–6.88) when compared with nonusers; however, these were not statistically significant."

When they say "primary method of cannabis consumption" do they mean the primary method of consumption in the past 30 days? Or do they mean the primary method of lifetime consumption?

I'm also not sure "primary method of consumption" is the right question to ask? If someone smokes three days a week and has edibles the other four their primary method would be edibles but that doesn't erase the risk of the smoking.

Re: Cannabis use and myocardial infarction in young adults: a cross-sectional study

#95

Post by quickcheck » Tue, Sep 07, 2021, 6:14 PM UTC

barbazoo wrote: post #9

arpinum wrote: post #3

I appreciate the study calls out that most cannabis is smoked, and it may be general smoke inhalation driving these results rather than an inherent property of cannabis

I too wonder if it is due to the way it was consumed primarily (smoking). There is a bit about the impact of cannabinoids on the cardiovascular system however. > The impact of exogenous cannabinoids on the cardiovascular system has been well described.7,33 After acute exposure, cannabis induces dose-dependent tachycardia and, in some cases, decreased ventricular contractility, palpitations, atrial fibrillation and ar…

In the "Interpretation" section of the paper they specify: "Although a similarly elevated odds of history of heart attacks was observed across methods of recent cannabis consumption, only smoking as a primary method achieved statistical significance."

Re: Cannabis use and myocardial infarction in young adults: a cross-sectional study

#96

Post by galaxyLogic » Tue, Sep 07, 2021, 6:18 PM UTC

this_user wrote: post #82

oxymoran wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Although a similarly elevated odds of history of MI was observed across methods of recent cannabis consumption, only smoking as a primary method achieved statistical significance.“

That is honestly a pretty confusing sentence in need of clarification. My read would be that statistical significance was not achieved due to the small sample size of users who are primarily using other methods of consumption than smoking.

If there isn't statistical significance there isn't statistical significance. It does not matter what caused the lack of it. Without statistical significance there is "no evidence".

Re: Cannabis use and myocardial infarction in young adults: a cross-sectional study

#97

Post by gonehome » Tue, Sep 07, 2021, 6:20 PM UTC

Tenoke wrote: post #73

gonehome wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the default for any motivated reasoning where people are interested in a specific outcome (regardless of what's true): https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/too-good-to-check-a-pl... It's hard work to fight against it, but the first step is recognizing it all over the place and in your own thinking. Recognizing it and trying to correct for it is one of the core bits of the rationality community (imo).

I think it's also because many of us have seen extreme exaggerations on the dangers of cannabis that turned out to be wrong. It definitely take me years of using it to acknowledge the (lesser) negative effects after seeing how much of the negative things I was told about it as a kid were fake.

Just because others have made the same mistake in the other direction doesn't mean it's good to do the same thing in pursuit of a different conclusion.

Skepticism is good, but if you find yourself preferring one outcome over another then you should be extra critical of stuff that supports your preferred outcome because you're more likely to want to give it a pass.

Similarly you should be more willing to entertain stuff that goes the other way because you're more likely to incorrectly dismiss something that's actually true.

Re: Cannabis use and myocardial infarction in young adults: a cross-sectional study

#98

Post by halfmatthalfcat » Tue, Sep 07, 2021, 6:20 PM UTC

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #89

halfmatthalfcat wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never argued it doesn't provide relief, what I'm arguing is that relief is somewhat of an illusion if you're suffering from persistent mental health issues, hence a crutch.

In your mind, does this only apply to cannabis, or any mental-health related medication?

There are people who need to use prescribed medications to help regulate their mental health (usually in addition to psychotherapy), however I don't include cannabis in that realm.

Cannabis (THC) has properties that (in some, not all and sometimes the reverse) reduce anxiety however, from what I've seen and experienced, cannabis is by in large used to self-medicate instead of seek real treatment.

Re: Cannabis use and myocardial infarction in young adults: a cross-sectional study

#99

Post by galaxyLogic » Tue, Sep 07, 2021, 6:22 PM UTC

dylan604 wrote: post #78

crazy_horse wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah. I'm not trying to die of cancer or have reduced mental capacity. I want these studies. I know from my own anecdotal experience that d9 (reg THC) gives me incredible anxiety but d8 does not. My mental health is better than it was before I had access to it. I don't want to be a guinea pig, but we've been hearing fear, fear, fear for the last six decades.

Reefer Madness was released in 1936, so closer to eight decades. The rule changes in the 60s were more about racial, for lack of better word, control than anything. Without wanting to sound all pot-head hippy, this plant seems to be pretty magical. If it turns out that the "good" stuff can be used by removing the one part that gets you high, then we've lost so much potential because of fearmongering. It's infuriating…

Science as a whole is under attack, from the right.

Re: Cannabis use and myocardial infarction in young adults: a cross-sectional study

#100

Post by Tenoke » Tue, Sep 07, 2021, 6:22 PM UTC

gonehome wrote: post #97

Tenoke wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's also because many of us have seen extreme exaggerations on the dangers of cannabis that turned out to be wrong. It definitely take me years of using it to acknowledge the (lesser) negative effects after seeing how much of the negative things I was told about it as a kid were fake.

Just because others have made the same mistake in the other direction doesn't mean it's good to do the same thing in pursuit of a different conclusion. Skepticism is good, but if you find yourself preferring one outcome over another then you should be extra critical of stuff that supports your preferred outcome because you're more likely to want to give it a pass. Similarly you should be more willing to entertain stu…

I'm not saying it's good, I'm just giving another potent reason beyond self-interest.