Welcome to Senior Cannabis Digest. This week we look at strategies for responding to negative news about cannabis, an op-ed on cannabis and veterans, a surprising veto in Texas and more. Enjoy.
A Few Thoughts on Cannabis Research and Heart Health
Much has been made recently, and rightly so, about several studies that raised concerns about cannabis use and heart health.
As is often the case, bad news can be good news when it raises awareness about behaviors, such as using cannabis on a regular basis, that can put an individual’s health at risk.
There are a few things, however, that we believe mature consumers should consider when evaluating their use of cannabis in the light of recent studies.
Here are some tips.
• Do your homework and don’t feel compelled to respond to a headline. Headlines are designed more to inflame than to inform and the true findings of a study, in this case the actual health risk posed by cannabis use, is often not revealed until the third or fourth paragraph in a news story. Headlines that emphasize fear tend to get more clicks. The actual findings of a study can often be more balanced and less conclusive.
Or, you can try the old trick of inverting a finding. If you read that one in three individuals “is at risk” because of their cannabis use, consider the opposite, that for two out of three individuals the risk is less so or manageable. This doesn’t eliminate the risk, but it does make it less likely that your response to it will be driven by fear and your nervous system.
• As we have stated before, cannabis is not a “wonder drug” and clearly it is not for everyone. It is probably wise for those with significant underlying medical or psychiatric conditions to avoid using it. Moreover, it is important to discuss your concerns about using cannabis with your primary care physician or a medical professional who is knowledgeable and can offer an informed opinion.
• We encourage mature individuals who choose to use cannabis to do so in a purposeful or intentional manner. By that we mean consumers should know why they are using it (pain, sleep, relaxation, stress reduction) and be ready to evaluate whether or not they are getting what they hope to achieve from their cannabis experience.
If you are achieving your objective, you then have a basis from which to evaluate risk/reward trade offs as you would when evaluating your use of other substances, such as alcohol or medications, either prescribed or over the counter. The use of practically all such substances carries some degree of risk. The consumer has to decide if the given degree of risk is acceptable. It’s difficult to do that if you haven’t defined what you hope to achieve by using cannabis in the first place.
As research reveals more about the risks and potential rewards of using cannabis, mature consumers will be faced with a growing number of decisions about whether or not to use it. This can ultimately be good news, if consumers have done their homework. What they can’t do, however, is ignore research findings that don’t tell them what they want to hear.
Cannabis Quote of the Week
“Over the years, I’ve dedicated my life to improving the lives of our veterans, whether serving as a Veterans Fellow and Lead Policy Advisor on Military and Veterans Affairs to Sen. Chuck Grassley, leading within the Iowa Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW), or conducting academic research focused on veterans’ issues. One thing has become undeniably clear: it’s time to reschedule cannabis as a Schedule III substance under federal law, a change that is backed by President Donald Trump, which would open the door for unlocking its therapeutic potential for veterans suffering from PTS and other chronic illnesses.
…Veterans are not asking for a miracle cure. We are asking for options. We are asking for the freedom to explore alternative treatments when conventional therapies — prescription medications, talk therapy, or exposure therapy — fall short. For many veterans, they do. And for some, cannabis has helped where nothing else has.
…Rescheduling cannabis and expanding research into its medical applications is one of the first steps in the right direction. This is not a radical position. It’s a veteran-first position. It’s a common-sense, science-backed, compassion-driven stance.
…Rescheduling cannabis is not about promoting recreational use. It’s about expanding medical access under the care of licensed physicians. It’s about ensuring veterans are treated with the same dignity, respect, and freedom of choice as any other patient.
Rescheduling cannabis would not solve every problem, but it could be a life-changing step forward for thousands of veterans. It’s time for leaders in the Drug Enforcement Agency to follow the president’s lead and honor their service not just with words, but with action.”—Russell Saffell
Mr. Saffell is state adjutant/executive director and past state commander (Iowa) of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States. He states in his bio that he does not partake in, and is personally against, the recreational use of illicit drugs. However, he does describe himself as a major proponent of thorough research, facts, and providing every opportunity for wellness to our nation’s veterans. His comments are taken from an op-ed he penned for the Des Moines Register. To read his complete statement, click on the following link.
https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/columnists/iowa-view/2025/06/19/veterans-ptsd-reclassify-cannabis-schedule-iii/84266976007/
Spotlight on Hemp-Based Products
In a move that surprised many, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) has vetoed a proposal to ban hemp THC products in the state. In addition, he signed another proposal to expand the state’s limited medical cannabis program, adding a swathe of new qualifying conditions and cannabis delivery methods.
So writes Graham Abbott, reporting for Ganjapreneur. According to Graham Abbott, the governor had been under intense pressure to veto the bill from hemp advocates, veteran groups, and business owners. Despite passing both legislative bodies and garnering support from most of the state’s conservative lawmakers, recent polling showed the proposed ban was not popular even among Republican voters. Advocates additionally said they delivered over 180,000 petition signatures and over 5,000 handwritten letters this month asking the governor to veto the proposal.
It appears Governor Abbott decided a veto would respond to both the wishes of a significant segment of the electorate and save jobs at the same time. According to the Texas Hemp Business Council, an industry group, the hemp industry has grown into an $8 billion market in Texas, supporting more than 53,000 jobs and generating over $267 million in tax revenue.
The governor also decided on Saturday to sign into law a proposal expanding the state’s limited medical cannabis program to cover new qualifying conditions and cannabis delivery methods. Graham Abbott noted in his article that changes to the state’s medical cannabis program will now include traumatic brain injuries, chronic pain, and a terminal illness or condition that requires hospice as qualifying conditions to the program. Additionally, the program will allow for vaporized or aerosolized medical cannabis delivery. Smoking cannabis, however, will remain banned under the new law.
The veto was not popular with everyone. Said Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick ® in a social media post, “Throughout the legislative session, @GregAbbott_TX remained totally silent on Senate Bill 3, the bill that would have banned dangerous THC products in Texas. His late-night veto, on an issue supported by 105 of 108 Republicans in the legislature, strongly backed by law enforcement, many in the medical and education communities, and the families who have seen their loved ones’ lives destroyed by these very dangerous drugs, leaves them feeling abandoned.”
Sources indicate that industry representatives have signaled they are open to discussions with the state about how to improve regulations and oversight of the industry.
More news as more news develops.
To learn more, we suggest reading the reporting by Graham Abbott in the June 23, 2025 issue of Ganjapreneur.com.
https://www.ganjapreneur.com/texas-gov-vetoes-thc-ban-signs-medical-cannabis-expansions-bill/?
Cannabis and Guns
President Trump’s Justice Department has told the Supreme Court that users of illegal drugs—including cannabis—”pose a clear danger of misusing firearms” and that risk justifies the longstanding federal prohibition on gun ownership by drug consumers—known as Section 922(g)(3)—despite the Constitution’s broad Second Amendment protections.
According to Ben Adlin, reporting for Marijuana Moment, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer made that argument in a petition for review by the high court. Sauer held that despite recent appeals and court decisions calling the constitutionality of the firearms ban into question, the restriction is nevertheless lawful.
Wrote Sauer in the government’s filing in the case, U.S. v. Hemani, “Section 922(g)(3) complies with the Second Amendment. That provision targets a category of persons who pose a clear danger of misusing firearms: habitual users of unlawful drugs.”
Adlin notes some lower courts have said the government’s blanket ban on gun and ammunition possession infringes on the Second Amendment—at least as applied to certain individual cases—because there’s no historical justification for such a broad restriction on an entire category of people.
Sauer said the ban is necessary and narrowly tailored enough to survive the legal challenge. That’s because the federal statute “bars their possession of firearms only temporarily and leaves it within their power to lift the restriction at any time; anyone who stops habitually using illegal drugs can resume possessing firearms.”
In his article, Adlin makes the point that while the government mentions “habitual” users of illegal drugs 40 times in its filing, the word habitual does not itself appear in 922(g)(3). The language of the statute prohibits anyone “who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” from purchasing or possessing firearms or ammunition.
A reply brief is due to the Supreme Court by July 21.
As always, Adlin’s reporting is detailed and insightful. To learn more, we urge you to read Ben Adlin’s reporting in the June 23, 2025 issue of Marijuana Moment.net.
Cannabis News and Notes
There may be hopeful news for those with cancer who are seeking an effective way to treat both the symptoms associated with cancer treatment and the cancer itself. A recent study published in the journal Frontiers in Oncology suggests that in addition to assisting with symptom management, there are a number of medical professionals who hold the opinion that cannabis may actually be able to assist in fighting cancer.
Under the direction of Ryan Castle, Director of Research at the Whole Health Oncology Institute, the study synthesized data from over 10,000 peer-reviewed research papers, encompassing 39,767 data points related to cannabis and various health outcomes.
Using a technique called sentiment analysis, the study identified correlations between cannabis use and supported, not supported, and unclear sentiments across multiple categories, including cancer dynamics, health metrics, and cancer treatments. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to validate the reliability of the findings.
Sentiment analysis refers to the process of computationally identifying and categorizing opinions expressed in a piece of text, especially in order to determine whether the writer’s attitude towards a particular topic, product, etc. is positive, negative, or neutral.
According to Castle, the aggregated correlation strength of cannabis across all cancer topics indicates that support for medical cannabis is 31.38 times stronger than opposition to it. The analysis highlighted the anti-inflammatory potential of cannabis, its use in managing cancer-related symptoms such as pain, nausea, and appetite loss, and explored the consensus on its use as an anticarcinogenic agent.
The members of the research team believe the findings indicate a strong and growing consensus within the scientific community regarding the therapeutic benefits of cannabis, particularly in the context of cancer. The consistent correlation strengths for cannabis as both a palliative adjunct and a potential anticarcinogenic agent redefine the consensus around cannabis as a medical intervention.
Castle argues in his conclusion that cannabis should be re-evaluated within the medical community as a treatment option for those with cancer. He and his team believe the findings of this study have implications for public health research, clinical practice, and discussions surrounding the legal status of medical cannabis. These results suggest a need for further research to explore the full therapeutic potential of cannabis and address knowledge gaps.
To be clear, the paper does not describe a peer-reviewed research project that tested the effectiveness of cannabis in treating cancer. Rather, it describes a very large review of 10,000 journal articles that was conducted to determine the scientific consensus on medical cannabis’ viability in cancer treatment. The objective of the analysis was to systematically assess the existing literature on medical cannabis, focusing on its therapeutic potential, safety profiles, and role in cancer treatment.
The study appeared in the April 2025 issue of the journal Frontiers in Oncology. To read an abstract of the analysis, click on the following link.
https://w.frontiersin.org/journals/oncology/articles/10.3389/fonc.2025.1490621/fwwull
Senior Cannabis Digest is compiled and edited by Joe Kohut and John Kohut. You can reach them at joe.kohut@gmail.com and at 347-5 28-8753.
