More Seniors Are Using Drugs—Here's Why It Matters
Advocates for ideas and draws conclusions based on the interpretation of facts and data.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
For decades, Americans worried about their kids getting high. Now, alarming new data suggest they should be just as worried about their parents and grandparents—and demanding that their legislators and policymakers take immediate action to stop the rising tide of marijuana use among seniors.
A study out this month from JAMA Internal Medicine shows an enormous jump in the rate of past-month pot use among Americans 65 years and older; from 2021 to 2023 it increased nearly 46 percent.
This is not some statistical fluke.
The study looked at the drug-use habits of almost 16,000 older adults nationwide, across gender, race, and income and educational levels. And the data show sharp increases across almost all demographics.
In other words, it doesn't seem to matter much who these seniors are. They're using more weed.
Yes, the news has rightly generated some media ripples. But the response has so far been muted in comparison with the magnitude of the problem.
Where are the calls for senior-focused prevention?
This is no different, after all, from a near-50 percent jump in teen use over two years. The fact that these are in general older people doesn't make the finding any less worrying.
The rest of the bad-news drumbeat around marijuana and public health shows why increased use among older people should set major alarms ringing.
A May study led by researchers at the University of California San Francisco showed that marijuana is terrible for your heart (whether you smoke it or eat it). Research published in the Journal of the American Heart Association found daily marijuana users had a 42 percent increased risk of stroke and a 25 percent increased risk of heart attacks—even after adjusting for other factors including tobacco use. Adults with Cannabis Use Disorder are 60 percent more likely to experience heart failure, strokes, or heart attacks than adults who do not use marijuana. Plus, daily users are more at risk for certain cancers, including head, neck, and laryngeal cancers.
How many of the 65-plus set are aware of these risks? They should be common knowledge among all age groups, but especially older people.
Available data suggest that having reached your golden years doesn't in any way protect you from the horrible risks of using marijuana.
In Ontario, hospital admissions and emergency room visits related to marijuana jumped 26-fold among people 65 and older between 2008 and 2021; between 2005 and 2019, the rate of marijuana-related emergency-room visits in California for that group rose almost 19-fold.
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA - MAY 24: In this photo illustration, marijuana joints and buds, also known as 'flower', are viewed on May 24, 2024 in Los Angeles, California.
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA - MAY 24: In this photo illustration, marijuana joints and buds, also known as 'flower', are viewed on May 24, 2024 in Los Angeles, California.More disturbingly, the Ontario study also showed that anyone going to the hospital for marijuana suffers a 72 percent higher risk of dementia than the general population.
As more and more data emerge, it's becoming clearer that seniors represent an at-risk population for this drug, just as much as kids do.
One of the truly disturbing data points from the JAMA study is that among older adults with post-college education, past-month use increased almost 70 percent. For adults earning more than $75,000 annually, it more than doubled.
If the most educated and affluent segments of the most experienced and knowledgeable population have fallen for propaganda around the drug, everybody interested in restoring public health really has their work cut out for them.
So what should be the response?
First up is a prevention campaign aimed at older people. That may sound counterintuitive, and it would require different messaging than the powerful teen-targeted federal communications push on the issue from the '90s.
An emphasis on the damage the drug does to heart health makes sense as a touchpoint. Older people have been hearing about heart health from their doctors for years, and data show that smoking weed and consuming edibles can have catastrophic cardiovascular effects.
The findings connecting marijuana use to increased rates of dementia in the general population will hit hard with seniors, too.
Doctors need to be raising this information with their older patients at least at every checkup. People should spread the news to their own parents (in as gentle a way as possible). Today's weed isn't your grandparents' weed, after all.
There also needs to be more research into the specific risks marijuana poses to those aged 65 and over, given that data suggest its general risks grow worse with age.
People could be tempted to laugh off the idea of stopping silver-haired grannies from getting high. But this is a deadly serious issue.
Marijuana is dangerous, no matter your age. It's time America woke up to that fact and started talking about it—even if it means some hard conversations with mom and dad at your Fourth of July BBQ.
Dr. Kevin Sabet is the president and CEO of Smart Approaches to Marijuana.
The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
4 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Supreme Court finds retired firefighter cannot sue for disability discrimination
Advertisement In a dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined, in part, by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, argued that the justices had abandoned protections for vulnerable retirees. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'Disabled Americans who have retired from the work force simply want to enjoy the fruits of their labor free from discrimination,' Jackson wrote, adding that Congress had 'plainly protected their right to do so' when it drafted the federal disability rights law. Sotomayor, in a separate writing, argued that a majority of the justices appeared in agreement that retirees may be able to bring disability discrimination claims for actions that occurred while they were still employed. Stanley might have been able to argue that this would apply in her case, too, Sotomayor wrote, but the court had not been asked to weigh in on that question. Advertisement Stanley worked as a firefighter in Sanford, Florida, a city of about 65,000 people northeast of Orlando. When she started her job in 1999, the city offered health insurance until age 65 for two categories of retirees -- those with 25 years of service and those who retired early because of disability. In 2003, the city changed its policy, limiting health insurance to those who retired because of disability to just 24 months of coverage. After nearly two decades, Stanley retired in 2018 at age 47 after she was diagnosed with Parkinson's disease. She expected that the city would continue to pay for most of her health insurance until she turned 65, but it refused, citing its changed policy. Stanley sued, claiming that the city had violated the ADA by providing different benefits to 25-year employees versus those who retired because of a disability. She argued that the city's policy amounted to impermissible discrimination based on disability. A federal trial judge dismissed her claim under the ADA, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit agreed. In asking the justices to hear the case, lawyers for Stanley said it could affect millions of disabled Americans who rely on retirement benefits that they earned while employed. One section of the ADA specifies that it is illegal to discriminate in compensation because of a disability. The justices wrestled with whether the section included retirees. Deepak Gupta, a lawyer for Stanley, said in an emailed statement that the decision had created 'a troubling loophole that allows employers to discriminate against retirees simply because they can no longer work due to their disabilities.' Advertisement In her dissent, Jackson wrote that she hoped Congress might step in and provide a 'legislative intervention' to shield other disabled retirees. This article originally appeared in
Atlantic
4 hours ago
- Atlantic
It Has Come to Protein Iced Tea
In the early 1950s, 'Hi-Proteen' powder, one of the first modern protein supplements, hit the market. Initially, it tasted awful. But after its creator, Bob Hoffman, added in Hershey's chocolate, the flavor improved. (He used a canoe paddle to stir his mixture in a giant vat.) Protein products have come a long way since then. Perhaps, they have come too far: Last weekend, at the gym, I was offered a can of lemon-flavored ' protein ice tea.' The summery, yellow-striped packaging advertised 15 grams of protein per can, or about the same as what you might get from three eggs. Apparently protein shakes and protein bars don't cut it anymore. Americans are so obsessed with protein that even an Arnold Palmer comes infused with it. Perhaps protein iced tea was inevitable. Whenever something is trendy, the food industry can't help but push things to the extreme—consider ' plant-based ' peanut butter (as if the spread was not already vegetarian) and gluten-free pumpkin dog biscuits. But even compared with other food trends, the protein situation has gotten out of hand. Just last week, Starbucks announced that it's piloting a high-protein, banana-flavored cold foam. There is protein water, Kardashian-branded protein popcorn, and ' macho ' protein pasta sauce. If you want to get drunk while bulking up, consider a protein-fortified pale ale or a 'Swoleberry' spiked protein seltzer. Nothing is safe from the protein pandemonium. Name a food, and the protein version of it probably exists. Even if you, like me, aren't trying to maximize your protein intake, all of these products can be hard to escape. They have infiltrated every inch of the supermarket: On Monday, I went grocery shopping with the mission of finding the most ridiculous protein-enriched ingredients possible. While preparing my meal, I crunched on ranch-flavored protein tortilla chips (13 grams) and sipped from a bottle of grapefruit-flavored protein water (20 grams). Dinner began with a salad made of 'OrganicGirl Protein Greens,' which feature an assortment of mixed greens including naturally protein-rich sweet-pea leaves (5 grams). My main course was chickpea protein pasta (20 grams) and salmon (40 grams). I topped it all off with a frozen peanut-butter-banana bar for dessert (another 5 grams). In total, I ate more than 170 grams of protein on Monday, or the equivalent of 31 medium eggs. According to the federal government's recommendations, that's almost four times what someone of my build and activity level needs in a day to maintain a ' nutritionally adequate ' diet. The official dietary guidelines suggest that a person needs at least 0.36 grams of protein per pound of body weight to stay healthy. That's not all that much protein. Before my dinner experiment, I had gone through the day without thinking about my protein consumption, and had already surpassed my recommended amount by more than 30 percent. The average American adult regularly exceeds the federal recommendation. So why is protein showing up in iced tea? Some health experts think that the current federal recommendation is insufficient. They believe that for optimal health—to get beyond simply meeting basic nutritional needs—we should be consuming double, if not triple, the recommended amount. Some people—those who strength train, for instance—certainly benefit from increased intake. But for the average person, most experts don't see the point in going wild with protein, as my colleague Katherine J. Wu has written. What makes protein so appealing is that it has been offered as an answer for lots of people's dietary goals. Want to build muscle? Eat protein. Want to feel fuller for longer? Eat protein. Want to lose weight? Eat protein. The nutrient can indeed help with all of those, but sometimes, the claims turn absurd. Cargill, the food giant, recently suggested that protein might help solve broken marriages: 'Protein helps individuals become better parents, partners and employees,' the company wrote in a report this spring. In other words, protein has become synonymous with 'healthy.' The message seems to be resonating: Last year, 71 percent of American adults said they were trying to consume more of it. For food companies, adding protein to virtually everything is an easy way to make their products more alluring. No Starbucks executive is going to suggest a new line of 'fat enhanced' cold foam or iced tea with extra carbs. But extra protein—sure. And that's how we end up in a world of protein mania. The protein shake has given way to protein coffees and protein matchas and protein energy drinks and protein sodas. The protein bar has similarly descended into madness: Last week, Hershey's announced a 'Double Chocolate flavored protein bar' that looks like its normal chocolate bar (Hoffman would be proud). For the purists, there's the recently launched David bar, named after Michelangelo's, which bills itself as 'the most effective portable protein on this planet.' You can eat protein-fortified vanilla glazed donuts for breakfast, top your double cheeseburger with protein-laced ketchup, and finish the day with protein powder mixed with melatonin that promises a good night's sleep. If you're suspicious of these products, it's for good reason. Shoppers might think that certain foods are healthier now that they have a protein label slapped on them. Some of the new products are truly good for you—but eating a ton of protein-packed candy (or even just lots of red meat) comes with health risks that could offset whatever dubious benefit all that added protein might provide. A Snickers bar with 20 grams of protein is still a Snickers bar. By the time I finished my protein dinner, I was starting to feel bloated. Still, I wasn't quite done. I cued up the trailer for Protein, a film that debuted in U.K. cinemas last weekend. The movie tells the story of 'a gym-obsessed serial killer' who 'murders and eats a local drug dealer' for—what else?—protein. I took a bite of a protein-packed double-chocolate cookie and hit 'Play.'
Newsweek
5 hours ago
- Newsweek
Map Shows Democrat States Rolling Back Health Care Benefits for Immigrants
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Multiple Democratic-led states, including California, Illinois and Minnesota, have moved to roll back or freeze health care coverage for undocumented immigrants. Others may follow suit. Why It Matters The rollback of state-funded health care access for undocumented immigrants could signal a significant policy shift with national implications. The developments come amid larger debates over immigration and health care policy at a time when state and federal budgets face significant pressures. What To Know These policy reversals have been attributed by the states' Democratic leaders to mounting budget deficits and rising program costs. While coverage for many undocumented residents had been expanded in recent years, governors announced measures to reduce benefits, freeze new enrollments or end programs entirely. Such changes could affect tens of thousands of individuals and counter notions of universal health care, backed by many Democrats, while prompting broader reassessment of similar programs in other states, including Colorado, New York and Washington. Some Democratic-run states are rolling back health care, or considering rolling it back, for undocumented immigrants because of tightened budgets. Some Democratic-run states are rolling back health care, or considering rolling it back, for undocumented immigrants because of tightened budgets. Flourish California: Enrollment Freeze and Possible Benefit Reductions California Governor Gavin Newsom has announced plans to freeze new enrollments in Medi-Cal, the state's Medicaid program, for undocumented adults. Existing recipients would remain covered but could face reduced benefits in the future. Starting in 2027, the state plans to introduce a $100 monthly premium for adults without satisfactory immigration status, attributed to higher-than-expected spending and a multi-billion-dollar budget shortfall. The pause in California is for undocumented adults who haven't already enrolled in Medi-Cal, not people already enrolled. It does not apply to those under age 19, as even those who turn 19 and are on Medi-Cal and remain income eligible will keep their coverage. In May, Newsom said: "We are not cutting or rolling back those that are already enrolled in our Medi-Cal system, we're just capping state has done more than the state of California, no state will continue to more than the state of California by a long shot. That's a point of pride and that's a point of privilege to be governor that's been part of that effort." Under Newsom, California became the first state to offer full-scope Medi-Cal to all low-income adults, regardless of immigration status—expanding access in phases to young adults in 2020, older adults in 2022 and all remaining adults in 2024. "Governor Newsom championed these expansions and remains committed to protecting the immigrant communities who contribute to the fabric and economy of California," Elana Ross, deputy communications director for Newsom's office, told Newsweek on Friday. "He refuses to turn his back on hard-working Californians, especially when it comes to their basic health care needs. "But because of the $16 billion Trump Slump and higher-than-expected health care utilization, the state must take difficult but necessary steps to ensure fiscal stability and preserve the long-term viability of Medi-Cal for all Californians." Proposed adjustments in California's 2025-26 budget would include a $100 monthly premium for certain adults, effective January 1, 2027, and applies to Medi-Cal enrollees age 19 and older with "unsatisfactory immigration status—in line with the average subsidized covered California premium, which is about $135 per month in 2025. The estimated general fund savings would be $2.1 billion by 2028-29. California Governor Gavin Newsom speaks at East Los Angeles College on February 26, 2025, in Monterey Park, California. California Governor Gavin Newsom speaks at East Los Angeles College on February 26, 2025, in Monterey Park, enrollment freeze for full-scope Medi-Cal for undocumented adults, effective no sooner than January 1, 2026, applies only to new adult applicants over 19. Nobody under such a freeze would be kicked off their health care. There would be no impact on limited-scope coverage (emergency, pregnancy services, etc.) and children would remain unaffected. The state, which has previously frozen a publicly sponsored coverage program during difficult budget years, has estimated general-fund savings to be $3.3 billion by 2028-29. Illinois: Full Program Termination Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker has proposed ending the Health Benefits for Immigrant Adults program as of July 1. The program, launched in 2021, provided state-funded health coverage to more than 30,000 low-income undocumented adults. The decision is a response to higher-than-anticipated costs, aligning with broader deficit reduction efforts. Those previously enrolled will be left without similar coverage options. Newsweek reached out to Pritzker's office for comment. Minnesota: Removal From MinnesotaCare Pritzker specifically related his in-state efforts to what is happening in neighboring states like Minnesota, where Governor Tim Walz said he would sign a bill removing undocumented adults from MinnesotaCare, a state-funded program, by year's end. While coverage for undocumented adults will end, eligibility will continue for undocumented children. The bill reversed a major health policy expansion from 2023. Newsweek reached out to Walz's office for comment. Broader National Trend and Political Debate Congressional Republicans in Colorado, one of seven states offering health care regardless of immigration status, are urging Democratic Governor Jared Polis to rescind Medicaid eligibility for undocumented immigrants. A letter co-signed by Representatives Lauren Boebert, Jeff Crank and Gabe Evans referenced recent rollbacks in California and Minnesota, and cited concerns over rising costs and effects on the state's Medicaid program. The letter, in part, says that each new dollar invested in care for illegal immigrants is a dollar that could go to supporting long-term care for seniors or keeping rural hospitals open. "Congressman Gabe Evans believes Governor Polis should prioritize taxpayer-funded health care for citizens who need it most: single mothers, children and people with disabilities," a spokesperson for Evans told Newsweek on Friday. "Additionally, every dollar that Colorado hands out for free health care for illegal immigrants is money that can't be spent on seniors and rural hospitals." Newsweek reached out to Polis' office for comment. What Happens Next Debate in other states, such as New York and Washington, suggests that similar policy shifts could spread. Democratic governors pointed to financial constraints and anticipated federal funding cuts as primary reasons for reversing course. Pressures from federal proposals, such as a Trump-endorsed bill to reduce Medicaid support for states offering coverage to undocumented immigrants, are shaping state policies. States like New York and Washington are reviewing their own policies, signaling that further changes may be forthcoming as budget negotiations and federal actions continue.
