Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Del Boy...don't you think that to do a proper and controlled study on the "possibly" detrimental effects of long term marijuana use, researchers would have to study people who don't also smoke, drink, take any prescription drugs, and eat only healthy foods?....someone (let alone a large group) like that ,would prove hard to find...don't you think?
Del Boy...don't you think that to do a proper and controlled study on the "possibly" detrimental effects of long term marijuana use, researchers would have to study people who don't also smoke, drink, take any prescription drugs, and eat only healthy foods?....someone (let alone a large group) like that ,would prove hard to find...don't you think?
At the minimum a study on the long term affects on the heart for athletes would be at least somewhat sufficient.
In my mind, if it increases your heart rate, and then you engage in excercise, while the maximum heart rate won't increase, your resting heart rate will be much higher which means that the heart will be less effecient during periods of excercise.
I would imagine that this has some long term potential side affects. Perhaps your heart could become damaged. I don't know.
I'm probably in the wrong place, but medical advice isn't exactly free. Furthermore, studies have proven to be very difficult to find.
I know people who are convinced that they are not damaging their body, but they have complained before about having issues with their heart. They don't believe they are damaging themselves because the substance is typically painted as being harmless.
I would just like some clarification, so I can tell them the truth about what they're doing to their bodies.
If there is no harm, then I don't have much of an argument.
Surely there must be at least one long term user on this site who is a chronic user, and also an athlete that often partakes before strenuous physical activity that can at the minimum provide a circumstantial argument.
My point isn't to demonize marijuana. I just don't think it's smart for people to conclude that it's incredibly safe and spread that type of propoganda when there is a possiblity it is bad for your heart.
It may not be a big deal now, considering (I'm assuming) you're healthy, but I'm sure your opinion would change signficantly if you had to be issued a pacemaker.
And the National Institute of Health is not engaged in propaganda?
Given that there is not ONE SINGLE DOCUMENTED case of death attributed to marijuana use, methinks the NIH ought to be focusing it's resources a little better .... maybe like addressing the 200,000 deaths each year directly associated with pharmaceutical medications prescribed by doctors and taken as directed by that 1/5 Million dead patients.
And the National Institute of Health is not engaged in propaganda?
Given that there is not ONE SINGLE DOCUMENTED case of death attributed to marijuana use, methinks the NIH ought to be focusing it's resources a little better .... maybe like addressing the 200,000 deaths each year directly associated with pharmaceutical medications prescribed by doctors and taken as directed by that 1/5 Million dead patients.
Just a thought.
This is not the point.
If there is a direct link of Marijuana and heart disease, is it still not dangerous?
I strongly support legalization of marijuana, even though I've never done it. That being said, I'm tired of the pro-pot crowd claiming it's a safe drug and there are no long term effects.
While I fully support your right to smoke pot all you want, don't pretend that it's harmless.
Additionally, there is a possiblity it is very dangerous for people with an electrical problem in their heart like Long QT syndrome.
I imagine that it would cause problems for people with Wolff Parkinson White and other electrical disorders that could result in Arrhythmia's.
It is commonly known that marijuana increases the heart rate by 20-40 beats per minute and can do so for an extended period of time.
This may have long term side effects and could especially be dangerous for someone who excercises while intoxicated on marijuana, which I imagine some users do.
More research needs to be conducted in this area. People should be aware of this before they get brain washed by the "marijuana is 100%" safe argument.
This is a serious matter that needs to be addressed.
Perhaps some cardiologists that frequent this board can comment.
Wow, where do I begin?
1. You should have a conversation with your doctor about WebMD and it's use. A doctor's worst nightmare is people who take their medical advice from WebMD. Listen to your doctor, not WebMD whose primary purpose is to sell advertising.
2. As a daily smoker who also has had two bouts with coronary artery disease and blocked arteries (genetic), I have 4 stents in my coronary arteries. I have had the marijuana discussion with both my cardiologist & family physician. My cardiologist has no concerns whatsoever. He has told me that as long as I monitor my blood pressure daily (nothing to do with smoking marijuana), he has no concerns about it. He continued that the evidence associated with marijuana use and cardiac issues is at best sketchy & unconfirmed but to date, there have been no serious issues discovered that can be proven beyond the stage of "theory" & "speculation". My family physician has no issues with it at all and said that although it can increase blood pressure for some users, that it is not in general any more dangerous than a typical OTC medication that may increase BP or heart rate. His advice was the same as my cardiologist, as long as I monitor my BP daily, I should have no issues.
3. The study cited by WebMD was produced by the National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA). This organization is one of the most vehement anti-drug organizations in existence and their only mission is to produce anti-drug propaganda. Anything that that they publish should be viewed with extreme skepticism as it is not an objective source and only exists to support & further the anti-drug efforts of the federal government.
4. I exercise daily and am generally under the influence when I do. Have had no issues to date and at almost 59 now, have been smoking almost daily for 45 years. If anybody is a statistic, I sure as hell am.
I recognize that your post may have originated out of concern about the effects on those you are close to, but you must consider the source and act accordingly.
If there is a direct link of Marijuana and heart disease, is it still not dangerous?
Look ... the point is this .... the mainstream has been trying their best to vilify marijuana FOREVER ... going back 40-50 years to "Refer Madness" ... a Hallmark case of propaganda. But if marijuana use was actually such a danger to the heart ... and there was indeed some "direct link" ... don't you think that there would be some empirical evidence of that by now? Or is that too much to ask of anyone these days ... to simply think?
If there really was a significant risk factor in marijuana use, real evidence in the form of pot smokers dropping dead from heart attacks or other ailments would have emerged by now. Instead ... we're offered theoretical postulations from a laboratory environment, which is just as likely to be agenda based or politically driven as most everything else coming from modern medicine. Just wait a few seconds, and the next thing you'll be seeing in the medical journals is a new vaccine for it. That's the point.
Do yourself a favor ... look up the definition of "propaganda" ... then analyze the historic use of it and it's most common source. Then you might realize that a couple of government hacks at NIH tinkering in the laboratory and "discovering" some "chemical marker" is likely to be just more of the same pseudo scientific mumbo jumbo that personifies mainstream medical science for the past 40 years.
Look ... the point is this .... the mainstream has been trying their best to vilify marijuana FOREVER ... going back 40-50 years to "Refer Madness" ... a Hallmark case of propaganda. But if marijuana use was actually such a danger to the heart ... and there was indeed some "direct link" ... don't you think that there would be some empirical evidence of that by now? Or is that too much to ask of anyone these days ... to simply think?
If there really was a significant risk factor in marijuana use, real evidence in the form of pot smokers dropping dead from heart attacks or other ailments would have emerged by now. Instead ... we're offered theoretical postulations from a laboratory environment, which is just as likely to be agenda based or politically driven as most everything else coming from modern medicine. Just wait a few seconds, and the next thing you'll be seeing in the medical journals is a new vaccine for it. That's the point.
Do yourself a favor ... look up the definition of "propaganda" ... then analyze the historic use of it and it's most common source. Then you might realize that a couple of government hacks at NIH tinkering in the laboratory and "discovering" some "chemical marker" is likely to be just more of the same pseudo scientific mumbo jumbo that personifies mainstream medical science for the past 40 years.
Well, who the hell are we supposed to trust?
Finn Jarber, (I believe he's a paramedic), offered some circumstantial evidence that people have died from heart attacks after using marijuana.
Maybe he has some inside insight that may not have a study associated with it, but clearly has some circumstantial evidence that supports his hypothesis.
I don't know where he went nor what is reputation is on this board, but he clearly expressed some heartfelt concern. No pun intended.
Finn Jarber, (I believe he's a paramedic), offered some circumstantial evidence that people have died from heart attacks after using marijuana.
Maybe he has some inside insight that may not have a study associated with it, but clearly has some circumstantial evidence that supports his hypothesis.
I don't know where he went nor what is reputation is on this board, but he clearly expressed some heartfelt concern. No pun intended.
Finn Jarber? You mean some anonymous poster on this forum? Good lord, I can count on my hands how many people that post regularly on this site have the remotest clue about the subjects being discussed ... with a few fingers left over to scratch my head in amazement.
But the answer to your question is this ... trust nobody. Trust yourself, and no one else ... particularly in regard to your health. But that is going to require a lot of work, and a very open mind ... two elements that most people have a lot trouble with.
The basic formula I follow is one that has always served it's purpose well .... do not EVER trust the "mainstream experts" ... never, ever, ever EVER !!! I could type 10 pages of examples of the experts being wrong ... deliberately lying ... offering advice that is exactly the opposite of what you really should do ... etc. It's become obvious to me that if the mainstream experts recommend it .. you should as a matter of routine, avoid it, with few exceptions.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
