Cannabis, Smoked Or Eaten, Linked To Tobacco-Like Blood Vessel Harm
Long-term marijuana smoking and THC edible use may harm the blood vessels as much as tobacco, a new study suggests. The research indicates that cannabis users might face an increased risk of heart disease, even if they are otherwise healthy.
Both smoking and eating cannabis caused the blood vessel linings to not work as effectively, even in otherwise healthy adults who never used tobacco, researchers at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) found.
'The blood vessels don't seem to care whether the smoke is from tobacco or cannabis,' study author Matthew L. Springer, professor of medicine at the Cardiovascular Research Institute at UCSF, told The Epoch Times. The research shows cannabis users had blood vessel function 'very similar' to tobacco smokers in previous studies, he noted.
For the estimated 17.7 million Americans who use marijuana in some form every day, according to polling data, the study raises important questions about long-term health risks that remain largely unstudied.
The research, recently published in JAMA Cardiology, tracked 55 healthy adults aged 18 to 50, dividing them into three groups: marijuana smokers, THC (Tetrahydrocannabinol) edible users, and non-users. All cannabis users consumed their preferred method at least three times weekly for more than a year—making them regular, not casual users.
Springer said they had a good reason for the relatively small number of participants. 'We were very picky!'
'The study is very clean in that our cannabis user groups have never been tobacco smokers/vapers, and tend to avoid secondhand smoke,' he added. 'The marijuana smokers only smoke marijuana and don't vaporize it or vape THC, and our THC edibles group avoids all smoke.'
Researchers measured blood flow-mediated dilation, which shows how well blood vessels relax and contract. Both cannabis groups showed significantly worse vascular function than nonusers, with heavier use linked to greater damage.
While smoking marijuana and eating edibles both harmed blood vessels, researchers noted they likely do so for different reasons.
Marijuana smokers showed reduced production of nitric oxide, a compound that helps blood vessels stay healthy. This effect was not seen in edible users, though their blood vessels sustained similar vascular damage.
Other measures of blood vessel health, such as arterial stiffness, did not differ among the groups.
For cannabis smokers, Springer believes that smoke is the culprit for their blood vessel damage.
'Tobacco smokers have the same functional problems, and there's no THC in tobacco smoke,' he noted. Previous rat studies showed that even marijuana smoke without any cannabinoids still damaged cardiovascular function.
For edible users, the mechanism remains unclear, though the damage is equally real.
Springer emphasized that the bottom line is that smoking marijuana does not appear to avoid the harmful vascular effects of smoking tobacco, and neither does frequent use of THC edibles. He noted the study had some limitations, including variability in cannabis strains and self-reported use, which could affect results.
'It's a relatively small study,' Springer said. 'Nonetheless, the differences between groups are clear, and the statistics are robust and show that our results have a high confidence level.'
Click here to read more…
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Gulf Insider
4 hours ago
- Gulf Insider
Cannabis, Smoked Or Eaten, Linked To Tobacco-Like Blood Vessel Harm
Long-term marijuana smoking and THC edible use may harm the blood vessels as much as tobacco, a new study suggests. The research indicates that cannabis users might face an increased risk of heart disease, even if they are otherwise healthy. Both smoking and eating cannabis caused the blood vessel linings to not work as effectively, even in otherwise healthy adults who never used tobacco, researchers at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) found. 'The blood vessels don't seem to care whether the smoke is from tobacco or cannabis,' study author Matthew L. Springer, professor of medicine at the Cardiovascular Research Institute at UCSF, told The Epoch Times. The research shows cannabis users had blood vessel function 'very similar' to tobacco smokers in previous studies, he noted. For the estimated 17.7 million Americans who use marijuana in some form every day, according to polling data, the study raises important questions about long-term health risks that remain largely unstudied. The research, recently published in JAMA Cardiology, tracked 55 healthy adults aged 18 to 50, dividing them into three groups: marijuana smokers, THC (Tetrahydrocannabinol) edible users, and non-users. All cannabis users consumed their preferred method at least three times weekly for more than a year—making them regular, not casual users. Springer said they had a good reason for the relatively small number of participants. 'We were very picky!' 'The study is very clean in that our cannabis user groups have never been tobacco smokers/vapers, and tend to avoid secondhand smoke,' he added. 'The marijuana smokers only smoke marijuana and don't vaporize it or vape THC, and our THC edibles group avoids all smoke.' Researchers measured blood flow-mediated dilation, which shows how well blood vessels relax and contract. Both cannabis groups showed significantly worse vascular function than nonusers, with heavier use linked to greater damage. While smoking marijuana and eating edibles both harmed blood vessels, researchers noted they likely do so for different reasons. Marijuana smokers showed reduced production of nitric oxide, a compound that helps blood vessels stay healthy. This effect was not seen in edible users, though their blood vessels sustained similar vascular damage. Other measures of blood vessel health, such as arterial stiffness, did not differ among the groups. For cannabis smokers, Springer believes that smoke is the culprit for their blood vessel damage. 'Tobacco smokers have the same functional problems, and there's no THC in tobacco smoke,' he noted. Previous rat studies showed that even marijuana smoke without any cannabinoids still damaged cardiovascular function. For edible users, the mechanism remains unclear, though the damage is equally real. Springer emphasized that the bottom line is that smoking marijuana does not appear to avoid the harmful vascular effects of smoking tobacco, and neither does frequent use of THC edibles. He noted the study had some limitations, including variability in cannabis strains and self-reported use, which could affect results. 'It's a relatively small study,' Springer said. 'Nonetheless, the differences between groups are clear, and the statistics are robust and show that our results have a high confidence level.' Click here to read more…
Gulf Insider
3 days ago
- Gulf Insider
TV Networks Face Advertising Apocalypse After Trump Admin Mulls Pharma Restrictions
Last week independent Senators Bernie Sanders (VT) and Angus King (ME) introduced legislation that would ban pharmaceutical companies from promoting prescription drugs directly to consumers – including through television, radio, print, digital platforms, and social media. Today, Bloomberg reports that the Trump administration is now 'discussing policies that would make it harder and more expensive for pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to patients.' Although the US is the only place, besides New Zealand, where pharma companies can directly advertise, banning pharma ads outright could make the administration vulnerable to lawsuits, so it's instead focusing on cutting down on the practice by adding legal and financial hurdles, according to people familiar with the plans who weren't authorized to speak publicly on the matter. The two policies the administration has focused in on would be to require greater disclosures of side effects of a drug within each ad — likely making broadcast ads much longer and prohibitively expensive — or removing the industry's ability to deduct direct-to-consumer advertising as a business expense for tax purposes, these people said. If this happens, it would mark a major victory for Health and Human Services Secretary RFK Jr., who says he believes Americans consume more drugs than people in other countries due to the ability of US drug companies to directly advertise to consumers. While running for president, Mr. Kennedy said he would issue an executive order removing pharmaceutical ads from television, citing overmedication and industry influence on news coverage. As we noted last week, the move would mark a sweeping shift in the U.S. advertising landscape, where pharmaceutical companies are among the largest spenders. Prescription drug brands accounted for roughly 13 percent of all ad spending on linear television in 2025, totaling approximately $2.18 billion so far this year, according to iSpotdata. In 2024, the industry spent $3.4 billion on traditional TV ads between January and August alone, according to ad-tracking data. Since 1997, when the Food and Drug Administration relaxed disclosure requirements for DTC ads, pharmaceutical companies have increasingly leaned on consumer advertising to drive demand. Under current rules, companies need only disclose a drug's 'most important' risks during commercials. The result has been a media environment saturated with pharmaceutical messaging. Drug ads made up 24.4 percent of all advertising minutes on evening news broadcasts across major networks — including ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and NBC — through May of this year, according iSpot. On CBS Evening News , pharmaceutical companies appeared in more than 70 percent of commercial breaks, per Kantar Media.
Gulf Insider
03-06-2025
- Gulf Insider
COVID Vaccine Removed for Kids, Pregnant Women
On Tuesday, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. delivered a historic course correction from the Biden-era vaccine alongside NIH Director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya and FDA Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary, Kennedy announced that COVID-19 vaccine recommendations for healthy children and pregnant women were officially removed from the CDC's immunization schedule. 'Hi, everybody. I'm Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., your HHS secretary. And I'm here today with NIH Director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya and FDA Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary. I couldn't be more pleased to announce that, as of today, the COVID vaccine for healthy children and healthy pregnant women has been removed from the CDC recommended immunization schedule.' It was an unmistakable shift away from coercive one-size-fits-all medicine, and a clear signal that data, not politics, is now leading the conversation. On Tuesday, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. delivered a historic course correction from the Biden-era vaccine policy. Standing alongside NIH Director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya and FDA Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary, Kennedy announced that COVID-19 vaccine recommendations for… — The Vigilant Fox 🦊 (@VigilantFox) June 1, 2025 Today, Dr. Marty Makary took the fight straight into the lion's den—appearing on CBS to dismantle the network's go-to vaccine talking points. When host Margaret Brennan tried to paint the updated guidance as confusing, Makary didn't flinch. 'Can you clearly state what the policy is? Because this is confusing,' she asked. Makary responded without hesitation: 'Yeah, we believe the recommendation should be with a patient and their doctor.' That's when the real shift came into focus. 'So we're going to get away from these blanket recommendations in healthy young Americans.' 'On the COVID vaccine schedule, we don't want to see kids kicked out of school because a 12-year-old girl is not getting her fifth COVID booster shot.' 'We don't see the data there to support a young, healthy child getting a repeat infinite annual COVID vaccine.' He then laid out the sheer absurdity of where the old policy was heading. 'There's a theory that we should sort of blindly approve the new COVID boosters in young, healthy kids every year in perpetuity, and a young girl born today should get 80 COVID mRNA shots or other COVID shots in her average lifespan.' 'We're saying that's a theory, and we'd like to check in and get some randomized controlled data. It's been about four years since the original randomized trials. So we'd like an evidence based approach.' And then came the knockout line—delivered with facts no one could deny. 'That is a decision between a parent and their doctor—I don't know if you know these statistics, but 88% of American kids, their parents have said no to the COVID shot last season. So America, the vast majority of Americans are saying no.' Today, Dr. Marty Makary took the fight straight into the lion's den—appearing on CBS to dismantle the network's go-to vaccine talking host Margaret Brennan tried to paint the updated guidance as confusing, Makary didn't flinch.'Can you clearly state what the… — The Vigilant Fox 🦊 (@VigilantFox) June 1, 2025 Brennan tried to shift gears—falling back on CDC data to argue that even healthy kids remained at risk. 'So the CDC data said 41% of children aged 6 months to 17 years hospitalized with COVID between 2022 and 2024 did not have a known underlying condition. In other words, they looked healthy,' she said. 'And COVID was serious for them.' But Makary was ready. Calm and precise, he dismantled the claim with surgical clarity. 'So first of all, we know the CDC data is contaminated with a lot of false positives from incidental positive COVID tests with routine testing of every kid that walks in the hospital.' 'We know that data historically under the Biden administration did not distinguish being sick from COVID or an incidental positive COVID test.' He shared what he's heard from the people who actually run the ICUs in America. 'When you go to an ICU in America and you ask how many people are in the ICU that are healthy, that are sick with COVID? The answer I get again, again is we haven't seen that in a year or years.' That's why, he warned, making universal recommendations based on flawed data isn't just wrong—it's dangerous. 'And so the worst thing you can do in public health is to put out an absolute universal recommendation in young, healthy kids.' 'And the vast majority of Americans are saying, no, we want to see some data. And you say, forget about the data, just get it anyway.' Brennan tried to shift gears—falling back on CDC data to argue that even healthy kids remained at risk.'So the CDC data said 41% of children aged 6 months to 17 years hospitalized with COVID between 2022 and 2024 did not have a known underlying condition. In other words, they… — The Vigilant Fox 🦊 (@VigilantFox) June 1, 2025 But it was the final exchange that landed like a sledgehammer. When Brennan questioned why the HHS bypassed the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) for the new policy shift, Makary landed a haymaker. 'That panel has been a kangaroo court where they just rubberstamp EVERY single vaccine put in front of them.' He said the committee hadn't been focused on science, but on messaging and marketing. 'You look at the minutes of the last couple of years, they say, we want a simple message for everybody just so they can understand it. It was not a data based conversation. It was a conversation based on marketing and ease.' And without real evidence, he warned, these recommendations become little more than guesswork. 'If there's zero clinical data, you're opining. I mean—it's a theory.' 'And so we don't want to put out an absolute recommendation for kids, with no clinical data to support it.' The implication was unmistakable: public health decisions should be based on evidence and transparency—not rubber stamps and slogans. For the first time in years, someone on national television was calling out the system. But it was the final exchange that landed like a Brennan questioned why the HHS bypassed the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) for the new policy shift, Makary landed a haymaker.'That panel has been a kangaroo court where they just… — The Vigilant Fox 🦊 (@VigilantFox) June 1, 2025 Also read: Moderna Disables Comments On X Post Announcing New Covid Shot Amid Backlash
