Five Facts About Marijuana’s Medical Risks

In recent years groups like the American Lung Association, American Heart Association, and others have highlighted serious risks and health conditions associated with marijuana.

Here are five of them:

#1. Marijuana Use Increases Your Risk of Heart Attack and Stroke

A recent study noted by the American Heart Association found that marijuana users face increased risk of heart attack and stroke compared to non-users.

The more often someone uses marijuana, the greater the risk.

Daily marijuana users had 25% higher risk of heart attack compared to non-users. The risk of stroke was 42% higher for daily users compared to non-users.

#2. Marijuana Smoke Causes Lung Damage

Experts agree smoking is still the most popular way to use marijuana. But marijuana smoke contains toxins and carcinogens similar to tobacco smoke.

And the lung damage it causes is linked to lesser-known conditions, such as chronic bronchitis.

#3. Marijuana Smoke Carries Other Health Risks As Well

Marijuana smoke damages more than the lungs. It also can suppress the immune system, raising other health concerns.

#4 Poisoning from Marijuana Gummies is Sending Children to the E.R.

In recent years there’s been a surge in the number of Poison Control Center calls and E.R. visits resulting from accidentally ingesting THC.

In particular, children sometimes eat candy laced with marijuana by mistake, causing them to experience a medical emergency.

#5. “Medical” Marijuana Carries the Same Health Risks as “Recreational” Marijuana

Practically speaking, there’s no difference between “medical” marijuana and “recreational” marijuana products.

Smoke from so-called “medical” marijuana carries the very same health risks and causes the same lung damage as so-called “recreational” marijuana.

And “medical” marijuana gummies contain the same chemicals as “recreational” gummies.

Additional Points to Consider

  • An organization in Arkansas is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to put marijuana on the ballot this year.
  • If passed, the 2024 marijuana amendment would drastically expand Arkansas’ medical marijuana law to enable recreational marijuana statewide.
    • For example, people would be able to use marijuana without suffering from a specific medical condition — like cancer — listed in state law.
  • It also would give marijuana growers and sellers a monopoly over the marijuana industry in Arkansas.
  • All of this could mean more marijuana in Arkansas, if the amendment passes this year.

Articles appearing on this website are written with the aid of Family Council’s researchers and writers.

Arkansas Legislature Votes for $2M in Grants to Pregnancy Centers, Supporting Maternal Wellness

On Thursday the Arkansas House of Representatives passed S.B. 64 by Sen. John Payton (R – Wilburn) providing $2 million in state grant funding for pregnancy help organizations. The bill previously passed the Arkansas Senate.

The funding will provide grants to pregnancy resource centers, maternity homes, adoption agencies, and other organizations that promote infant and maternal health and provide material support to women with unplanned pregnancies.

In 2022 Family Council worked with the legislature and the governor to secure $1 million for pregnancy centers. This funding provided grants to more than 20 pregnancy help organizations.

Last year we worked with lawmakers to renew this funding. This grant money has gone to more than two dozen good organizations across the state that give women and families real assistance when faced with an unplanned pregnancy.

S.B. 64 would make improvements to the grant program. It would increase state funding from $1 million per year to $2 million. This would put Arkansas’ funding on parr with other states.

The bill also clarifies that “pregnancy help organizations” include nonprofit organizations that promote infant and maternal wellness and reduce infant and maternal mortality by:

  • Providing nutritional information and/or nutritional counseling;
  • Providing prenatal vitamins;
  • Providing a list of prenatal medical care options;
  • Providing social, emotional, and/or material support; or
  • Providing referrals for WIC and community-based nutritional services, including but not limited to food banks, food pantries, and food distribution centers.

The measure includes language preventing state funds from going to abortionists and their affiliates.

The Arkansas Legislature passed S.B. 64 with virtually no opposition. We appreciate the the legislators who have supported this good legislation. Below is a breakdown of how each state representative voted on the measure.

The Following Representatives Voted FOR S.B. 64

  • Achor
  • F. Allen
  • Andrews
  • Barker
  • Beaty Jr.
  • Beck
  • Bentley
  • M. Berry
  • S. Berry
  • Breaux
  • Brooks
  • K. Brown
  • M. Brown
  • Burkes
  • Joey Carr
  • John Carr
  • Cavenaugh
  • Clowney
  • A. Collins
  • C. Cooper
  • Cozart
  • Crawford
  • Dalby
  • Duffield
  • Eaves
  • Ennett
  • Evans
  • D. Ferguson
  • K. Ferguson
  • C. Fite
  • L. Fite
  • Fortner
  • Furman
  • Gazaway
  • Gonzales
  • Gramlich
  • Haak
  • Hawk
  • D. Hodges
  • G. Hodges
  • Holcomb
  • Hollowell
  • Hudson
  • Jean
  • L. Johnson
  • Ladyman
  • Lundstrum
  • Lynch
  • Maddox
  • Magie
  • J. Mayberry
  • McAlindon
  • McClure
  • M. McElroy
  • McGrew
  • B. McKenzie
  • McNair
  • S. Meeks
  • Miller
  • Milligan
  • J. Moore
  • Nicks
  • Painter
  • Pearce
  • Perry
  • Pilkington
  • Puryear
  • Ray
  • J. Richardson
  • Richmond
  • Rose
  • Rye
  • Schulz
  • Scott
  • R. Scott Richardson
  • T. Shephard
  • Steimel
  • Tosh
  • Underwood
  • Unger
  • Vaught
  • Walker
  • Wardlaw
  • Warren
  • Watson
  • D. Whitaker
  • Wing
  • Womack
  • Wooldridge
  • Wooten

The Following Representatives Voted AGAINST S.B. 64

  • D. Garner
  • McCullough

The Following Representatives Voted “Present” on S.B. 64

  • Long
  • McCollum

The Following Representatives Did Not Vote

  • Duke
  • Eubanks
  • V. Flowers
  • K. Moore
  • Springer
  • Speaker Shepherd

U.S. Supreme Court Hears Arguments Over Forcing Emergency Rooms to Perform Abortions

On Wednesday the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments over whether or not emergency rooms in America should be forced to perform abortions under the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA).

EMTALA is a decades old law signed by President Ronald Reagan. It is designed to ensure people are able to receive emergency care even if they are unable to pay.

After the U.S. Supreme Court released its 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health decision overturning Roe v. Wade, President Biden issued an executive order urging the Secretary of Health and Human Services to identify ways to use federal authority to expand abortion.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services issued a letter and guidance instructing doctors and hospitals that EMTALA requires them to perform abortions as a “stabilizing treatment” or transfer the woman to another facility for an abortion if they determine that doing so is necessary to protect the life or health of the mother — even if the abortion would be illegal under state law.

Health exceptions in abortion laws are notoriously vague and can actually permit abortion on demand in many cases. That’s why states like Arkansas limit abortion to situations where the mother’s life is at risk instead of using a broader “health” exception.

However, the Biden Administration’s letter to doctors and hospitals last year specifically says, “And when a state law prohibits abortion and does not include an exception for the life and health of the pregnant person — or draws the exception more narrowly than EMTALA’s emergency medical condition definition — that state law is preempted [overridden by the federal government].”

In Moyle v. United States of America, the Biden Administration is attempting to use this new interpretation of EMTALA to force E.R. doctors in other states to perform abortions that might be illegal under state pro-life laws.

The Biden Administration simply has no business trying to overrule state pro-life laws or turn emergency rooms into abortion facilities. If the Biden Administration wins in this case, it could try to push the same abortion agenda in other states—including Arkansas.

That’s why Family Council joined more than 30 other pro-life organizations in a friend-of-the-court brief filed in the case last February.

The brief we joined argues the federal government is trying to “resolve a political issue of profound national significance” through regulations rather than through law, and that the Biden Administration does not have the legal authority to make emergency rooms perform abortions under EMTALA.

Articles appearing on this website are written with the aid of Family Council’s researchers and writers.