I mean, it's good that we have data showing some sort of connection between heart attacks and cannabis, but I appreciate the callout toward the end more:

> Since both studies were limited by their retrospective nature and the meta-analysis was limited by the challenges inherent in pooling data from multiple studies, researchers said that additional prospective studies would help to confirm the findings and determine which groups may face the highest risk.

Here's the thing that both the alarmists and the naysayers keep ignoring: all this data is new, it's recent, and decades of effective global prohibition have meant the only sources of reliable data came from either post-war/pre-prohibition studies (often by Defense Departments) or from "anecdata" gathered retrospectively among large cohorts. We still lack a substantial amount of direct, quality, long-term data on drug use and Nth-order impacts on the body, and these studies are the first steps towards getting more data from higher quality research to draw better conclusions from.

If anything, I try to be quite open with my Doctors about my own use precisely because I know that data is thin and dated, and any contributions from patients in an honest manner is going to help draw better conclusions for healthcare guidance tomorrow. Letting alarmists use these thin precursors as justification for a return to total prohibition is the wrong move.