Cannabis Use and Dementia Risk: Evaluating Neurological and Cardiovascular Implications

Emerging data from one of the most comprehensive cohort studies to date is reshaping the conversation around cannabis and public health. Long viewed through the lens of pain management, recreation, and mental health, cannabis is now under scrutiny for a very different set of outcomes: its ties to dementia and serious cardiovascular events. The findings are not only raising eyebrows—they’re triggering urgent calls for clinicians to treat cannabis use disorder as a pressing clinical risk factor.

Involving data from over six million individuals, the study—recently published in JAMA Neurology—sheds light on a concerning trend. Individuals who had cannabis-related hospital encounters were found to have a 23% increased risk of developing dementia within five years. Even more starkly, when compared to the general population, these patients were at a 72% elevated risk. These are not marginal numbers. They suggest a cognitive trajectory that deviates sharply from typical age-related decline, and one potentially accelerated by cannabis exposure.

This doesn’t suggest cannabis use alone guarantees dementia, but the correlation in hospitalized individuals underscores a critical intersection: the role of substance use in chronic disease pathways. Importantly, these findings challenge the assumption—popularized in some public narratives—that cannabis is largely benign when compared to other substances.

Neurologists aren’t the only ones taking note. The cardiovascular implications are proving just as urgent. Additional data point to a marked rise in adverse cardiac events among cannabis users, including myocardial infarctions, strokes, and arrhythmias. A growing body of research, including work published by the American Heart Association, indicates a 25–34% increased risk of heart attacks, particularly among users of high-potency marijuana. This risk escalates further for individuals with pre-existing heart conditions, positioning cannabis as a potential trigger in vulnerable populations.

While causality cannot yet be definitively established, the convergence of cognitive and cardiovascular complications in cannabis-using populations has been consistent across multiple data sets. Such evidence calls for heightened clinical vigilance. Specialists in both neurology and cardiology are now being urged to incorporate cannabis use screening into their standard evaluations, particularly for patients presenting with early cognitive symptoms or unexplained cardiac episodes.

The conversation around cannabis use disorder is also evolving. With potency levels of commercial cannabis at all-time highs—and usage rates climbing across age groups—what was once a fringe diagnosis is becoming a central concern. Screening for cannabis use disorder (CUD) in routine primary care visits could serve as a vital touchpoint for prevention, especially as research from institutions like the University of Bath highlights its association with addiction and psychiatric comorbidities.

This is more than a question of individual risk. From a systems perspective, unaddressed cannabis-related complications could pose a substantial burden on already stretched neurology and cardiology services. Public health policymakers, too, are beginning to recognize the ripple effects. Failure to intervene early could translate to long-term increases in dementia care demands and cardiac event-related hospitalizations.

To that end, the evidence supports more than just screening—it argues for targeted education and tailored intervention. Clinicians may benefit from updated protocols that address not only cannabis cessation, but also the monitoring of cognitive function and cardiovascular metrics over time. Meanwhile, patient education campaigns might serve to recalibrate public understanding, particularly among populations who perceive cannabis as risk-free due to its legal status.

As cannabis becomes more culturally and legally entrenched, the healthcare community faces a delicate challenge: acknowledging its therapeutic potential while rigorously addressing its emerging harms. This latest research marks a pivotal moment—one in which early clinical action could make the difference between managing risk and reacting to crisis.