Cannabis makes you lazy. Forgetful. Inarticulate. Stupid.

We’ve all heard the stereotypes over the years, tropes about the intrepid stoner who doesn’t give a second thought to the neighbors huffing that secondhand terp cloud.

Catching flak about a cannabis lifestyle is so overplayed, most of us in the industry laugh it off with the flick of a cherried ash. Especially as cannabis crusaders continue to prove it all wrong. Top-tier athletes use cannabis to get their head in the game and recover better afterward. High-level executives are making crucial decisions daily, taking a puff of a doinker on their lunch break, or microdosing with a cannabis energy drink instead of coffee. 

Then there are the brilliant artists, musicians, and creators who credit sweet Mary Jane as their model muse, igniting sparks of curiosity.

All of these pros are backed by science too—studies, brain scans, research giving us a pat on the back: hey, you’re a stoner and you’re doing okay, bud.

And then National Geographic comes out with a mic drop of a piece and a huge headline: Marijuana doubles your risk of cardiovascular disease.

The Holes in Their Research (And There Are Many)

The findings of this article are “based on health data from 200 million people worldwide—including in the United States—showed that cannabis users had a 20 percent higher risk of stroke and twice the risk of death from cardiovascular disease compared to non-users.” That’s a serious stat, and as the article also points out, cardiovascular disease is a leading cause of death in the US.

I think we would be remiss if we didn’t discuss the compounding health factors and lifestyle considerations that may be at play here.

So what exactly are we missing from this supposed slam-dunk study?

What We Don’t Know About These 200 Million People

We don’t know if the 200 million people were using cannabis medically or recreationally. If medically, there are likely other underlying health conditions that could be driving the cardiovascular disease risk. We know the research National Geographic mentions focused on smoking, so claiming edible use has the same negative risks is speculative at this point—they’re at least transparent about that.

But we don’t know if these users are smoking a joint a day, or twenty. There is no mention of volume or method of consumption at all. Are they ripping dab pens bought at gas stations, or is it flower only? Where did the flower come from, and was it tested by an accredited lab? 

What THC percentages are we looking at? Are there high levels of other cannabinoids in the mix? Do synthetic isomers like THC-O and other lab mutants get thrown into the equation?

These are the nuances you’d know to think about if you worked with weed. And like many of us in the industry, we advocate for safe cannabis. Not just all cannabis. We have high standards. Most of us are smoking weed that’s cleaner than anything you’ll find in the organic produce section at Whole Foods.

The Tobacco Problem They Ignored

The study also failed to control for tobacco co-use. The article clearly states that tobacco is big bad, filled with nicotine. And cannabis is a badder bitch, because of her THC. But out of the 200 million, how many also smoke a little tobacco in their daily life? Or even as a spliff?

This is huge. Tobacco is a known cardiovascular killer, and plenty of cannabis users also smoke cigarettes or mix tobacco with their weed. Without controlling for this, the study’s conclusions are about as reliable as a pre-roll in a downpour.

Lifestyle Factors? What Lifestyle Factors?

Additionally, there are lifestyle factors that could play a massive role in the combined effects and heart disease risk. Of these folks surveyed, how many drink alcohol? What do they drink and how much? This matters because excessive alcohol use can lead to high blood pressure, heart attack, and stroke.

And if the folks in the study weren’t already sick, or smoking shitty bud, or consuming too much, or mixing with other drugs and alcohol, there are still a host of other factors that could contribute to their higher cardiovascular disease risk.

No mention of socioeconomic factors that correlate with stress, poverty, or limited healthcare access. Nothing about age demographics—are we talking about 20-40 year olds or folks beyond middle age? How long have they been smoking weed? We all know smoking anything involves combustion and particulates; that’s just a fact.

Then there’s geographic clustering. Where do these consumers live—states where cannabis is legal, illegal, or somewhere in between? Are they getting weed from licensed retailers or the sketchy local corner store? This context matters, but it’s completely missing.

The Science They Got Right (And Wrong)

How does cannabis affect the heart? First and foremost, THC is primarily a vasodilator, meaning it widens the blood vessels. This is what’s happening when you get bloodshot eyes from weed—the blood vessels dilate, causing those all too familiar, telltale signs of having recently lit up.

This vasodilation effect can also lower blood pressure and, in some cases, contribute to the floaty, calming feeling associated with being high. The drop in blood pressure is sometimes paired with an increase in heart rate, and for some people (especially those with underlying heart issues or risk factors), this combo can bring on cardiovascular stress.

While cannabinoids do show promise for reducing high blood pressure and protecting the heart during periods of low oxygen (like during a heart attack), they can also throw off your body’s normal balance. Blood flow gets redistributed, autonomic regulation can feel weird, and could even lead to arrhythmias at high doses or when other risk factors are present.

So while cannabis may not be directly and inherently heart-hazardous, it doesn’t get a free pass either. As with most things we eat, drink, snort, smoke, or consume, it’s all about context, dosage, and your individual baseline health.

When Cannabis Actually Helps Your Heart

Here’s where we need to open up this conversation and broaden the scope of Nat Geo’s tunnel vision. While they’re busy fear-mongering about THC and vasodilation, they completely ignore the ways cannabis can actually support cardiovascular health through lifestyle improvements.

Recent research from UC Boulder shows that cannabis use before exercise increases positive mood and enjoyment during workouts, and we all know that regular exercise is one of the best things you can do for your heart. If a little pre-workout puff gets someone off the couch and into their flow state for a longer, more enjoyable session, that’s a net win for cardiovascular health.

Then there’s sleep—an unsung hero of heart health. Cannabis has been helping people catch quality Z’s for centuries, and good sleep is crucial for cardiovascular recovery. Poor sleep increases stress hormones like cortisol, which directly contribute to high blood pressure and heart disease risk. So if someone’s trading their Ambien prescription for a low-dose edible and actually sleeping through the night? That’s probably doing their heart more favors than harm.

We can’t forget to talk about stress reduction (and anxiety). Chronic stress is a cardiovascular killer. The relaxation and anxiety-reducing effects of cannabis aren’t just feel-good benefits—they’re legitimate health interventions. When you’re not constantly flooded with stress hormones, your blood pressure stabilizes, your heart rate variability improves, and your entire cardiovascular system gets a break from being in fight-or-flight mode.

The point isn’t that cannabis is a miracle heart cure. It’s that context matters, and the National Geographic article ignores how cannabis fits into people’s broader health routines.

Prohibition Has Created a Research Desert

Here’s what really grinds my gears about this whole situation. We don’t have better data because cannabis is still federally illegal. Schedule I status has made quality research nearly impossible for decades. Most studies rely on self-reporting, which means stigma leads to underreporting. There are no standardized products in studies, no long-term controlled trials.

If we had actual legal access to clinical trials and deeper, funded research on cannabis, maybe we’d have legitimate information about these statistics instead of correlation studies that leave out half the variables.

The Bottom Line

What if it’s all about balance and knowing your own body? Have a history of asthma? Maybe don’t smoke, switch to edibles. Taking heart medication? Consider low-dose cannabis in any format other than smoking. If cannabis works for you, weigh the risks and roll with what feels best.

And you, too, National Geographic. Do better. Come back with more information next time, or use your leverage to push policy so we can truly and fully fund the kind of research that will move the needle for cannabis reform and provide us with the studies and science we deserve.

Until then, buy from reputable sources (or grow your own!), know your dosage, understand your body, and don’t let fear-mongering headlines make health decisions for you. Because the real risk isn’t cannabis—it’s letting prohibition keep us in the dark about what we’re actually putting in our bodies.

“CPEAR’s poll is a thinly veiled attempt to persuade policymakers to take a broadly popular issue in a less popular direction.”

By Damian Fagon, Parabola Center

In 1994, R.J. Reynolds quietly pumped millions into a flag-waving coalition called “Get Government Off Our Back.” The mission was simple: pose as a grassroots movement with an anti-regulation agenda to prevent the Food and Drug Administration from touching cigarettes. Three decades later, a similar playbook has found its way to cannabis, and the fingerprints are unmistakable.

Today’s vehicle is the Coalition for Cannabis Policy, Education and Regulation (CPEAR), bankrolled in part by Altria, the Marlboro parent that sank $1.8 billion into the cannabis firm Cronos Group. Earlier this month, CPEAR released a poll trumpeting a popular “mandate” for the STATES 2.0 Act, a bill that would take a “states’ rights” approach to marijuana. Set aside the patriotic headlines and the math tells another story. This poll functions not to record public opinion, but to manufacture it.

The Messenger Is The Message

CPEAR is not a neutral think tank. It is a front group financed by Altria and other tobacco and alcohol giants.

The polling firm, Forbes Tate Partners, also happens to be a public affairs firm and a registered lobbyist for Altria. Sponsor and pollster are, quite literally, on the same team.

Accepting the findings at face value asks us to forget that the data and the desired outcome share the same business address.

A Framework For Consolidation

The cynical design of CPEAR’s favored bill, STATES 2.0, lies in what it doesn’t do: expunge criminal records, protect cannabis workers’ rights, prevent marijuana-related deportations or take any accountability for the harms caused by the war on drugs. Instead, 50 states will compete for investment on the most lenient, “business-friendly” terms they can devise.

The deepest-pocketed operators and conglomerates will flock to low-tax, low-oversight jurisdictions, monopolize supply chains and absorb smaller competitors. We have seen this playbook before in alcohol and tobacco, and the economic logic with cannabis will be no different.

Every law we pass shapes the economy Americans will inherit. Adopting the STATES 2.0 Act would codify consolidation and leave mom-and-pop operators scrambling for scraps.

Congress can choose a better course by insisting on a legalization framework that clears records, protects state regulation and channels investment to the very communities that paid the highest price under prohibition. Anything less turns legalization into prohibition by another name.

Persuasion By Design

CPEAR’s poll is a thinly veiled attempt to persuade policymakers to take a broadly popular issue in a less popular direction. It frames STATES 2.0 in the language of states’ rights, a tested appeal to conservative voters, while staying silent on relevant questions related to record expungement, equity and small business access.

By excluding legislative alternatives such as the MORE Act, which pairs legalization with the justice reforms that a majority of Americans do support, the poll reduces a complex debate to a loaded yes-or-no test.

And by asking how a person would feel about a congressional candidate or the Trump administration if they supported marijuana reform, the final question seeks to make CPEAR’s chosen bill look like a winning political decision. And yet, it isn’t.

What The Numbers Really Say

The poll’s own data reveal a critical weakness. Despite general support for federal legalization standing steady at 70 percent, respondent enthusiasm drops to the low 60s when presented within the STATES 2.0 framework.

Wouldn’t we expect a federal marijuana bill to garner at least as much support as marijuana legalization generally? But even in a poll framed by the bill’s own advocates, STATES 2.0 is less popular than the cause it claims to represent.

And the news for their favored politicians is even worse—despite CPEAR’s creative description of a “near majority” being more likely to support a pro-cannabis candidate, the big takeaway is that the actual majority would not be more likely to support a pro-cannabis candidate. With tobacco and alcohol conglomerates leading the lobbying charge, can we blame them?

We don’t know what else the numbers showed.

The report relies on a low-transparency online poll of 2,051 respondents and omits key disclosures that make it impossible to verify or replicate. Without information on respondent demographics, such as age, gender identity, race and income or a nuanced look at their political philosophy instead of just party labels, one could easily “cook the books” by oversampling favorable groups and pretending it happened organically.

By withholding these data, along with the weighting methods that the American Association for Public Opinion Research considers basic requirements, the pollsters tell Congress and the voting public to simply trust them. Given their blatant conflict of interest, why should anyone?

Damian Fagon is a former New York cannabis regulator and the executive leadership fellow at Parabola Center for Law and Policy.

Doctors Group Launches Campaign Empowering More Healthcare Professionals To Join Drug Decriminalization Movement