Gen Z is ditching alcohol, but their weed habit may be risky for their health, too
Gen Z may be cutting back on booze, but could still be facing serious health risks from their new drug of choice.
Cannabis use has been steadily growing in recent years, and Gallup polls suggest it's catching on most with Americans aged 18 to 34.
At the same time, 20-somethings are spending less time and money than ever in bars and liquor stores (and worrying alcohol industry leaders), in part because of a growing movement of health-consciousness.
Sinking alcohol sales in recent years have coincided with a renewed focus on the health risks of drinking, including the link between any amount of alcohol use and cancer.
With an outpouring of products like THC-infused seltzers, mocktails, and tinctures that offer a buzz without the hangover, the cannabis industry is capitalizing on dwindling interest in alcohol.
These alternatives cater to young people who are sober-curious, drinking less without abstaining completely, or " Cali sober," giving up alcohol while still consuming cannabis.
However, emerging research suggests alternatives like cannabis aren't risk-free either
Using cannabis may double your risk of dying from cardiovascular disease, according to a large study published June 17 in the journal Heart.
Researchers from the University of Toulouse looked at data from 24 studies, including about 200 million people primarily between ages 19 and 59, to see how cannabis use affected health over time.
They found that cannabis users had a 29% higher risk of heart attack, and a 20% higher risk of stroke, compared to peers who didn't use.
A striking number of these patients who were hospitalized for heart problems are young and did not have a prior history of related medical issues or risk factors, the study's senior author Émilie Jouanjus, associate professor of pharmacology at the University of Toulouse, told CNN.
Edibles may not be risk-free, either. Previous research found that ingesting THC, the active ingredient in cannabis linked to the sensation of being high, is linked to cellular dysfunction, which increases risks to heart health, even if you don't smoke it.
The findings add to a growing body of research suggesting that although cannabis isn't the outsize threat presented during the "Reefer Madness" era, it has significant health risks, and scientists are urging more caution from consumers.
An editorial published alongside the most recent study calls for a closer look at regulation of the emerging cannabis market, including warning labels similar to those on cigarettes.
"Regulation is focused on establishing the legal market with woeful neglect of minimizing health risks," the authors wrote. "Specifically, cannabis should be treated like tobacco: not criminalized but discouraged."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
ChatGPT use linked to cognitive decline: MIT research
ChatGPT can harm an individual's critical thinking over time, a new study suggests. Researchers at MIT's Media Lab asked subjects to write several SAT essays and separated subjects into three groups — using OpenAI's ChatGPT, using Google's search engine and using nothing, which they called the 'brain‑only' group. Each subject's brain was monitored through electroencephalography (EEG), which measured the writer's brain activity through multiple regions in the brain. They discovered that subjects who used ChatGPT over a few months had the lowest brain engagement and 'consistently underperformed at neural, linguistic, and behavioral levels,' according to the study. The study found that the ChatGPT group initially used the large language model, or LLM, to ask structural questions for their essay, but near the end of the study, they were more likely to copy and paste their essay. Those who used Google's search engine were found to have moderate brain engagement, but the 'brain-only' group showed the 'strongest, wide-ranging networks.' The findings suggest that using LLMs can harm a user's cognitive function over time, especially in younger users. It comes as educators continue to navigate teaching when AI is increasingly accessible for cheating. 'What really motivated me to put it out now before waiting for a full peer review is that I am afraid in 6-8 months, there will be some policymaker who decides, 'let's do GPT kindergarten.' I think that would be absolutely bad and detrimental,' the study's main author Nataliya Kosmyna told TIME. 'Developing brains are at the highest risk.' However, using AI in education doesn't appear to be slowing down. In April, President Trump signed an executive order that aims to incorporate AI into U.S. classrooms. 'The basic idea of this executive order is to ensure that we properly train the workforce of the future by ensuring that school children, young Americans, are adequately trained in AI tools, so that they can be competitive in the economy years from now into the future, as AI becomes a bigger and bigger deal,' Will Scharf, White House staff secretary, said at the time.
UPI
6 hours ago
- UPI
Feds funding 5-year, $10M East Palestine derailment health study
Ohio National Guard 52nd Civil Support Team members prepare to enter an incident area to assess remaining hazards with a lightweight inflatable decontamination system in East Palestine, Ohio, on February 7, 2023. Photo courtesy of Ohio National Guard/ Twitter June 19 (UPI) -- The National Institutes of Health is undertaking an extended study of the health effects that East Palestine, Ohio, residents have experienced due to the 2023 train derailment there. The NIH is allocating $10 million to fund the study that will continue for five years and assess the long-term health impacts from the Feb. 3, 2023, derailment of a Norfolk Southern train that was carrying toxic chemicals. "The people of East Palestine have a right to clear,science-backed answers about the impact on their health," Health and Human Services Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr. said. He credited Vice President JD Vance for raising awareness of the need to study the potential health effects on East Palestine's 4,658 residents. Vance was a U.S. senator representing Ohio when the derailment occurred. "It was incredibly frustrating watching the Biden administration refuse to examine the potentially dangerous health impacts on the people of East Palestine following the train derailment," Vance said. "This historic research initiative will finally result in answers that this community deserves," he added. The Norfolk Southern freight train included 38 railcars carrying toxic chemicals, including vinyl chloride, butyl acrylate, ethyleneglycol and benzene. Many of the railcars were vented or intentionally burned over two days to rid them of the toxic chemicals, which the National Transportation Safety Board a year ago said was a mistake. NTSB members conducted a public hearing in East Palestine last June to publicly discuss the derailment that was caused by a defective wheel bearing that overheated and failed. Norfolk Southern and its contractors erred when they vented or burned off the contents of five tank cars that had derailed and contained vinyl chloride. The venting and burning created a toxic plume that spread across 16 states and exposed about a third of the nation's population to the chemicals. Many East Palestine residents have reported experiencing many health-related symptoms afterward, including headaches and respiratory, skin and eye irritations. Other concerns include the potential long-term effects on maternal and child health and psychological, immunological, respiratory and cardiovascular impacts. The NIH-funded study will focus on short- and long-term health affects from exposure to the chemicals, public health tracking and how to address community health concerns. "[President] Joe Biden abandoned East Palestine and left a community of working Americans behind when they needed him the most," Moreno, R-Ohio, said. "This is a huge step toward finally getting justice for East Palestine."
Forbes
8 hours ago
- Forbes
What 3,500 Americans Reveal About Hearing Aid Battery Packaging
This is what safety has become for some: a blade and the risk of injury to get a hearing aid ... More battery. All packaging images shown in this article were submitted by verified Amazon reviewers who are hearing aid users or caregivers. More than 3,500 Americans have shared publicly their negative experiences, through Amazon reviews, petitions, audiology offices, and caregiver reports, about one thing: the redesigned packaging of hearing aid batteries. These are not complaints about the batteries themselves but about the hard plastic, scissors-required, injury-prone containers they now come in. The packaging directly results from Reese's Law, passed in 2022. Last February, I wrote about these concerns in an article titled 'Good Intentions Lead to Poor Design.' At the time, many were still adjusting to the law's rollout. But the early signs were already evident: confusion among retailers, frustration among end users, and the sudden disappearance of products that had made battery changes easier and safer. Senators Richard Blumenthal and Marsha Blackburn introduced Reese's Law in response to a tragic injury involving lithium coin batteries. The goal was urgent and necessary: to protect children from battery ingestion. The law was written too broadly. Its implementation by the Consumer Product Safety Commission created confusion, unintended harm, and new barriers for older adults and people with disabilities The CPSC was tasked with developing the law's technical guidelines, which were finalized in 2023 and took effect in 2024. The law exempts hearing aid batteries. Yet, in practice, the CPSC's rule interprets that exemption narrowly, stating that while the battery may be exempt, the packaging is not. This distinction makes little practical sense. The packaging is how a hearing aid user accesses the battery. If the packaging is inaccessible, the exemption is meaningless. This contradiction created widespread uncertainty. Many of us in the field, designers, clinicians, and manufacturers, were left unsure how to proceed or whether we could proceed. Compliance was unclear. Risk aversion took hold. And even products that supported both safety and accessibility were pulled from shelves. Zinc-air hearing aid batteries are non-toxic, chemically stable, and not associated with a single known fatality. The law failed to distinguish between them and far more dangerous lithium coin cells. In response, manufacturers overcorrected. Retailers panicked upon poor sales. And what used to be a simple daily task, changing a hearing aid battery, became an exercise in frustration, injury, and, in many cases, abandonment of hearing aids altogether. I know this is not just from data. I live it. As an entrepreneur and co-inventor, I built a product that solved this problem. It worked. Then it was pushed aside by the confusion and compliance culture created by this law. That product became the Akoio Hearing Aid Battery Dispenser. I focused on usability when I set out to build a better hearing aid battery solution. I partnered with design leaders from the consumer packaged goods world, the same minds behind successful products in health care and accessibility. I collaborated with former leaders from the battery industry. I worked with Varta, a top-tier battery manufacturer. Together, we engineered an automatic tab removal system that is easy to carry, store, and change hearing aid batteries. Most importantly, it is accessible to many users facing various physical challenges. The Akoio® Hearing Aid Battery™ Dispenser made battery changes simpler, safer, and more accessible ... More until policy confusion removed it from the market. The dispenser was brought it to market through Amazon, quickly earning a 4.7 out of 5.0-star rating from verified buyers. Customers called it intuitive, reliable, and long overdue. One reviewer wrote, 'Finally, a battery holder I can use without dropping half the pack. Whoever designed this actually gets it.' It was not just well-designed. It was well-received. And then it was sidelined. When Reese's Law was enforced in March 2024, battery manufacturers began redesigning their packaging to comply. For hearing aid batteries, that meant overcorrecting, introducing hard plastic shells, clamshell packs, and layers of material that required sharp tools to open. The law technically exempts zinc-air hearing aid batteries. But, retail interpretation, legal caution, and lack of regulatory clarity swept everything into one overly restrictive category. Even products built for safety and accessibility were suddenly viewed as risks. Retailers pulled back. Legal teams were vague. People who relied on hearing aids were left to struggle. This is not an isolated story. It is part of a pattern. As I gathered these complaints, one stayed with me. In a video, an older woman described how she now uses a box cutter to open her hearing aid battery pack. She struggled as she cut into the thick plastic, as the blade was so close to her hand and fingers! This is what so-called safety and accessibility have become for many: a sharp blade and the risk of injury just to be able to use the hearing aid's battery power to hear! Real packaging, real consequences. This pack after 'cutting' left behind sharp plastic shards and ... More loose batteries. Since Reese's Law took effect in March 2024, I have gathered and analyzed more than 3,500 user cases detailing the impact of redesigned hearing aid battery packaging. These came from end users, caregivers, audiologists, petition signers, Amazon reviews, and retail sites like CVS and Walgreens. Each case was reviewed and categorized for usability, injury, and abandonment trends. That sample size represents an estimated 1.7 million Americans reliant on hearing aids powered by zinc-air batteries, which are reliable and convenient. Here is what was found: As one user put it, 'These new packs are so tough to open, I gave up. I cannot live with cuts and dropped batteries every day.' This is not how a safety regulation should function. Today, around 80 percent of new hearing aids sold are rechargeable. That shift is real and meaningful. But millions of current users still rely on zinc-air batteries, not because they are behind, but because these batteries remain dependable, affordable, and compatible with their devices. Zinc-air batteries are not going away. Daily access must remain safe, simple, and dignified for those who rely on them. But that access has eroded. What was once a one-handed, intuitive action is now a frustrating, injury-prone task. This happened not because of battery package design but because of regulatory overreach and market fear. The business impact has been just as sharp. Responsible companies have had to pause, exit, or redesign products that were already solving the problem. Innovation has been punished, and the market has chilled. Recently, Abram Bailey, CEO of Hearing Tracker, launched a petition titled 'Stop Impossible Hearing Aid Battery Packaging'. The petition has gathered over 1,500 signatures from hearing aid users, audiologists, and caregivers. This was not a protest against child safety. It was a call for regulatory clarity and common sense. The petition does not ask Congress to repeal Reese's Law. It asks lawmakers and regulators to revise it, to recognize the unintended harm caused by rigid packaging requirements. The message is simple and humane: protect children, yes. But do not make life harder for the people who depend on these batteries every day. Real stories from the Hearing Aid Forum illustrate just how severe this issue has become: These are not outliers. They are everyday users trying to live independently and being blocked by packaging that was never designed with them in mind. We need to bring accessibility back into the safety conversation. That starts with the Consumer Product Safety Commission providing clear guidance on how Reese's Law applies to hearing aid batteries. We need room for child-resistant packaging that also meets the needs of adults with dexterity and vision limitations. And we need to encourage, not discourage, the kinds of innovation that solve for both safety and usability. This is not about rolling back protection. It is about refining it. It is time for policymakers, product designers, and disability advocates to come together to fix what the law missed. Safety and accessibility must be designed together. Anything less is unacceptable. I built a better mousetrap because I live with this problem, and I know how many others do, too. The law that followed did not kill that idea. But it made it harder to share, distribute, and trust the system that claims to work in our interest. We can do better.
