Long-term cannabis use may harm heart health like smoking cigarettes

Long-term cannabis use may harm heart health like smoking cigarettes

By Paul McClure

May 31, 2025Flipboard

• Linked
• Reddit

Smoking marijuana and ingesting THC edibles long-term pose a risk to heart health

Depositphotos

VIEW 1 IMAGES

A new study has found that smoking marijuana and ingesting THC edibles over the long term can reduce blood vessel function at levels similar to those seen in cigarette smokers, posing a risk to heart health.

The growing legalization of cannabis use has led to an increase in studies investigating its effects. As more countries and states have legalized cannabis for medical or recreational use, researchers have had greater opportunities to study it in a more regulated, controlled, and accessible environment.

 

Prime number: Drop in demand for US degrees

JHU Sheridan Libraries/Gado/Getty Images

The people who run the server rooms at Johns Hopkins have probably had less work to do lately. Web traffic to information about US university courses has nose-dived—an early sign that President Trump’s crackdown on international students is already quashing interest in American colleges. Citing data from Studyportals, a platform that helps students find degree programs, The Economist reported that clicks on US courses are currently at their lowest levels since the pandemic. Compared to last year, traffic to undergrad and master’s pages was down by more than 20% in Q1. Many of America’s elite universities—including Hopkins, Columbia, and MIT—have large international student populations. Nearly 30% of the student body at Harvard, which has borne the brunt of the White House’s attempt to reshape higher education, was from outside the US as of 2023. A federal judge temporarily blocked the Trump administration from banning US colleges from enrolling international students, but the fight is likely to continue. Per The Economist, if US universities see a dip in demand, the UK is set to be the big beneficiary.

Alberta Edge

Alberta Edge

Elbows Firmly Down

The premier took to the airwaves this week to throw down the gauntlet of separation. Adorned in a blue blazer (Red Dress Day pin removed), her elbows firmly down and her hands oddly limp, Danielle Smith sat down for a mid-afternoon chat with Canadians.



The time was chosen, she later said, to get the attention of eastern Canadians as Smith announced a list of non-negotiables that her team will be demanding from Ottawa, including industrial and energy independence from federal mandates.

“For the last 10 years, successive Liberal governments in Ottawa, supported by their New Democrat allies, have unleashed a tidal wave of laws, policies and political attacks aimed directly at Alberta’s free economy and, in effect, against the future and livelihoods of our people,” said Smith. “For Albertans, these attacks on our province by our own federal government have become unbearable.”

It was a 3,000-word snake pit of contradictions, misinformation, gaslighting, and childish assertions of “freedom,” writes David Climenhaga, who recaps the address in greater and more succinct detail than I ever could in this week’s cover story.

“Hilariously, she insisted, ‘it’s not that our preferred candidate and party lost. It’s that the same Liberal government with almost all of the same ministers responsible for our nation’s inflation, housing, crime and budget crisis, and that oversaw the attack on our provincial economy for the past 10 years, have been returned to power.’ In other words, it is that our preferred candidate and party lost!”

Smith also announced a series of “Alberta Next” panel talks to brainstorm what the province should do if the feds don’t give in to their demands. And hey, if Albertans say they want it, then Smith will also put separating from the country to a referendum next year. But only if you, the public, ask for it!

“Alberta didn’t start this fight, but rest assured we will finish it,” promised the premier.

NDP Leader Naheed Nenshi was surprisingly in agreement with Smith at his party’s AGM in Edmonton last weekend. Have a referendum. Put it to a vote. But do it now and quit wasting everyone’s time, demanded Nenshi.

“Call the referendum, call it now, and when you get the defeat, the thumping defeat that you resoundingly deserve, stop playing games with the future of our country.”

The guy’s a born showman, reports Graham Thomson, but the cruel irony for the NDP is Smith keeps stealing the spotlight even when she doesn’t want it. The NDP is “trying to swim upstream against a never-ending torrent of United Conservative Party policies, controversies, schemes and blunders — and one brewing scandal.”

Speaking of scandals, why is an Alberta Energy Regulator director also special advisor to the premier? That’s the question one oil industry veteran had after attending a talk David Yager — who holds both jobs — gave to the Wheatland and Area Surface Rights Society.

“You can’t have your foot in one board at the AER and be in cabinet,“ Mark Dorin tells journalism student Raynesh Ram. “The AER is supposed to be arm’s-length. That is fundamental in a democracy.”

Elsewhere...

• Bloc Leader Yves-Francois Blanchet, asked to offer some tips to Albertans looking to separate, said the province must first define a national culture of its own. “And I am not certain that oil and gas qualifies to define a culture.” [Mackenzie Gray]
• All of this separation rhetoric isn’t about western alienation, writes Drew Anderson. It’s about oil. Specifically, it’s about capitalizing on “both an international crisis and an election that didn’t go their way” to pave a path for a more extreme oil and gas future. [The Narwhal]
• Or maybe it’s just a way to keep the fringe members of her party in check. The premier effectively said as much later on this week, referring to the separation referendum as a means to “avert the emergence of a political rival” from within the UCP’s membership. [Alberta Politics]
• “Let me break this to you gently — that won’t work,” warns Greg Quinn, who has been living with the spectacular failures of Brexit for nine years. U.K. prime minister David Cameron called for a referendum to similarly appease the anti-EU extreme in his party. “And now we are all living with the consequences of a politician’s failure to read the room. Not the first time, and not the last time.” [The Line]
• Teachers may soon go on strike. Members of the Alberta Teachers’ Association rejected a new provincial contract this week. Association president Jason Schilling said the mediator-recommended deal failed to address the increasing complexities of Albertan classrooms. [Lethbidge News]
• The measles outbreak continues to worsen. The number of confirmed cases has now surged past 300, the highest since 1987. [CBC]
• Even more surprise retirements among Calgary’s top police brass. New interim chief Katie McLellan took over operations on Wednesday following the surprise resignation of former chief Mark Neufeld last week. During the subsequent media event, McLellan announced that deputy chiefs Chad Tawfik and Raj Gill were also retiring. The new chief refused to comment on the reasons why. (A reminder that you can contact The Tyee any time with confidential tips or documents.) [Global]

Until next time, Jacob Boon, Newsletter Editor

Supporting press freedom with digital security tools

 

Supporting press freedom with digital security tools

At Proton, we believe privacy is essential to a free and democratic society. Without it, there can be no open debate, no constructive dissent, and no real press freedom. Yet around the world, journalists are under attack. Emboldened governments are using surveillance, censorship, and legal threats to silence independent voices. As these threats grow, many reporters still lack the tools and awareness to defend themselves. “Not many are fully aware of the digital implications of not using a VPN, not using encrypted messages, not choosing very secure passwords,” one expert told us. To help mitigate these risks, we’re now offering significant discounts to journalists and newsrooms. This continues our longstanding tradition of providing direct support to journalists, activists, and others who align with our mission to build an internet where freedom is the default. Learn about Proton for journalists and newsrooms

Some of your favorite iPhone apps are changing

Emily Parsons

iOS developers are busy grinding out app updates that would’ve gotten them suspended from the App Store until very recently. ICYMI: In a stunning blow to Apple’s “walled garden,” a federal judge last week ordered the elimination of the tech giant’s 27% fee on App Store developers who direct users to make purchases outside of their apps. Apple already takes up to a 30% commission on anything you’ve double-clicked to confirm in-app. With the court’s blessing, popular services that used to avoid offering in-app purchases are adding link-outs in their apps to make transactions easier for users in the US: You can now see subscription prices on Spotify’s app and click to go directly to the corresponding section on its website. It’s also now able to hyperlink a three-month free trial offer within the app. The Kindle app added its first “Get Book” button, which takes readers to 1-Click Amazon checkout. Patreon also added external purchasing options. And the monetization platform said that its creators probably won’t have to comply with Apple’s previous mandate to migrate subscriptions to iOS by November. That change likely would’ve led Patreon creators to increase their membership prices by 30% to counter Apple’s in-app commission. The retro gaming simulator Delta Emulator also added a link-out to its Patreon memberships, which the app’s developer said couldn’t even be mentioned in-app before last week’s ruling “without giving Apple 27% of donations.” Fortnite is returning. Epic Games applied for its goofy shooter to rejoin the App Store yesterday, five years after Apple booted it for directing users to make transactions on its own website. Since the judge’s ruling last week, Epic CEO Tim Sweeney has been on a victory lap—at least for now. Apple asked the court to halt the order’s enforcement this week as it appeals the decision. A hit to Apple’s bottom line: With fewer commission fees, the tech giant could make $2 billion less per year from US App Store sales, which brought in $11 billion for the company last year, Morgan Stanley estimates.—ML

UK and EU agree deal hailing a 'new chapter' in post-Brexit relations

UK and EU agree deal hailing a 'new chapter' in post-Brexit relations

Silvia Amaro@linkedin.com/in/sílvia-amaro-12188846

Share

Key Points

• The U.K. and European Union finally agreed to reset relations Monday after Britain’s bitter exit from the EU in 2020
• The deal covers a range of matters including security, energy, trade, travel and fisheries
• British officials said the agreement marked a “historic day” for the two sides

Britain’s Prime Minister Keir Starmer and European Commission president Ursula Von der Leyen at the European Political Community summit, in Tirana on May 16, 2025.

Leon Neal | Afp | Getty Images

The U.K. and European Union announced a landmark deal to reset relations Monday after Britain’s acrimonious exit from the bloc in 2020.

British officials said the signing of the agreement — which covers a range of matters including security, energy, trade, travel and fisheries — with EU officials in London marked a “historic day” for the two sides, and a “new chapter” in their relationship after years of tense post-Brexit relations.

Here are some key takeaways from the deal and how it will affect British consumers and businesses:

Firstly, the deal will make it easier for British food and drink to be imported and exported as it reduces red tape for businesses which have led to lengthy lorry queues at the border. Some routine checks on animal and plant products will also be removed completely, allowing products like British sausages and burgers to be sold back into the EU again.

When it comes to security and defense, the U.K. and EU agreed on a new partnership paving the way for the U.K. defense industry to participate in the EU’s proposed new £150 billion “Security Action for Europe” defense fund.

Fisheries was a big (and thorny) part of the talks ahead of the summit. This new deal extends fishing rights for EU trawlers in U.K. waters until 2038, an agreement particularly coveted by Brussels as an existing deal was due to expire next year.

British holidaymakers will be cheering at least one aspect of the deal, which will enable them to use more “eGates” in EU airports rather than having to have their passports physically checked when they travel to the continent. That agreement should end what the government described as “the dreaded queues at border control.”

Some issues are not entirely resolved, however, including a “youth experience scheme.” Both sides said they would work toward a deal that would make it easier for young people to live and work across the continent.

The program will be designed to enable young people to work and travel freely in Europe again, but will be capped and time-limited, mirroring existing schemes the U.K. has with countries such as Australia and New Zealand.

Alberta Follows Familiar Playbook to Help Fossils Sidestep Well Cleanup Obligations

Alberta Follows Familiar Playbook to Help Fossils Sidestep Well Cleanup Obligations

Critics warn that taxpayers and local communities could be on the hook for cleaning up a growing inventory of abandoned oil wells and fossil fuel infrastructure in Alberta under a new “mature assets” strategy proposed by industry veteran David Yager.

The report, published in April, reflects a well-known pattern the industry has used for decades to avoid responsibility for clean-up costs.

Yager’s report acknowledges the scale of the problem: the province houses more than 270,000 wellbores that are barely profitable, inactive, or decommissioned—with reclamation not yet complete. In addition, about half of the 38,000 production facilities built by the industry are inactive or decommissioned, but not reclaimed. And about 40% of the 440,000 kilometres of pipelines criss-crossing the province are decommissioned or not operating.

This aging infrastructure hasn’t been properly cleaned up and poses environmental and financial risks—yet industry players have so far largely avoided the full cost of closure. Yager’s advice, now being reviewed by the province, on how to deal with these “mature assets” align with industry interests: extract more value from old wells and extend their life, speed up reclamation by adopting “flexible regulatory frameworks,” breathe “new life” into a challenged sector with higher gas prices that reflect well closure costs, and introduce asset insurance that could be managed by the province.

Some of these strategies are part of a well-documented “playbook” used by oil and gas producers in the Permian Basin, reported ProPublica in December.

Oil and gas producers—having received generous government subsidies and tax breaks to pump oil profitably—sidestep their cleanup obligations through asset transfers and legal loopholes.

 

Beware Princes Bearing Gifts

by William Kristol

I’m old enough to remember when this was a republic. A proud republic. We were proud to be different from the principalities and powers of the old world. We were confident of our superiority to the hereditary aristocracies and monarchies that had dominated political life everywhere on the globe, and that still did in many places.

In those older and simpler days we spoke of and even believed in republican virtue. And so we nodded along to passages like this, from Federalist No. 39:

The first question that offers itself is, whether the general form and aspect of the government be strictly republican. It is evident that no other form would be reconcilable with the genius of the people of America; with the fundamental principles of the Revolution; or with that honorable determination which animates every votary of freedom, to rest all our political experiments on the capacity of mankind for self-government.

We old republicans tended to take this “honorable determination” for granted. We also took for granted some of the provisions of the Constitution that followed from this principle. They seemed a little old-fashioned and quaint, but still meaningful—such as Article I, Section 9, Clause 8.

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

How naive we were back then.

Now, the president of the United States is boasting of receiving as a gift a luxury Boeing 747-8 plane from the Qatari royal family. The plane will be upgraded to serve not as the Air Force One but as his Air Force One, since it will only be available for use by the government of the United States during his time in office. It will then revert to him—well, nominally to his presidential library, but it will of course be totally at his disposal—after he leaves office.

This sure seems like a “present” or “emolument” to a person holding “an office of trust” from “a King, Prince, or foreign state.”

But not to worry. Attorney General Pam Bondi—once a registered lobbyist for Qatar, as it happens—has concluded that the transaction is permissible under U.S. law and the Constitution.

How nice that the Trump administration still pretends to maintain some facade of respect for the Constitution even as it flouts it.

But Trump can’t really conceal his contempt for the old republican ways. Last night, he posted this on social media:

So the fact that the Defense Department is getting a GIFT, FREE OF CHARGE, of a 747 aircraft to replace the 40 year old Air Force One, temporarily, in a very public and transparent transaction, so bothers the Crooked Democrats that they insist we pay, TOP DOLLAR, for the plane. Anybody can do that! The Dems are World Class Losers!!!

This is the voice of old-world autocracy. Those who take seriously the constraints and requirements of republican government are fools. Those who care that our republican government not be dependent on foreign states, that our elected leaders not take favors from foreign princes, they are losers.

Leave aside all the questions about Qatar’s ties with Iran and Hamas. Leave aside that Qatar, on the other hand, has been designated a major non-NATO ally, and that Qatar hosts the largest U.S. military installation in the Middle East.

This isn’t about Qatar. It’s about us.

Leave a comment

Think about it this way: If Trump can accept this gift, why shouldn’t every military service member stationed in Qatar be able to accept gifts from its government or wealthy individuals there? Why should the commander in chief be able to accept emoluments when platoon commanders can’t?

He shouldn’t be.

There is one out available to Trump if he wishes both to take the gift and obey the Constitution. The Framers understood that there might be some occasions when it could be in our national interest for individuals holding an office of trust to accept a foreign gift. The Constitution doesn’t say that no gift can ever be accepted. It says that no gift can be accepted “without the consent of Congress.”

So Trump can submit his request for an exception to the ban on emoluments to the people’s representatives in Congress.

And whether Trump submits the request or not, Congress can and should take up the question of Trump’s gift. It should debate the issue in a way that honors our determination “to rest all our political experiments on the capacity of mankind for self-government.”

If we still hold to that determination.

If you still hold that determination, you’ll love being a Bulwark+ member. Join our pro-democracy (and pro-republic) community and get the best newsletters, podcasts, and live events anywhere.

The CRISPR patents are back in play.

 

MIT Technology Review · 7 hours ago

by Antonio Regalado · Biotechnology and health

The CRISPR patents are back in play.

On Monday, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said scientists Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier will get another chance to show they ought to own the key patents on what many consider the defining biotechnology invention of the 21st century.

The pair shared a 2020 Nobel Prize for developing the versatile gene-editing system, which is already being used to treat various genetic disorders, including sickle cell disease. 

But when US patent rights were granted in 2014 to Feng Zhang of the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, the decision set off a bitter dispute in which hundreds of millions of dollars—as well as scientific bragging rights—are at stake.

The new decision is a boost for the Nobelists, who had previously faced a string of demoralizing reversals over the patent rights in both the US and Europe.

“This goes to who was the first to invent, who has priority, and who is entitled to the broadest patents,” says Jacob Sherkow, a law professor at the University of Illinois. 

He says there is now at least a chance that Doudna and Charpentier “could walk away as the clear winner.”

The CRISPR patent battle is among the most byzantine ever, putting the technology alongside the steam engine, the telephone, the lightbulb, and the laser among the most hotly contested inventions in history.

In 2012, Doudna and Charpentier were first to publish a description of a CRISPR gene editor that could be programmed to precisely cut DNA in a test tube. There’s no dispute about that.

However, the patent fight relates to the use of CRISPR to edit inside animal cells—like those of human beings. That’s considered a distinct invention, and one both sides say they were first to come up with that very same year. 

In patent law, this moment is known as conception—the instant a lightbulb appears over an inventor’s head, revealing a definite and workable plan for how an invention is going to function.

In 2022, a specialized body called the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, or PTAB, decided that Doudna and Charpentier hadn’t fully conceived the invention because they initially encountered trouble getting their editor to work in fish and other species. Indeed, they had so much trouble that Zhang scooped them with a 2013 publication demonstrating he could use CRISPR to edit human cells.

The Nobelists appealed the finding, and yesterday the appeals court vacated it, saying the patent board applied the wrong standard and needs to reconsider the case. 

According to the court, Doudna and Charpentier didn’t have to “know their invention would work” to get credit for conceiving it. What should matter more, the court said, is that it actually did work in the end. 

In a statement, the University of California, Berkeley, applauded the call for a do-over.  

“Today’s decision creates an opportunity for the PTAB to reevaluate the evidence under the correct legal standard and confirm what the rest of the world has recognized: that the Doudna and Charpentier team were the first to develop this groundbreaking technology for the world to share,” Jeff Lamken, one of Berkeley’s attorneys, said in the statement.

The Broad Institute posted a statement saying it is “confident” the appeals board “will again confirm Broad’s patents, because the underlying facts have not changed.”

The decision is likely to reopen the investigation into what was written in 13-year-old lab notebooks and whether Zhang based his research, in part, on what he learned from Doudna and Charpentier’s publications. 

The case will now return to the patent board for a further look, although Sherkow says the court finding can also be appealed directly to the US Supreme Court. 

Liberty org pushes back against Bill 94, calls for repeal in name of rights and inclusion

 Liberty org pushes back against Bill 94, calls for repeal in name of rights and inclusion

Sherbrooke Record · 6 days ago

by Matthew Mccully · News

By William Crooks

Local Journalism Initiative

The Ligue des droits et libertés (LDL) is calling for the complete withdrawal of Quebec’s proposed Bill 94, denouncing it as a setback for human rights and the province’s long-standing secular tradition.

Officially titled An Act mainly to strengthen the secular nature of the school network and to amend various legislative provisions, Bill 94 was introduced by the Quebec government to broaden restrictions on the display of religious symbols in the education system. If adopted, it would extend existing bans—first implemented under Bill 21 in 2019—beyond teachers to include other school staff and students, and would impose limitations on the use of languages other than French in educational settings. The legislation also pre-emptively invokes the notwithstanding clause of both the Quebec and Canadian Charters, shielding it from constitutional challenges.

In its presentation at public hearings before the National Assembly’s Commission on Culture and Education on April 22, the LDL argued that the bill is fundamentally incompatible with a respectful and inclusive approach to secularism. “We believe Bill 94 should be withdrawn,” said Laurence Guénette, Coordinator for the LDL, in an interview with The Record. “We are very in favour of the secularism of the state, but this bill does not embody true secularism—it undermines fundamental rights and discriminates against specific groups.”

According to the LDL, secularism should ensure the separation of religion and state while protecting the freedom of belief and expression for everyone. “There is a fundamental confusion between proselytism and the wearing of religious symbols,” Guénette explained. “Wearing a symbol is not an attempt to convert or influence others—it is a personal expression, protected by freedom of religion.”

Guénette noted that state neutrality is not about erasing personal identity, but rather about treating all citizens equally, regardless of belief. “The neutrality of the state must be reflected in its actions, not in the appearance of its employees,” she said. “Whatever they wear does not make them guilty of being non-neutral.”

Subscribe to read this story and more

L’article Liberty org pushes back against Bill 94, calls for repeal in name of rights and inclusion est apparu en premier sur Sherbrooke Record.

 

Foreign tourists are shunning the US

Anna Kim, Photos: Adobe Stock

Contentious foreign relations, a rising dollar, and fears about visiting a country that has detained overseas visitors are resulting in the US hemorrhaging tourism money like it’s Baby Billy’s production of Teenjus. The World Travel & Tourism Council (WTTC) projects the US to lose $12.5 billion in travel revenue in 2025—a 7% dip from last year and a 22.5% drop from 2019, when international spending reached a record $217.4 billion. Of the 184 foreign economies tracked by the WTTC, the US is the only one on pace to see a decline in tourism revenue. Everyone is staying away In March, US airports that have historically served throngs of international visitors who want to see Disney parks and the Grand Canyon were experiencing massive year over year declines in international arrivals: Arrivals from the UK and South Korea both dipped 15%. Tourists from Germany plummeted 28%. Other markets that had previously been staples, including Spain and Ireland, fell between 24% and 33%. According to the US Travel Association, foreign travelers spend an average of $4,000 per trip, eight times more than domestic travelers. That’s putting a major dent in US tourism, which makes up 9% of the US economy. New York feels Canada’s wrath While some of this can be explained by a fluctuating US dollar and other factors, Canada’s response to President Trump’s rhetoric about annexation is giving New York far more problems than the Boston Celtics: New York City expects a 17% decline in tourism in 2025, with the biggest drop coming from Canada. Gov. Kathy Hochul said 66% of northern regions of the state near Montreal and Ottawa have felt a “significant decrease” in Canadian bookings this year. Expedia says US travel from Canada is down 30% this year. Big picture: Travel analysts have expressed uncertainty about the future, but should trade wars continue or anti-American sentiment rise, things may worsen.—DL

'We're citizens!': Oklahoma City family traumatized after ICE raids home, but they weren't suspects

'We're citizens!': Oklahoma City family traumatized after ICE raids home, but they weren't suspects

OKLAHOMA CITY (KFOR) — A woman says her family’s fresh start in Oklahoma turned into a nightmare after federal immigration agents raided their home, taking their phones, laptops and life savings — even though they were not the suspects the agents were looking for.

The agents had a search warrant for the home, the woman said, but the suspects listed on it do not live there.