General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums
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
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
madokie
(51,076 posts)Sounds more like a reefer madness type bullshit to me.
randome
(34,845 posts)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]
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)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.
Rex
(65,616 posts)and clearly they know it.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)they used to think even a single glass of wine could cause complications to pregnancy...that has been determined to be woo now too!
Bennyboy
(10,440 posts)tinctures?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)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.
reddread
(6,896 posts)white women and black men.
how many effects have we discovered so far?
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)
reddread
(6,896 posts)RIP Bill
defacto7
(13,485 posts)
frylock
(34,825 posts)of course, nobody told that to Bob Marley!
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)
pnwmom
(109,024 posts)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.
2pooped2pop
(5,420 posts)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.
pnwmom
(109,024 posts)I didn't even take Tylenol. It's not worth any risk when you're literally making a baby.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)... But somehow we don't incarcerate huge numbers of people for drinking alcohol.
lostincalifornia
(3,639 posts)too
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)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.
lostincalifornia
(3,639 posts)
tblue37
(65,550 posts)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.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)that will go over like a lead balloon!
tblue37
(65,550 posts)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.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)I thought the very idea was hilarious is all!
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)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.
former9thward
(32,161 posts)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.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)They would rather believe the woo, I suppose.
former9thward
(32,161 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)and not in tandem with tobacco, alcohol, prescription pain meds, etc.?
RainDog
(28,784 posts)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.
pnwmom
(109,024 posts)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.
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)Wanting people to make informed decisions is the best thing.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)
Turbineguy
(37,415 posts)like those who jabber on about climate change.
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)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?)
morningfog
(18,115 posts)former9thward
(32,161 posts)Your post is an attack on science.
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)Either that or I'm suggesting they should look for more realistic samples to conduct their measurements with.
former9thward
(32,161 posts)How would you, the great science researcher, do it?
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)1. Experiment on monkeys.
2. Look for marijuana-smoking volunteers.
madville
(7,413 posts)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.
theaocp
(4,250 posts)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.
PotatoChip
(3,186 posts)(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.
theaocp
(4,250 posts)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.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)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.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)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.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)There are clearly several personal choices that should not be made during pregnancy because of risk to the fetus. This isn't news.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)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.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)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.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)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.
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)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.
Iggo
(47,597 posts)What next!?!?!?!?
Iggo
(47,597 posts)
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)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.)
panader0
(25,816 posts)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.
Shivering Jemmy
(900 posts)JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)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?
randome
(34,845 posts)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]
RainDog
(28,784 posts)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?
randome
(34,845 posts)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]
RainDog
(28,784 posts)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
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."
randome
(34,845 posts)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]
RainDog
(28,784 posts)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.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)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.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)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.
randome
(34,845 posts)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]
RainDog
(28,784 posts)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.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)No one said to ignore "science."
reddread
(6,896 posts)and people who swallow that stuff have clearly suffered a lot of damage.
ailsagirl
(22,908 posts) 
randr
(12,418 posts)not to be taken while pregnant along with the growing list of poor diet choices and tobacco.
Renew Deal
(81,900 posts)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.
randome
(34,845 posts)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]
tridim
(45,358 posts)Prohibition makes both methods unaffordable for most people.
randome
(34,845 posts)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]
tridim
(45,358 posts)Prohibition makes Cannabis too expensive for most people to vape and/or eat.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)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.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)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.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Probably safer than thalidomide I suspect.
Not advocating anything at all, just wondering.
former9thward
(32,161 posts)He/she better be able to show a science based justification.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)former9thward
(32,161 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)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.
former9thward
(32,161 posts)But not the science you like, I guess.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)and was it peer reviewed?
decades and decades and decades of much personal research by the population says otherwise...
reefer madness indeed.
former9thward
(32,161 posts)Was THAT statement peer reviewed???
I know, the cannibis can do no wrong crowd will deny anything that does not fit into their worldview.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)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!
former9thward
(32,161 posts)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.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)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.
former9thward
(32,161 posts)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.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)along with the immune system...it also runs down your white cell count...so there is THAT...
former9thward
(32,161 posts)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.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)
mitchtv
(17,718 posts)these studies come out like clockwork. then soon disappear in the light of scrutiny
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)RainDog
(28,784 posts)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.
Mariana
(14,863 posts)Now we're supposed to take this particular claim as gospel?
RainDog
(28,784 posts)
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)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.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)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.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)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.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)medical marijuana and get back to me then.
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)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.
Renew Deal
(81,900 posts)
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)... 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.
MindPilot
(12,693 posts)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.
Spot on.
Ohio4theWin
(60 posts)Partly due to the reasons you cited above?
Fozzledick
(3,860 posts)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.
Lost_Count
(555 posts)... could have negative effects on a developing fetus?!
Color me shocked!
B Calm
(28,762 posts)Lost_Count
(555 posts)... doesn't cause a chemical reaction that influences perception, among other things?
tridim
(45,358 posts)tridim
(45,358 posts)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
yawnmaster
(2,812 posts)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.
tridim
(45,358 posts)Our brains are constantly rewiring in reaction to stimuli. That isn't what the poster is claiming.
yawnmaster
(2,812 posts)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".
RainDog
(28,784 posts)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.
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.
yawnmaster
(2,812 posts)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.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)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.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)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.
Shrike47
(6,913 posts)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.
Lint Head
(15,064 posts)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.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)(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.
DiverDave
(4,893 posts)she didn't smoke a lot, but 3 kids, 3 college educations...I call bullshit
The Midway Rebel
(2,191 posts)Just sayin'.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)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.
Rex
(65,616 posts)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.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)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.
former9thward
(32,161 posts)More anti-science woo.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)- 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.
former9thward
(32,161 posts)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.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)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.
reddread
(6,896 posts)Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)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.
Ohio4theWin
(60 posts)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??
ailsagirl
(22,908 posts)We were told that taking LSD damaged chromosomes and caused any babies conceived to be deformed.
It didn't take.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)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.
ailsagirl
(22,908 posts)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
RainDog
(28,784 posts)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.
ailsagirl
(22,908 posts)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.
Rex
(65,616 posts)How fucking pathetic.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)Because the prohibitionists are getting desperate.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Their fear of the status quo changing strikes me as very Republican-ish.
All these dangers! Perhaps I need to cast off the evil weed.
Rex
(65,616 posts)
1000words
(7,051 posts)Quit harshing my mellow.
Rex
(65,616 posts)No...there is no carb, just pull the stem out. 
ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)they are displaying the panic of an antelope that was unfortunate enough to be identified as being the weakest in the herd.
Xithras
(16,191 posts)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.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)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.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)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.
defacto7
(13,485 posts)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.
Warpy
(111,456 posts)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.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)Just one non-story after another, every day. If it's authoritarian claptrap, it'll be posted here.
OnionPatch
(6,169 posts)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.
womanofthehills
(8,815 posts)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?
OnionPatch
(6,169 posts)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.
Separation
(1,975 posts)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.
OwnedByCats
(805 posts)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.
dogman
(6,073 posts)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?
Hippo_Tron
(25,453 posts)Why do I get the feeling this will too?
reddread
(6,896 posts)It was Gary Webb's nonsense about the CIA bringing Crack to black neighborhoods.
THAT was bullshit.
check your memos.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)in a brightly colored box with a very serious science-like picture on the front.
fredamae
(4,458 posts)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
TheSarcastinator
(854 posts)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.