HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Pregnant pot smokers can ...

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 08:00 AM

Pregnant pot smokers can damage kids' brains

Pregnant pot smokers can damage kids' brains

An expectant mother's use of cannabis during pregnancy can prevent a child from forming certain connections in the brain while growing in the womb, a Sweden-based researcher has revealed.

"Cannabis is particularly powerful to derail how nerve cells form connections, potentially limiting the amount of information the affected brain can process," a statement from Sweden's Karolinska institute said this week.

The Institute's Professor Tibor Harkany was part of a global team of scientists looking into what effects consuming cannabis during pregnancy had on the unborn child.

"An increasing number of children suffer from the consequences of maternal drug exposure during pregnancy, and cannabis is one of the most frequently used substances," the statement read.

http://www.thelocal.se/20140130/cannabis-use-in-pregnancy-impairs-childs-brain

174 replies, 21955 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 174 replies Author Time Post
Reply Pregnant pot smokers can damage kids' brains (Original post)
The Straight Story Jan 2014 OP
madokie Jan 2014 #1
Th1onein Jan 2014 #2
randome Jan 2014 #7
LanternWaste Jan 2014 #68
Rex Jan 2014 #94
VanillaRhapsody Jan 2014 #129
Bennyboy Jan 2014 #145
Scootaloo Jan 2014 #12
Fumesucker Jan 2014 #18
reddread Jan 2014 #35
Fumesucker Jan 2014 #38
reddread Jan 2014 #58
defacto7 Jan 2014 #134
frylock Jan 2014 #90
VanillaRhapsody Jan 2014 #130
pnwmom Jan 2014 #159
2pooped2pop Jan 2014 #50
pnwmom Jan 2014 #158
Adrahil Jan 2014 #3
lostincalifornia Jan 2014 #5
Adrahil Jan 2014 #9
lostincalifornia Jan 2014 #83
tblue37 Jan 2014 #36
VanillaRhapsody Jan 2014 #131
tblue37 Jan 2014 #140
VanillaRhapsody Jan 2014 #141
RKP5637 Jan 2014 #52
former9thward Jan 2014 #70
RainDog Jan 2014 #71
former9thward Jan 2014 #72
frylock Jan 2014 #92
RainDog Jan 2014 #101
pnwmom Jan 2014 #160
etherealtruth Jan 2014 #163
B Calm Jan 2014 #4
Turbineguy Jan 2014 #6
DetlefK Jan 2014 #8
morningfog Jan 2014 #16
former9thward Jan 2014 #73
DetlefK Jan 2014 #157
former9thward Jan 2014 #166
DetlefK Feb 2014 #167
madville Jan 2014 #10
theaocp Jan 2014 #11
PotatoChip Jan 2014 #13
theaocp Jan 2014 #14
morningfog Jan 2014 #15
RainDog Jan 2014 #62
LWolf Jan 2014 #17
morningfog Jan 2014 #20
LWolf Jan 2014 #25
gollygee Jan 2014 #19
RKP5637 Jan 2014 #56
Iggo Jan 2014 #21
Renew Deal Jan 2014 #29
Iggo Jan 2014 #39
Renew Deal Jan 2014 #40
JackRiddler Jan 2014 #22
panader0 Jan 2014 #23
Shivering Jemmy Jan 2014 #26
JackRiddler Jan 2014 #41
randome Jan 2014 #55
RainDog Jan 2014 #60
randome Jan 2014 #63
RainDog Jan 2014 #69
randome Jan 2014 #74
RainDog Jan 2014 #93
JackRiddler Jan 2014 #148
Bluenorthwest Jan 2014 #85
randome Jan 2014 #89
RainDog Jan 2014 #97
JackRiddler Jan 2014 #112
reddread Jan 2014 #24
ailsagirl Jan 2014 #91
randr Jan 2014 #27
Renew Deal Jan 2014 #28
randome Jan 2014 #30
tridim Jan 2014 #31
randome Jan 2014 #32
tridim Jan 2014 #33
Fumesucker Jan 2014 #37
JackRiddler Jan 2014 #43
Fumesucker Jan 2014 #47
former9thward Jan 2014 #75
VanillaRhapsody Jan 2014 #77
former9thward Jan 2014 #79
VanillaRhapsody Jan 2014 #80
former9thward Jan 2014 #104
VanillaRhapsody Jan 2014 #109
former9thward Jan 2014 #110
VanillaRhapsody Jan 2014 #111
former9thward Jan 2014 #114
VanillaRhapsody Jan 2014 #116
former9thward Jan 2014 #123
VanillaRhapsody Jan 2014 #125
former9thward Jan 2014 #126
VanillaRhapsody Jan 2014 #128
JackRiddler Jan 2014 #113
mitchtv Jan 2014 #86
liberal_at_heart Feb 2014 #169
RainDog Jan 2014 #59
Mariana Jan 2014 #84
RainDog Jan 2014 #105
loyalsister Jan 2014 #81
RainDog Jan 2014 #119
Union Scribe Jan 2014 #137
liberal_at_heart Feb 2014 #171
ProudToBeBlueInRhody Jan 2014 #162
Renew Deal Jan 2014 #164
etherealtruth Jan 2014 #165
MindPilot Jan 2014 #34
ohheckyeah Jan 2014 #64
Ohio4theWin Jan 2014 #87
Fozzledick Jan 2014 #42
Lost_Count Jan 2014 #44
B Calm Jan 2014 #45
Lost_Count Jan 2014 #46
tridim Jan 2014 #49
tridim Jan 2014 #48
yawnmaster Jan 2014 #132
tridim Jan 2014 #133
yawnmaster Jan 2014 #135
RainDog Jan 2014 #138
yawnmaster Jan 2014 #149
RainDog Jan 2014 #151
RainDog Jan 2014 #51
Shrike47 Jan 2014 #53
Lint Head Jan 2014 #54
RainDog Jan 2014 #57
DiverDave Jan 2014 #61
The Midway Rebel Jan 2014 #65
stevenleser Jan 2014 #66
Rex Jan 2014 #102
stevenleser Jan 2014 #147
bettyellen Jan 2014 #67
former9thward Jan 2014 #76
bettyellen Jan 2014 #82
former9thward Jan 2014 #107
bettyellen Jan 2014 #142
reddread Jan 2014 #103
Politicalboi Jan 2014 #78
Ohio4theWin Jan 2014 #88
ailsagirl Jan 2014 #95
RainDog Jan 2014 #100
ailsagirl Jan 2014 #106
RainDog Jan 2014 #108
ailsagirl Jan 2014 #144
Rex Jan 2014 #96
RainDog Jan 2014 #98
Rex Jan 2014 #99
1000words Jan 2014 #115
Rex Jan 2014 #118
1000words Jan 2014 #120
Rex Jan 2014 #121
ChisolmTrailDem Jan 2014 #122
Xithras Jan 2014 #117
RainDog Jan 2014 #124
bravenak Jan 2014 #127
defacto7 Jan 2014 #136
Warpy Jan 2014 #139
bettyellen Jan 2014 #143
Egalitarian Thug Feb 2014 #170
OnionPatch Jan 2014 #146
womanofthehills Jan 2014 #152
OnionPatch Jan 2014 #155
Separation Jan 2014 #150
OwnedByCats Jan 2014 #153
dogman Jan 2014 #154
Hippo_Tron Jan 2014 #156
reddread Jan 2014 #161
Egalitarian Thug Feb 2014 #168
fredamae Feb 2014 #172
TheSarcastinator Feb 2014 #173
RainDog Feb 2014 #174

Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 08:06 AM

1. I'm not so sure I buy that

Sounds more like a reefer madness type bullshit to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madokie (Reply #1)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 08:08 AM

2. I agree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madokie (Reply #1)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 08:16 AM

7. Good God. Putting smoke in your lungs for any reason while pregnant has consequences.

 

It has consequences even when not pregnant.

For you to call 'reefer madness' on something that's common sense implies just the opposite of what you want. And that you are so overcome with longing for putting a weed in your mouth and setting it afire that you'll ignore 'inconvenient' science.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #7)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 02:14 PM

68. As does drinking iced tea with sugar...

 

As does drinking iced tea with sugar... but I imagine there aren't too many pregnancies either contesting that point or ingesting enough sugar during pregnancy to cause ill effects.

Science is rarely inconvenient. Timely placed scare articles though, can be... regardless of how it may be otherwise rationalized.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LanternWaste (Reply #68)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 04:32 PM

94. The FUD merchants are losing the battle on DU

 

and clearly they know it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #7)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 06:23 PM

129. So does sugar....should we stop mothers from eating sugar too?

 

they used to think even a single glass of wine could cause complications to pregnancy...that has been determined to be woo now too!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #7)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 08:06 PM

145. What if you vape, or do edibles or

 

tinctures?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madokie (Reply #1)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 08:35 AM

12. The notion of chemicals introduced to a developing fetus causing an effect is unbeleivable, no?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #12)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 09:31 AM

18. Not at all

However the notion that someone is trying to create a scare story about cannabis is not unbelievable either, given the history of the last seventy years or so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #18)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 10:52 AM

35. mutated sperm and man tits

 

white women and black men.
how many effects have we discovered so far?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reddread (Reply #35)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 11:10 AM

38. There was this..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #38)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 01:11 PM

58. CIA stash

 

RIP Bill

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #38)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 06:45 PM

134. Oh, is that my brain?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reddread (Reply #35)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 04:29 PM

90. men that smoke marijuana are unable to produce male offspring..

of course, nobody told that to Bob Marley!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reddread (Reply #35)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 06:25 PM

130. don't forget insanity and perversion!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #18)

Fri Jan 31, 2014, 06:52 AM

159. I voted for the WA law and I think this is exactly the RIGHT time to remind people

that there might be risks for pregnant women. I didn't even take Tylenol when I was pregnant. It wasn't worth taking a chance. People who smoke pot should realize that research hasn't proven that it's safe for developing fetuses. Neither is tobacco.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madokie (Reply #1)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 12:12 PM

50. the last thing I read on this subject said

 

that they were not able to do effective studies because most users use many things and may have lifestyles that would introduce other factors, like malnutrition, std's, alcoholism, tobacco, etc So basically they don't have a way to break it down to just one cause of the problem. They can't say it is one substance over another factor causing the problem. It's the old heroin users drink milk, therefore milk must cause heroin addiction kind of crap.

that being said, anything you put in your body is going to the baby too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madokie (Reply #1)

Fri Jan 31, 2014, 06:49 AM

158. No pregnant woman should take ANY drug that isn't medically necessary.

I didn't even take Tylenol. It's not worth any risk when you're literally making a baby.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 08:08 AM

3. And drinking too much alcohol while pregnant is harmful too....

 

... But somehow we don't incarcerate huge numbers of people for drinking alcohol.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Adrahil (Reply #3)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 08:09 AM

5. This is no surprise, and it is more than just alcohol. A lot of over the counter meds are harmful

too


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lostincalifornia (Reply #5)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 08:16 AM

9. Absolutely. This "it's bad for you" argument is ridiculous.

 

I've never smoked pot. I probably never will. I don't smoke cigarettes, so I see no reason to smoke some other kind of weed likely to give me cancer. But for fuck's sake.... For 100 years we've poured countless dollars into the "drug war" and put millions in jail. And it's accomplished exactly jack. Meanwhile, we accept, even celebrate booze (I enjoy a good drink myself) and prescription drug use of questionable need is rampant (just ask Rush). It's a monumental waste of time and money, not to mention needlessly ruining the lives of millions in a classist and racist application of drug law.

Legalize it.
Tax it.
Regulate it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Adrahil (Reply #9)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 03:31 PM

83. we are definitely on the same page, and I won't mess my lungs up either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lostincalifornia (Reply #5)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 10:58 AM

36. As is cleaning a cat's litterbox IF that kitty carries the

toxoplasmosis parasite. So is having an X-ray.

Many things are teratogenic, so pregnant women and women of childbearing age who could *possibly* be pregnant need to be aware of such possibilities and take precautions if they have any reason to think they might be pregnant at any time, whether by design or by accident.

There is no reason to single out pot as being especially risky.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tblue37 (Reply #36)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 06:26 PM

131. Yes...lets ban all cats in pregnant women's homes!

 

that will go over like a lead balloon!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #131)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 07:20 PM

140. My point is not that cats should be banned in pregnant women's homes, but that

many things other than pot are risky to fetuses. We don't ban them, though; we just advise pregnant women to avoid them. The same would be appropriate for pot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tblue37 (Reply #140)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 07:28 PM

141. I know....totally agree!

 

I thought the very idea was hilarious is all!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Adrahil (Reply #3)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 12:18 PM

52. Yep, so true. One can drink their brains out, but pot, and you

end up in the slammer. As usual, our society as often makes no F'en sense.

My take on this is that all pregnant women, as usual, need to be careful of what they consume during pregnancy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Adrahil (Reply #3)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 02:22 PM

70. There is a warning for pregnant women not to drink alcohol.

But if a scientist does a study showing cannibus can cause problems the anti-science crowd comes out and dismisses it. They would rather believe the woo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #70)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 02:24 PM

71. But, strangely, the drug warriors are silent on studies that show no harm

They would rather believe the woo, I suppose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #71)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 02:27 PM

72. How many studies have there been with pregnant women and childhood development?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #72)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 04:31 PM

92. how many studies have there been with pregnant women that used marijuana EXCLUSIVELY..

and not in tandem with tobacco, alcohol, prescription pain meds, etc.?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #72)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 04:44 PM

101. I've linked to a major series of studies here

twice.

The work has been censored in the scientific literature, as Dreher notes in the link to her video about her work, and she was denied funding for further research because her longitudinal study did not indicate damage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Adrahil (Reply #3)

Fri Jan 31, 2014, 06:53 AM

160. I voted for legalization but I support strongly informing people about possible risks.

Pregnant women should be aware that there might be a risk to the developing fetus, even though pot is legal in WA and CO now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #160)

Fri Jan 31, 2014, 11:12 AM

163. Exactly

Wanting people to make informed decisions is the best thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 08:09 AM

4. BS

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 08:11 AM

6. Probably the same sort of clowns

like those who jabber on about climate change.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 08:16 AM

8. There is still room for doubt in his research:

He experimented on mice and human brain tissue.

Just because a medication works in a particular way in mice, that doesn't mean they work that way in humans.
Just because a medication works in a particular way in isolated tissue, that doesn't mean they work that way in humans.

A shame that the article had no link to the paper. (Is there a paper?)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DetlefK (Reply #8)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 09:27 AM

16. See my links down thread.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DetlefK (Reply #8)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 02:29 PM

73. Most human biological studies are done with mice.

Your post is an attack on science.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #73)

Fri Jan 31, 2014, 05:54 AM

157. I'm attacking science???

Either that or I'm suggesting they should look for more realistic samples to conduct their measurements with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DetlefK (Reply #157)

Fri Jan 31, 2014, 11:43 AM

166. Ok, since according to you scientists don't know what they are doing.

How would you, the great science researcher, do it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #166)

Mon Feb 3, 2014, 05:58 PM

167. You won't like my proposals.

1. Experiment on monkeys.
2. Look for marijuana-smoking volunteers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 08:32 AM

10. Sure it's possible, just not proven

We all know that cannabis is relatively harmless to adults.

The jury is still out about damage that could possibly be done in the womb or to children and teenagers who's brains are still developing.

I look at it like anything else, when pregnant, women should moderate ingestion of potentially harmful substances for the health of the child, it's just not worth the risk.

A little wine, a beer, a few hits of weed, a cigarette, etc here and there are most likely harmless during pregnancy. Heavy use, possibly harmful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 08:34 AM

11. So fucking what?

Who the fuck is advocating for smoking cannabis while pregnant? This is nothing more than an attempt to keep the status quo. Go scare somebody else, Mr. Withers (the researchers and reporter, not the OP). Jesus.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to theaocp (Reply #11)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 08:50 AM

13. Exactly. I'm not a pot smoker

(just never liked it). But even if I was, I would have given it up while pregnant just as I did cigs back then. Heck, I even gave up coffee just to be on the safe side.

This "study" is not only unnecessary, but condescending (Imho). All of the pot smokers I know are not idiots or addicts. Study or no, I'm sure they would give it up for a pregnancy and would have no problem doing it. It's just common sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PotatoChip (Reply #13)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 09:00 AM

14. Thanks for the support

People who already imbibe while pregnant aren't going to be swayed by this study ("Who knew or even suspected? OMG!", so it just serves as fear. Fuck that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 09:09 AM

15. Some very important points from the study:

 

It is stressed that cannabis exposure in experimental models precisely coincided with the fetal period when nerve cells form connections amongst each other.


http://ki.se/ki/jsp/polopoly.jsp?l=en&d=130&a=173146&newsdep=130

From the study itself:

"...we began to administer THC at a dose of 3 mg/kg (i.p., daily), which did not change maternal behavior or physical measures (Mato et al, 2004) as would be predicted for high‐dose THC intoxication, from embryonic day (E)5.5–17.5 (Berghuis et al, 2005), and allowed offspring to mature under conventional husbandry conditions (without postnatal re‐introduction of the drug) until postnatal day (P) 10 or 120."

http://emboj.embopress.org/content/early/2014/01/27/embj.201386035

Studies like these are important to show where, if any, the actual risks are. Here, pregnant mice were given high dose THC daily during the specific time of nerve cell development. It is good to arm ourselves with information. There have been no studies that show occasional cannabis use during pregnancy to have negative results.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #15)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 01:51 PM

62. another issue

is the use of THC by itself, which is not the way humans consume cannabis.

CBD, for example, is another cannabinoid that has been studied, apart from the THC cannabinoid.

CBD administered on its own, without THC, resulted in people becoming severely depressed - people who previously had no history of depression. A drug was approved in Europe that was composed of CBD. The drug blocked endocannabinoid receptors and reduced appetite (whereas THC has been shown to facilitate appetite.) The CBD synthetic drug was withdrawn after some people attempted suicide.

That incident does not demonstrate that cannabis creates suicidal thoughts or actions, even though one cannabinoid, isolated and synthesized as a drug for weight loss, did create problems for some users.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 09:28 AM

17. So can alcohol.

There are clearly several personal choices that should not be made during pregnancy because of risk to the fetus. This isn't news.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LWolf (Reply #17)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 09:47 AM

20. And it is even more nuanced than that.

 

Women shouldn't drink a lot of alcohol when pregnant, but a glass of wine a day during 3rd trimester is fine, even beneficial in some cases.

The same with cannabis. This study suggests it could cause harm if used daily at high levels during a specific time of fetal development. It does not suggest that any amount of THC at any point in a pregnancy is harmful to fetal development. Studies have shown that us not the case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #20)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 10:20 AM

25. As with most things that

someone tries to turn into a political talking point, nuance is lost in translation.


As a public school teacher, I deal first hand every day with cognitive disabilities caused by drug use in utero. They are real. Which is why it is to the benefit of all that we be well-informed about the issues, that doctors give expecting women accurate information, and that those women make responsible choices.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 09:43 AM

19. There are plenty of things that are fine except if you're pregnant

If you have acne, benzoyl peroxide is fine - but not if you're pregnant.
Same with Retin A.
Don't change the kitty litter if you're pregnant! But it's fine if you aren't pregnant.
Pregnant women are recommended to avoid hot dogs, asprin, and sushi even.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gollygee (Reply #19)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 12:32 PM

56. Yep, agree. If I were pregnant, I would be careful of what I consumed, etc., just to

play it safe. ... not to moralize anything, but just to be safe for my kid. Just kind of common sense to me. Some things are just going to have a bad effect on a pregnancy.

Just makes sense IMO. However, some will take precaution and try to moralize it into a prohibition for no sense whatsoever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 09:53 AM

21. Doing drugs when you're pregnant is a bad idea?

What next!?!?!?!?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iggo (Reply #21)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 10:32 AM

29. Coffee

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Renew Deal (Reply #29)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 11:17 AM

39. 58,000 woot!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iggo (Reply #39)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 11:29 AM

40. Thanks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 09:56 AM

22. That headline is evidence of brain damage.

 

Do pregnant pot smokers go around violently poking kids in the head? Or do they blow the smoke at the poor darlings? Because those are the only realistic possibilities implied by the syntax.

"The Institute's Professor Tibor Harkany was part of a global team of scientists looking into what effects consuming cannabis during pregnancy had on the unborn child."

Global team research money well spent! At last, someone's figuring out things we would have never known. The campaign by the state and the medical establishment to encourage pregnant women to smoke pot and cigarettes and chug liquor with their legally mandated prozac must stop!!! We need PSAs!!! Lady, don't smoke! (Also, keep those damn pot dealers in prison and keep funding the Mexican and Colombian states to kill thousands of their own citizens in the war on drugs. For the children!!!)

"In addition to researchers from Sweden and Austria, researchers from the US, Germany, Finland and the UK took part in the study."

Who paid for them to torture all those mice?

(The usual answer, no matter which institutes and foundations may have chipped in, is going to be: taxpayers.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 09:59 AM

23. My ex smoked pot during pregnancy to help with her constant morning sickness

My oldest daughter was second in her high school class of 500 plus. She, and her younger sister are in in college with A averages.
Pot during pregnancy did not harm them at all, as far as I can tell.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to panader0 (Reply #23)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 10:25 AM

26. sample size 2

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Shivering Jemmy (Reply #26)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 11:38 AM

41. Sample size of study: Zero.

 

It was on mice.

That would be Mus musculus, not Homo sapiens. (Are you familiar with these? Sorry.)

Did you know that throwing around scientific terms doesn't make your comments into science?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #41)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 12:28 PM

55. And ignoring science makes it different?

 

Mice were used to prove the carcinogenic properties in cigarette smoke, too. I guess you want to discount that, too, because...well, it was only mice.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #55)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 01:28 PM

60. do you have anything to say about the Jamaican studies?

Those involved humans, a much larger group, a control group, and occurred over a longer period of time.

The science indicated no damage.

What do you have to say about that science?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #60)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 01:55 PM

63. You could include a link.

 

Regardless, smoke is always dangerous to a person's lungs. Why would it be difficult to understand that this can have detrimental effects on a pregnancy?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.
[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #63)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 02:18 PM

69. I already included a link in this thread

But here's another one in which Dreher talks about her work.



As far as your claim that smoke is always dangerous to a person's lungs and then claim this can have detrimental effects on pregnancy - you're making a leap of faith that does not exist. Are you as concerned about breathing the air filled with carbon monoxide from car exhaust? Does car exhaust impact more people than cannabis smoke? or tobacco smoke, for that matter?

But you want to believe this so badly, it seems that evidence that indicates other outcomes doesn't matter. Your position is irrational, iow.

Here's a link with lots of information about cannabis smoking and lung function - http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=24515zA, including video from two different doctors, one of whom, Donald Tashkin, is the expert on cannabis and pulmonary function.

His findings in a longitudinal study with 400 participants: Marijuana smokers, even if they smoked tobacco as well, as the same rate of lung function, over time, as non-smokers of any kind. Only tobacco-smokers had decreased lung function.

He found no connection between marijuana smoking and lung cancer in a larger study. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html

Earlier work established that marijuana does contain cancer-causing chemicals as potentially harmful as those in tobacco, he said. However, marijuana also contains the chemical THC, which he said may kill aging cells and keep them from becoming cancerous.

Tashkin's study, funded by the National Institutes of Health's National Institute on Drug Abuse, involved 1,200 people in Los Angeles who had lung, neck or head cancer and an additional 1,040 people without cancer matched by age, sex and neighborhood.

They were all asked about their lifetime use of marijuana, tobacco and alcohol. The heaviest marijuana smokers had lighted up more than 22,000 times, while moderately heavy usage was defined as smoking 11,000 to 22,000 marijuana cigarettes. Tashkin found that even the very heavy marijuana smokers showed no increased incidence of the three cancers studied.

"This is the largest case-control study ever done, and everyone had to fill out a very extensive questionnaire about marijuana use," he said. "Bias can creep into any research, but we controlled for as many confounding factors as we could, and so I believe these results have real meaning."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #69)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 02:35 PM

74. So you're going to trust the study that supports your bias.

 

Of course you only have my word that I am unbiased (and I'm probably the last person to know if that's true or not) but when a study comes out that verifies what most people believe -that smoke in your lungs is not good- most of us will err on the side of caution.

Whether it's true or not, those who speedily diss science sound just like climate change deniers. "Well, look at ME! I turned out okay!" "Oh, what do mice know?" "They're all in on the conspiracy!"

In the end, it is a fruitless discussion. People will make up their own minds.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.
[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #74)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 04:31 PM

93. I link to more studies, and more longitudinal studies

if science is your bias, you will also grant more importance to those studies.

The rest of your remark has nothing to say about me (fwiw, I stopped smoking cannabis when I was 21, was married for 17 years and never smoked once, never missed it.) So I'm not going on "look at me." I'm going on "look at the evidence."

For you to claim scientific evidence that disproves your bias is a conspiracy is bullshit of the highest order.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #69)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 09:40 PM

148. Actually, randome wants to believe nothing...

 

that badly. Merely to fit in with whatever the hegemonic and conventional flavor of the day is, at all times. So it's an instrument, not an agent of belief.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #63)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 03:34 PM

85. Are you under the impression the mice smoked? The study is about THC ingestion

 

which is not the same as smoking, smoking being absolutely unnecessary to consume cannabis or in this case, the pure THC which the mice were given.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #85)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 03:48 PM

89. The headline does not match the study.

 

I know, smoking is not necessary. But that's the quicker fix and how the majority of people will use it.

And science is science. For some to discount the study simply because it doesn't fit with preconceived notions does no one any good.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)
[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #89)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 04:38 PM

97. Which demonstrates this story in the media is propaganda

The results have nothing to say about smoking cannabis.

The study has something to say about THC, isolated from all other cannabinoids, had this effect on mice.

As noted above, this is not how people consume cannabis, therefore, the headline is just more reefer madness propaganda.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #55)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 05:26 PM

112. This is a foolish non-sequitur.

 

No one said to ignore "science."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 10:04 AM

24. propaganda damages brains

 

and people who swallow that stuff have clearly suffered a lot of damage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reddread (Reply #24)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 04:31 PM

91. hear, hear!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 10:28 AM

27. So we add cannabis to the list of OTC and prescription drugs

not to be taken while pregnant along with the growing list of poor diet choices and tobacco.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 10:29 AM

28. What is it about marijuana that makes it impossible for certain people to consider it has harmful

Attributes? There are people that have convinced themselves that nothing bad can ever come from smoking weed. Yet they have no problem believing tobacco cigarettes are harmful.

Your body does not want smoke in its lungs. It doesn't matter if it's tobacco, marijuana, or a car fire. They are all dangerous to varying degrees.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Renew Deal (Reply #28)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 10:35 AM

30. People are not rational when it comes to drugs.

 

We hear how 'natural' it is to put a weed in your mouth and set it afire when nothing could be further from the truth.

'Feeling good' or 'expanding one's mind' is done by looking inward, not outward. But they won't have any of that nonsense.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Renew Deal (Reply #28)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 10:38 AM

31. Legalize it and make vaping and edibles the norm. Problem solved.

Prohibition makes both methods unaffordable for most people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tridim (Reply #31)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 10:40 AM

32. No problems here.

 

How are you going to make it the norm? People want their fixes quickly, they don't want to hassle with baking and equipment.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #32)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 10:43 AM

33. It'll become more normal as prices plummet

Prohibition makes Cannabis too expensive for most people to vape and/or eat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Renew Deal (Reply #28)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 11:03 AM

37. The list of harmful effects of cannabis is a remarkably long one

The great majority of which have turned out to be either deliberate lies or blatant and misleading exaggerations.

Perhaps you should blame those who have cried wolf for seventy years about cannabis for the fact that the latest claim of danger from that plant is met with some degree of skepticism.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #37)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 11:42 AM

43. Hey, pregnant women shouldn't smoke pot.

 

No problem with that idea, right?

And millions (presumably: international study!) in science funding shouldn't go to something that tortures mice for the sole reason of providing inapplicable evidence for an unconfirmable hypothesis about the damage on human fetal brains of pot per se, as opposed to 10,000 other possible contaminants.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #43)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 11:53 AM

47. What if it was prescribed by an MD for morning sickness?

Probably safer than thalidomide I suspect.

Not advocating anything at all, just wondering.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #47)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 02:37 PM

75. A complaint should be filed the state medical board if a MD did that.

He/she better be able to show a science based justification.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #75)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 02:40 PM

77. science based fact that marijuana reduces nausea? There is some question of that?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #77)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 02:43 PM

79. Does that overrule harm to the fetus?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #79)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 03:12 PM

80. but you didn't say that....you said science based evidence...

 

and there is PLENTY that says it DOES help with nausea. There is very little about the effects on a fetus. Although decades and decades and decades of babies born to mothers who smoke pot doesn't seem to support the "harm the fetus" train of thought.

Just like a glass of wine or two has been found NOT to harm the fetus either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #80)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 04:48 PM

104. The whole OP is about a scientific study.

But not the science you like, I guess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #104)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 05:14 PM

109. ONE study.....

 

and was it peer reviewed?


decades and decades and decades of much personal research by the population says otherwise...

reefer madness indeed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #109)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 05:20 PM

110. A science based study vs....

decades and decades and decades of much personal research by the population says otherwise...

Was THAT statement peer reviewed???

I know, the cannibis can do no wrong crowd will deny anything that does not fit into their worldview.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #110)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 05:23 PM

111. Yeah...they are their own peers are they not?

 

Do YOU know anyone injured by Marijuana use? Out of how many you know that use it?

You know "scientists" used to think it caused madness and perversion too!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #111)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 05:29 PM

114. Now you go into a full faced attack on science.

No, I don't know anyone injured by it. I do notice a somewhat scatter brained approach to major life decisions by many that use it. But I am not going to make a declaration that marijuana is the cause of that problem. Why? Because it is anecdotal and that is not how science is done.

Of course if it was tobacco we were talking about it would be a scientific certainty. That is the cause of all the world's problems I am told.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #114)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 05:33 PM

116. some psuedo-science deserves it does it not?

 

My sister in law is a PHD in BioEngineering....I have alot of respect for TRUE science...she told me herself that alot of what is deemed science...is still just woo!

"Science"...once thought "bloodletting" was a good idea too! Science has been found to be absolutely bunk more than once.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #116)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 05:49 PM

123. I do agree with you there.

I have heard that many of the second hand smoke studies have been proven to be woo but I won't post that because that would be heresy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #123)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 05:59 PM

125. well you can be allergic to cigarette smoke...and allergies effect the entire body

 

along with the immune system...it also runs down your white cell count...so there is THAT...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #125)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 06:05 PM

126. I think I will leave it at that.

A little late in the day to start the smoking wars... I'll be going out tonight to my favorite bar and sit on the patio smoking my cigar, drinking my gin and getting a whiff of cannabis that they allow to be smoked there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #126)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 06:22 PM

128. On the patio is a good thing....

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #47)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 05:27 PM

113. Maybe it will be in some cases.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #37)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 03:34 PM

86. best answer of the day

these studies come out like clockwork. then soon disappear in the light of scrutiny

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #37)

Mon Feb 3, 2014, 06:02 PM

169. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Renew Deal (Reply #28)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 01:24 PM

59. What it is - is the history of bad science regarding cannabis research

People are skeptical because of the knowledge of studies that, for instance, suffocated monkeys by denying them oxygen which were used to claim marijuana killed brain cells and were used to counter reform of marijuana laws.

People wanted to read the research for themselves but it was withheld. (This was during Reagan's presidency.)

In 1980, Playboy and NORML finally received for the first time—after six years of requests and suing the government—an accurate accounting of the research procedures used in the infamous report:

As reported in Playboy, the Heath “Voodoo” Research methodology involved strapping Rhesus monkeys into a chair and pumping them with equivalent of 63 Colombian strength joints in “five minutes, through gas masks,” losing no smoke. Playboy discovered that Heath had administered 63 joints in five minutes over just three months instead of administering 30 joints per day over a one-year period as he had first reported. Heath did this, it turned out, in order to avoid having to pay an assistant’s wages every day for a full year.

So, in that case, the researcher lied about methodology, in addition to performing substandard work.

As I mention, below, there have been long-term studies of children of mothers who both smoked and drank cannabis during pregnancy and those children did not show any negative effect. This study was within a culture that views cannabis as part of the culture in various ways.

This research could not get further funding in the U.S., as Dreher noted, because it didn't uphold the prejudices of the drug warriors.

So, if someone is making a judgment based upon prior knowledge of cannabis propaganda in the U.S., the rational response would be to question any research that the drug warriors tout.

If the U.S. govt. itself had not conspired to withhold information, across decades, such a response would not be warranted. But it did. Therefore, everyone should be initially skeptical because of this attempt to mislead the American public.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #59)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 03:31 PM

84. Indeed. We've been fed so many lies for such a long time.

Now we're supposed to take this particular claim as gospel?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mariana (Reply #84)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 04:49 PM

105. No valid scientist withholds his research from scrutiny n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Renew Deal (Reply #28)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 03:28 PM

81. I've been seeing that too

I have a sister who had problems with substance abuse - drugs and alcohol. She said "I can't wait until pot is legal!" I just saw my cousin who replaced alcohol with gambling go underground after stealing from family members. Another one who is looking forward to legally available MJ.

These are just 2 people, but the behaviors of addicts are pretty universal. I would hate to see people who have had problems with addiction flock to using it based on the idea that there is zero chance of harm or addiction wind up falling into behavior patterns they have worked hard to break.

There are some real risks. It would have been nice to have some real awareness of those related to alcohol and cigarettes.
I don't see why it is impossible to admit to potential negative health and behavioral issues. Honesty would go a long way toward preventing problems when (I assume) it is legalized.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loyalsister (Reply #81)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 05:36 PM

119. A person with a compulsive or addictive personality

Is going to switch from one thing or another. A lot of recovering alcoholics that I know are addicted to running now. They just switch the focus.

If you look at such issues in terms of harm reduction, it IS better for the alcoholic to switch to running, because running increases dopamine levels, plus improves overall fitness.

If you look at marijuana in terms of harm reduction, it IS better for the alcoholic to switch to marijuana because alcohol can kill you, but marijuana cannot - i.e. there is no lethal dose possible unless someone finds a way to consume a third of his or her body weight at one time. The research put this at 1500 lbs of marijuana within a 15 minute period.

In terms of physiological addiction, the figure for marijuana is 9%, but the figure is skewed because it includes people who choose to go to rehab rather than jail. Yet many of these people were not using for a one month period before entering rehab. That is not the behavior of someone physically addicted to a substance.

Alcohol use is tied to domestic violence. Marijuana is not. Alcohol is tied to an increase in fatal traffic accidents. And increase (or switch) to cannabis is not.

I would be happy to talk about real risks.

But this study isn't one of them.

I think anyone with a family history of schizo-affective disorder should avoid cannabis. (At the same time, research is now ongoing that is testing CBD as treatment for schizophrenia. The THC is the potential problem, it seems.)

I don't think teenagers should use cannabis, just as I don't think they should use alcohol. We don't need to reinvent the wheel on that one - we already discourage teen alcohol use.

The dishonesty regarding this issue has resided, for the most part, on the prohibitionists' side. They need to stop lying. Because of this 80 year history of lies, however, any study that supports them is treated as a "boy who cried wolf" moment - i.e. they've lied for so long and so often that people assume they are lying whenever they speak on this issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Renew Deal (Reply #28)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 06:59 PM

137. Pot is as close as DU has to a sacred cow

judging by the number of people who will jump down your throat if you question its magic properties. I mean it apparently cures or prevents every illness known to man. And it increases driving ability. And of course it causes world peace. And anyone who says different is a drug warrior prohibitionist square.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Union Scribe (Reply #137)

Mon Feb 3, 2014, 06:07 PM

171. You have a spouse almost overdose on opiates and then turn their life around by using

medical marijuana and get back to me then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Renew Deal (Reply #28)

Fri Jan 31, 2014, 10:43 AM

162. Weed is a sacred cow here

There is no such thing as too much of it, and everyone who has ever smoked it is a fucking genius according to some DUers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProudToBeBlueInRhody (Reply #162)

Fri Jan 31, 2014, 11:23 AM

164. Particularly when they're smoking it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Renew Deal (Reply #28)

Fri Jan 31, 2014, 11:24 AM

165. "Pot cures every ill ...

... and has absolutely no potential for harm to anyone under any circumstance at any time." Sadly, this seems to be the refrain of more than a few.

In my belief system, cannabis should be legal for recreational and medical use (though I have no interest) .... valid studies need to be conducted (after years of medical "blackouts" on studies) ... to better inform on the "good" and the "bad" associated with cannabis use.

Pregnant women want to use great caution related to what they ingest, inhale and are exposed to (women do not lose their autonomy when pregnant ... they have every right to make good and bad choices, just as non-pregnant humans do).

I am a little shocked that there is outcry (here) against the suggestion that cannabis use during pregnancy is something that "should" be avoided until more is known.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 10:44 AM

34. I'm from the generation that ran outside to look at the mushroom cloud.

 

My mother drank, smoked and partied before during and after pregnancy, us kids inhaled second-hand smoke, rode our bikes behind the DDT spray truck, (we were fighter pilots zooming through the clouds) played a game with our pedal cars we called "drunk driver", swam in the creek (that probably had raw sewage dumped someplace upstream), lived in houses with lead paint and asbestos insulation, played with fireworks, rode in cars without seat belts and on bikes without helmets. Yet somehow there still are so many of us headed for retirement that y'all are worried about paying the bill.

These days if your mom drives past the liquor store in the second trimester, you come out autistic and allergic to peanuts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MindPilot (Reply #34)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 01:58 PM

64. LOL

Spot on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MindPilot (Reply #34)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 03:40 PM

87. Since 1950, the overall cancer incidence has increased by 44 percent

 

Partly due to the reasons you cited above?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 11:41 AM

42. Another candidate for The Journal of Irreproducible Results

These "reefer madness" propaganda pronouncements are consistently characterized by:

Politically biased agenda

Overt financial conflict of interests (funding from DEA or British political office)

Deliberate use of invalid methodology

Deliberate introduction of uncontrolled variables

No valid control group

Statistically insignificant sample size

Sensationalized claims made directly to tabloid press without publication in a legitimate peer reviewed journal

Sensationalized claims from a single source not confirmed by any other independent research and contradicted by previous large scale studies using valid methodology


This appears on its face to be just more of the same old lies from the same old liars. I expect that its premeditated fraudulence will become obvious once the details of its methodology and funding are exposed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 11:42 AM

44. You mean this mind altering substance...

 

... could have negative effects on a developing fetus?!

Color me shocked!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lost_Count (Reply #44)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 11:46 AM

45. You really think it does?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to B Calm (Reply #45)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 11:48 AM

46. Do you really think that marijuana...

 

... doesn't cause a chemical reaction that influences perception, among other things?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lost_Count (Reply #46)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 11:57 AM

49. Everything you ingest or sense causes chemical reactions that influence perception. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lost_Count (Reply #44)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 11:56 AM

48. No, Cannabis doesn't "alter your brain", it binds to specific Cannabinoid receptors...

In the brain and the other major organs involved in the Endocannabinoid System, which every mammal on Earth has.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endocannabinoid_system

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tridim (Reply #48)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 06:32 PM

132. In general, binding to neuron receptors CAN change the brain. Look up...

Synaptic plasticity.
One theory of long term memory is long term change to synaptic strength, and this is due to binding of ligands to receptors!

With the knowledge that mammals have the endocannabinoid system in place, hypotheses can be made for the types of long term changes that can occur from longer term or frequent binding.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yawnmaster (Reply #132)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 06:39 PM

133. So can looking at at gorgeous landscape, or smelling fresh baked apple pie.

Our brains are constantly rewiring in reaction to stimuli. That isn't what the poster is claiming.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tridim (Reply #133)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 06:45 PM

135. You claimed it doesn't. I claimed it is possible based on accepted research...

You yourself just stated that the brains are constantly rewiring.
yet in the previous post you said that cannibinoids do not change the brain.
Yes, it is possible that they can.

The difference between looking at a landscape or smelling an apple pie is that those transmitters and synaptic connections are all internally developed from external stimuli. The endocanibinoids are also internally produced.
Taking in any external molecule that can act as a neurotransmitter (THC, opiates, etc.) does have the potential to "change the brain".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yawnmaster (Reply #135)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 07:07 PM

138. This is the theory behind cannabis' use as treatment for alzheimer's

Cannabis is useful for alzheimer's as an anti-inflammatory for the brain (and, if taken with ibuprohen, will not have many of the effects associated with cannabis use.)

Cannabis stunts the growth of the tendrils that lash brain cells and calms inflammation in the brain -- a hallmark of several neurodegenerative diseases, including Alzheimer's dementia, multiple sclerosis and Parkinson's disease.

A review published in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, (The British equivalent of the National Academy of Scientists) suggests that activating the brain’s cannabinoid system may trigger a sort of anti-oxidant cleanse, removing damaged cells and improving the efficiency of the mitochrondria, the energy source that powers cells, ultimately leading to a more robustly functioning brain.

This is interesting because of the study of the impact of THC on gliomas, which found THC promoted cell death for cancerous cells by preventing the mitchochrondria from providing energy to the cancer cells - while leaving healthy cells intact. (This was done on mice and one human trial - the only human trial ever permitted for cancer cell reduction.)

Previous studies have linked cannabinoids to increased amounts of brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), a substance that protects brain cells and promotes the growth of new ones. Since new cell growth slows or stops during aging, increasing BDNF could potentially slow the decline in cognitive functions.

Another study indicated synthetic CBD promoted cell growth in the hippocampus.

A synthetic chemical similar to the active ingredient in marijuana makes new cells grow in rat brains. What is more, in rats this cell growth appears to be linked with reducing anxiety and depression. The results suggest that marijuana, or its derivatives, could actually be good for the brain.

In mammals, new nerve cells are constantly being produced in a part of the brain called the hippocampus, which is associated with learning, memory, anxiety and depression. Other recreational drugs, such as alcohol, nicotine and cocaine, have been shown to suppress this new growth. Xia Zhang of the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon, Canada, and colleagues decided to see what effects a synthetic cannabinoid called HU210 had on rats' brains.

They found that giving rats high doses of HU210 twice a day for 10 days increased the rate of nerve cell formation, or neurogenesis, in the hippocampus by about 40%.


Conversely, a positive attribute of cannabis for those who suffer from PTSD is the ability to forget. Forgetting is as important to the brain as is remembering. Our brains constantly forget information that is unnecessary to know. The ability to forget information that is painful is also part of our experience as humans - that does not work correctly in those with PTSD.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #138)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 09:48 PM

149. Nice work...thanks! I did see that canabinoids may be used by the brain to help forget...

uneeded/unused memories. The more we understand the more we can create therapies for these conditions.
Cannabinoid research is fairly recent but may very well turn out to be very important as neurotransmitters generally are.
These pathways in the body can be so complex, I wouldn't be surprised to see these molecules used in the biological system as signalling molecules beyond the neurons.

I do expect to be hit from both sides, for a while, at least, by hyperbole.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yawnmaster (Reply #149)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 10:08 PM

151. yeah.

both sides can misrepresent things - sometimes unintentionally - but sometimes not. And, as you note - this is a relatively new field - and it's interesting simply because of that. It's also, imo, the field in which biotech will be very big once cannabis is decriminalized.

Robert Melamede, who was Dean of the U.CO biology dept and one of the leading researchers in the U.S. into biotech applications of cannabinoids compares endocannabinoids to regulators of the major bodily systems - and endocannabinoids in different locations, within different organs or systems have different functions. He says free radicals are the body's friction and endocannabinoids are the oil, in terms of ideas of systems/functions.

Something he has theorized that I also think would be really interesting research is the idea that placebos are successful because the body's own endocannabinoids become functional for this or that. If I were someone in the field, that's something I would think would be interesting research.

Anyway, Melamede is looking into the use of cannabis oil (what has long been known as "Rick Simpson Oil" as an ointment to apply to melanomas. No studies that would meet any criteria for a scientific experiment exist, but people have sent before and after pictures of reductions in melanomas by applying concentrated cannabis oil - super strong stuff - not anything for fun.

I hope he gets to do this work. I look forward to seeing the results - and, if the research does indicate cannabis oil shrinks or destroys melanomas - that's a huge, huge development in cancer treatment. And, if the research pans out, it will have been inspired by people with no scientific training, just trial and error attempts to treat melanomas.

My bias is toward seeing the potential medical benefit - because that's the trend, when research is allowed to go forward. I don't think it's magic - I think it has potential uses for a variety of medical issues because, as Melamedes notes, our endocannabinoid system impacts the functions of every major bodily system.

In order for us to progress as a nation, we have to at least decriminalize at the federal level to make it possible to do research. We need to remove cannabis from the oversight of the DEA, as well, because it is not an agency that can make valid judgments about research, and now we've got a circle jerk going on. The DEA defers to the FDA that defers to the DEA concerning medical value.

Personally, if I were wealthy and an investor, I would be all up in biotech related to cannabis.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 12:12 PM

51. Pregnant women should be careful. However, a study with humans, not mice

had different outcomes.

Melanie Dreher did studies of women and children in Jamaica, where cannabis is part of the folk medicine and found no negative impact.

http://patients4medicalmarijuana.wordpress.com/2009/12/20/marijuana-cannabis-use-in-pregnancy-dr-melanie-dreher/

Even with Dreher's research, tho, I would err on the side of caution.

I would suggest, however, that people doing research look at children in Jamaica, whose mothers most likely consumed a cannabis drink for morning sickness, to see if all people in Jamaica are brain damaged from this custom.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 12:19 PM

53. When I was practicing in Juvenile Court we followed this subject pretty closely.

We could NOT prove ingestion of marijuana harmed a developing fetus, and trust me, we would have if we could (I was the State's Attorney). The scientific basis doesn't exist.

Of course, it may some day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 12:23 PM

54. I'm a person who doesn't think a pregnant woman should smoke or drink during pregnancy. But.

That's just me. People will do what people will do.

But to say, "... cannabis is one of the most frequently used substances.."?? How about aspirin? Alcohol? Cigarettes? Acetaminophen? Ibuprofen? Pollution?

False Analogy
(also known as: bad comparison, false comparison, incomplete comparison, inconsistent comparison)
Description: Comparing one thing to another that is really not related, in order to make one thing look more or less desirable than it really is.

Example #1:
Broccoli has significantly less fat than the leading candy bar!
Explanation: While both broccoli and candy bars can be considered snacks, comparing the two in terms of fat content and ignoring the significant difference in taste, leads to the false comparison.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 12:44 PM

57. No doubt the drug warriors will try to run with this

(as we see on this thread)

But people should take into consideration the course of the "crack babies" propaganda epidemic and outcomes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/20/booming/revisiting-the-crack-babies-epidemic-that-was-not.html?_r=0

video: http://nyti.ms/116qYmh

This week’s Retro Report video on “crack babies” (infants born to addicted mothers) lays out how limited scientific studies in the 1980s led to predictions that a generation of children would be damaged for life. Those predictions turned out to be wrong. This supposed epidemic — one television reporter talks of a 500 percent increase in damaged babies — was kicked off by a study of just 23 infants that the lead researcher now says was blown out of proportion. And the shocking symptoms — like tremors and low birth weight — are not particular to cocaine-exposed babies, pediatric researchers say; they can be seen in many premature newborns.

The worrisome extrapolations made by researchers — including the one who first published disturbing findings about prenatal cocaine use — were only part of the problem. Major newspapers and magazines, including Rolling Stone, Newsweek, The Washington Post and The New York Times, ran articles and columns that went beyond the research. Network TV stars of that era, including Tom Brokaw, Peter Jennings and Dan Rather, also bear responsibility for broadcasting uncritical reports.

A much more serious problem, it turns out, is infants who are born with fetal alcohol syndrome.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 01:39 PM

61. Huh, My friends kids lucked out I guess

she didn't smoke a lot, but 3 kids, 3 college educations...I call bullshit

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 02:04 PM

65. It probably fucks kids up more to throw their parents in jail for weed.

Just sayin'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 02:07 PM

66. There is no such thing as a 100% safe substance. Drink too much water, breathe too much air

 

and it can harm or kill you.

If you understand that there is no 100% 'safe' substance, then what you do is try to understand what the safe level of a substance is in various situations.

I'm certain that any recreational substance can pose a risk to a pregnancy.

I'm for 100% legalization of ALL drugs, not just marijuana, but I am not a zealot for any particular substance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #66)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 04:45 PM

102. I am a zealot...over air.

 

I think we need it all the time, day and night. Does that make me addicted to breathing? I tried to quit once (held my breath) but alas, I think I am hopelessly addicted to air.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #102)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 08:31 PM

147. I'm not. I am interested in good quality air, just the amount I need. Not this kind...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 02:10 PM

67. and sperm gets damaged from drinking, pot and all that, causing birth defects- so what do we do?

 

look for ways to punish the woman, when the father might be the one causing birth defects?
Punishing moms is out society's default setting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #67)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 02:39 PM

76. Its punishing moms to warn them about cannibus use during pregnancy?

More anti-science woo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #76)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 03:31 PM

82. there has been an uptick in cases where women are incarcerated for crap like this- instead of helped

 

- that's absolutely the trend these days. Women will be afraid to get prenatal care because it could land them in jail. It has landed them in jail. That ain't woo, it's modern life.

Unless they are out there testing men and jailing them too, this is total bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #82)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 04:56 PM

107. Actually no.

In my state, AZ, which is pretty conservative, no one has been jailed for possession in over 10 years. In most areas it is like that. Fines, yes, jail no. Not for simple possession. Prenatal care is not going to get anyone in jail. That is nonsense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #107)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 07:33 PM

142. Actually YES. "Fetal Protection Laws" Look em up, and find out how hundreds of women....

 

have been jailed "to protect" their pregnancy. Confidential medical info about a *completely healthy pregnancy* is used against the woman, her fetus given a lawyer when she is denied one.


"At 14 weeks pregnant, Alicia Beltran disclosed at a prenatal checkup that she had been addicted to pills the previous year. She had managed to get clean, but wanted her doctor to know that it had been an issue in the past. A urine test later confirmed that Beltran was clean, but her doctor and a social worker insisted that she start an anti-addiction drug.

Beltran refused. Weeks later, county sheriffs came to her home, handcuffed her and brought her to court. Her doctor had accused her of endangering her fetus, and she was ordered to attend a mandatory 78-day stay at a drug treatment facility or risk going to jail.

Beltran lives in Wisconsin, one of four states, along with Minnesota, Oklahoma and South Dakota, with laws that empower authorities to confine pregnant women for substance abuse. Other states with less specific laws also criminalize pregnant women for drug use and other conduct considered a threat to the health of the fetus. The Wisconsin law is currently being challenged, with Beltran’s court-ordered confinement being used as evidence against the state

"Beltran’s experience is far from unique, it seems. Lynn M. Paltrow, executive director of National Advocates for Pregnant Women, told the Times her organization has documented hundreds of cases in which women like Beltran were arrested or detained in the name of “fetal rights.”"

more: http://www.salon.com/2013/10/24/in_many_states_fetal_rights_laws_are_putting_pregnant_women_in_jail/


'“Alicia had no idea she was giving information to the physician’s assistant that would ultimately be used against her in a court of law,” said Linda Vanden Heuvel of Germantown, Wis., one of Beltran’s attorneys. “She should not have to fear losing her liberty because she was pregnant and she was honest with her doctor.”

At the hearing, her lawyers say, the judge told Beltran that an attorney would not be provided for her at that time but that she could seek counsel for her next hearing in the case. And yet, a lawyer had been appointed to represent her fetus. “It’s wrong that an unborn child gets an attorney but Alicia Beltran, the mother of that unborn child did not,” said Vanden Heuvel."'

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/24/21117142-shackled-and-pregnant-wis-case-challenges-fetal-protection-law?lite


You're welcome.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #67)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 04:48 PM

103. ban paper towels, kleenex and condoms n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 02:41 PM

78. I don't believe this

 

When I donated blood years ago, I smoked pot ALL the time. They used my blood for premature babies. In Australia, they use MJ for mothers who miscarry. It helps them take the baby to term.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicalboi (Reply #78)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 03:44 PM

88. It what way does your experience disprove the study?

 

The study states that Cannabis during pregnancy can prevent a child from forming certain connections in the brain while growing in the womb What does x have to do with y??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 04:33 PM

95. I can remember way back when

We were told that taking LSD damaged chromosomes and caused any babies conceived to be deformed.

It didn't take.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ailsagirl (Reply #95)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 04:41 PM

100. Yes. Thalidomide caused fetal damage

Thalidomide was a legally prescribed drug for mothers with morning sickness.

The drug warriors claimed LSD, not Thalidomide, was the cause. We need to shut down the Drug Czar's office because a democracy should not have a federal agency whose sole purpose is to propagandize its citizens.

Biden has never been a big favorite of mine, precisely because he was all for this disinformation campaign from the get-go.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #100)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 04:50 PM

106. I don't think Thalidomide was prescribed in the US-- not for morning sickness, anyway

Thalidomide has quite a rocky history

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/sep/01/thalidomide-scandal-timeline

I didn't realize that the drug warriors claimed LSD, and not Thalidomide, was the culprit

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ailsagirl (Reply #106)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 05:02 PM

108. LSD was put into the same category as Thalidomide

http://www.uregina.ca/gspp/marchildon/WRTCfiles/E.%20Dyck%20reading%202.pdf.pdf

I may have misunderstood when I read about this initially. Apologies. I thought the claim was LSD, not Thalidomide, but, instead, it was LSD should be made illegal, like Thalidomide, when both were used in test or, in Europe, when Thalidomide was prescribed.

LSD, iow, was lumped in with Thalidomide because studies concerning the two appeared at the same time around 1962.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #108)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 07:40 PM

144. Got it

Something else I recall reading is that Thalidomide was tested on animals (boo) and got a clean report-- no abnormalities! That's one of the less obvious reasons NOT to test on animals, a subject about which I feel very strongly.

Thanks for the links.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 04:36 PM

96. Wow, all this FUD over Colorado legalizing weed!

 

How fucking pathetic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #96)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 04:39 PM

98. We can expect to see more of this

Because the prohibitionists are getting desperate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #98)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 04:41 PM

99. I agree, expect it to get much worse as the stories get even more exaggerated.

 

Their fear of the status quo changing strikes me as very Republican-ish.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #96)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 05:31 PM

115. Yup ...

 

All these dangers! Perhaps I need to cast off the evil weed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1000words (Reply #115)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 05:36 PM

118. You...smoke...weed...

 


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #118)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 05:38 PM

120. You're freakin' me out, man!

 

Quit harshing my mellow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1000words (Reply #120)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 05:39 PM

121. Sorry, here puff puff pass...

 

No...there is no carb, just pull the stem out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #96)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 05:39 PM

122. The anti-pot crowd are in a panic. The movement to legalize weed is now unstoppable and

 

they are displaying the panic of an antelope that was unfortunate enough to be identified as being the weakest in the herd.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 05:33 PM

117. Lots of idiotic comments in this thread.

Neither the researcher or the article advocated banning anything, or restricting access to anything, or changing ANY laws. They merely reported on some experiments that suggest that using mind-altering drugs during pregnancy can impact the mind of the developing fetus. It's information. Nothing more. It's even common sense, if you think about it.

Knowledge is neither good or evil, only people fall into those categories. What this information DOES is permit doctors to accurately inform their pregnant patients of additional risk factors to be aware of. If you were a pregnant woman using medical marijuana, and using it could negatively impact your kids cognitive skills, wouldn't you like to know about it?

Arguing the benefits of ignorance is a hallmark of conservatism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Xithras (Reply #117)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 05:53 PM

124. But the experiment has nothing to say about cannabis use

Because it isolated THC, rather than whole-plant cannabis. Research already confirms that THC, of itself, has effects that are not found with the use of whole-plant cannabis.

That said, whether this experiment existed or not, I would think it makes sense to err on the side of caution during pregnancy and any women who finds she is pregnant looks at these things.

No one is arguing the benefits of ignorance and it is ignorant to say this is the case on this thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 06:20 PM

127. Bullshit!!

 

I'm proof. I was born in 81, and my mom smoked like it was the 70's.
I was always in the gifted program. It was boring, but I went, did my work, distracted other students, finished first, told jokes, and read the best books. I may have been lazy, and my teachers did say I did not live up to my potential but the connections were made. We just come out more laid back than anti weed kids.
I know every bob marley song that there is, dance awesomely, pet dogs that I don't know, am a great cook, bookkeeper, zynga game player, and Internet looker atter.
Oh, and I always aced their stupid ass standardized tests, being at the very least in the top 93rd percentile nationally. There's a system to it, you don't have to know any of the answers to do it, it's all logic based. Figured it out when I was 8.

Pro weed babies are a bajillionty times better than anti weed babies. Yeah I made that up. I never cried as a baby cause I was really happy, I always ate well, and I came out of the womb sleeping through the night.

These people are making shit up cause they're stupid and they want Monsanto to own all the rights to all the weed so that they can sue us if we grow our own. That's my theory. They can kiss it. Soft and gently like I like it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 06:52 PM

136. There is a huge list of things that are bad

for pregnant women. Anything in excess can be a problem actually.

The point is... It Is A Choice! We make choices. Women have the right to make a choice.

It can never be about banning something that is not toxic to all of us all the time. DDT is toxic to all of us all the time and it should be banned.

What is important is education and information so we can make good choices.

And that's it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 07:20 PM

139. More "no civil rights for pregnant women" rubbish

This guy is talking out of his ass. "An increasing number of children suffer from the consequences of maternal drug exposure during pregnancy, and cannabis is one of the most frequently used substances," is a dead giveaway that they didn't separate any of it out.

Like it or not, women have civil rights whether or not they happen to be pregnant, and that includes the right to make bad decisions. No one is guaranteed perfect parents and no one is guaranteed a perfect child.

In any case, the human brain, especially in children, is remarkably resilient. Longitudinal studies of "crack babies" has shown absolutely no long lasting deficits that could not be attributed to poverty. If something as extreme as crack didn't damage the developing brain, it's hard for me to believe cannabis, which seems to be protective in adults, could.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warpy (Reply #139)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 07:36 PM

143. THANK YOU!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warpy (Reply #139)

Mon Feb 3, 2014, 06:04 PM

170. This poster seems obsessed with presenting every piece of reich-wing trash they can find.

 

Just one non-story after another, every day. If it's authoritarian claptrap, it'll be posted here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 08:21 PM

146. I've always enjoyed smoking pot.

But when I got pregnant I wouldn't even take an aspirin let alone smoke a joint. I have my doubts that a small amount of marijuana would do serious harm to a fetus, but why take that chance?

That said, if they're trying to use this as an excuse to keep marijuana illegal, nice try but sorry. Lots of things are dangerous to a fetus. We don't outlaw them, we just avoid them when we're pregnant. Or most of us do. Plenty of women drink while pregnant and that does cause harm. My own cousins suffers from the effects of fetal alcohol syndrome because my aunt was an alcoholic. But I don't see them making alcohol illegal because of that even though alcohol is the most frequently abused mind-altering substance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnionPatch (Reply #146)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 10:34 PM

152. Smoking while pregnant

Most of the women I know stopped smoking pot when they were pregnant or they might have an occasional hit. Three smoked all through their pregnancies and their kids seem normal but all three are in speech therapy for language problems. I think it's too big a chance to take to smoke while pregnant - even smoking reg cigs is supposed to cause lower birth weight. Also, unless you are smoking home grown outdoor pot, you are probably ingesting lots of pesticides/mold and pesticides and mold definitely cause neurological damage big time. Why take a chance?




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to womanofthehills (Reply #152)

Fri Jan 31, 2014, 01:45 AM

155. I was worried about everything that went into my body at that time.

I nursed for awhile, too, so it was a good 18 months or so before I even drank coffee again. That was by far harder to give up. But geez, if anything is worth it, your child is. My body probably needed a break anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 10:01 PM

150. Doesn't surprise me

I don't really see this being any differant than if a woman was to drink alcohol, do drugs, or anything else while pregnant.

I think that it's pretty obvious not to certain things while pregnant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 10:42 PM

153. I think that until more research has been done

It would be a good idea to abstain during pregnancy, just in case. There are a lot of things we should avoid during pregnancy. That doesn't mean those things are inherently bad in a non pregnant person, it just means that certain things could cause problems in pregnancy. I wouldn't want to take the risk. This really does need more research.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 11:17 PM

154. It would seem likely that a lot of fetuses have been exposed to pot, nicotine, alcohol,and who knows

what. Most women do not even know they are pregnant until 4 to 6 weeks. A few plan ahead and can control their intake. We know the damage of fetal alcohol syndrome. It would seem to me that data could be gathered based on actual human experience. Of course the lack of control makes this difficult, but trends or patterns should be evident. Remember the media hysteria over "CRACK BABIES"? Where did that go?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Fri Jan 31, 2014, 02:01 AM

156. Didn't the "crack baby" epidemic turn out to be bullshit?

Why do I get the feeling this will too?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hippo_Tron (Reply #156)

Fri Jan 31, 2014, 10:40 AM

161. No, no, no! That was reported 24/7 by our diligent media pre-deregulation.

 

It was Gary Webb's nonsense about the CIA bringing Crack to black neighborhoods.
THAT was bullshit.
check your memos.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Mon Feb 3, 2014, 06:02 PM

168. More non-scientific bullshit mashed up to justify authoritarian control displayed

 

in a brightly colored box with a very serious science-like picture on the front.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Mon Feb 3, 2014, 06:16 PM

172. Apparently they don't know about the "Jamaican Study"?

I suggest it is more "Reefer Madness" as many here already have

"DISCUSSION

Although no positive or negative neurobehavioral effects of prenatal exposure were found at 3 days of life using the Brazelton examination, there were significant differences between the exposed and nonexposed neonates at the end of the first month. Comparing the two groups, the neonates of mothers who used marijuana showed better physiological stability at 1 month and required less examiner facilitation to reach an organized state and become available for social stimulation. The results of the comparison of neonates of the heavy-marijuana-using mothers and those of the nonusing mothers were even more striking. The heavily exposed neonates were more socially responsive and were more autonomically stable at 30 days than their matched counterparts. The quality of their alertness was higher; their motor and autonomic systems were more robust; they were less irritable; they were less likely to demonstrate any imbalance of tone; they needed less examiner facilitation to become organized; they had better self-regulation; and were judged to be more rewarding for caregivers than the neonates of nonusing mothers at 1 month of age."
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/medical/can-babies.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Mon Feb 3, 2014, 06:20 PM

173. There is no study!

Where is the study published? Who peer reviewed it? Have any of you noticed that these things are missing entirely from the article?

If there is no study, no methodology and no peer review it shouldn't be considered at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Reply to this thread