Frederick: BronyMedic: Drug use, even of marijuana, is associated with socioeconomic problems which are demonstrated to place a child at higher risk of neglect or abuse.

Only because the people who use cannabis, or any illicit drug, responsibly doesnt go around advertising that fact. So society at large is unaware of how often drug use simply isnt a factor.

The culture of drug use in the United States is more commonly associated with low socioeconomic status, poor education levels, impulse control issues, psychological or psychiatric problems that are often undiagnosed or not being treated (self-medication), and other issues which contribute to neglect and abuse potential for a child.

You're trying to argue the exception to the norm, which is often not the case, by creating a strawman situation. In Memphis, for example, the majority of drug users are not the same profile of people you would see in a country like Amsterdam. They are overwhelmingly lower-middle class to lower class on income brackets and overwhelmingly undereducated.

A child popping positive for cocaine, THC, or amphetamines, all of which are passed through breast milk, should raise a huge red flag for any healthcare provider and spur, at the very least, a social work consult.

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Anyone want to venture a guess as to how much that routine, and likely required neo-natal drug test adds to the total on a hospital bill?

/I'll bet it's not cheap
//or really that necessary

Sure, it was incredibly close to $0.

So can I use this as an excuse if I fail a drug test? Just say I use baby shampoo because my eyes are sensitive to regular shampoo?

stonicus: So can I use this as an excuse if I fail a drug test? Just say I use baby shampoo because my eyes are sensitive to regular shampoo?

just quit smoking. what good does marijuana actually do??
it makes u LAZY so u don't go to work.

Jon iz teh kewl: stonicus: So can I use this as an excuse if I fail a drug test? Just say I use baby shampoo because my eyes are sensitive to regular shampoo?

just quit smoking. what good does marijuana actually do??
it makes u LAZY so u don't go to work.

Then why am I still going to work everyday?!?!

NutWrench: Here's a rather long list (a couple hundred items, at least) of prescription and non-prescription drugs that will test false positive for narcotics.
(Marijuana appears 42 times.).

Maybe we should just quit using synthetic cannabinoids in legal drugs and give out the real thing? Or would that impact drug companys' patented profits too much?

BronyMedic: TL;DR - It's not as bad as cocaine or methamphetamine use, but it's not harmless.

And none of them are even remotely in the same ballpark as the #1 intoxicant. Babies born a little on the small side is something to think about, but hardly worth removing children; if you're going to do that, why not lock people up so that you can restrict everything they eat and do, as well.

clowncar on fire: Why yes, it does. Care to explain why a biased study would be any more believable than an anectadote I couldn't go further into details over due to privacy issues should be taken as gospel?

Anecdotes are a fantastic refutation of "every x is y," but they're somewhat less compelling when refuting "25% of x are y." Bully for you, you've known people from the 75% that aren't abusive, whereas multiple studies peg the rate as anywhere from 12%-40% and the ACF says only 4% of children overall are abused or neglected in its report to congress. Get back under your bridge.

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Anyone want to venture a guess as to how much that routine, and likely required neo-natal drug test adds to the total on a hospital bill?

/I'll bet it's not cheap
//or really that necessary

Every single state covered health care birth is required to be tested.

For safety, of course!

stevenboof: BronyMedic: knobmaker: We can all laugh at you.

Marijuana use has not been implicated in any negative neonatal effects. In fact, in one study done in Jamaica, the babies of women who used the drug regularly were healthier and had higher cognitive function than the babies of non-users.

Do you have a link to this study? I'd be interested in reading it.

Drug use, even of marijuana, is associated with socioeconomic problems which are demonstrated to place a child at higher risk of neglect or abuse. It shouldn't be the sole indicator, but rather raise a red flag when the kid pops positive because of the caregiver's use. The marijuana use, in this case, is not the disease, but a symptom of it.

I know this thread is long dead, but in the hope that you somehow stumble across this post, here's the Link

Just like exercise, anything that gets momma's heart pumping is good for baby. However, people will demonise marijuana until their dying breath just to prevent having to challenge long held beliefs.

stevenboof: BronyMedic: knobmaker: We can all laugh at you.

Marijuana use has not been implicated in any negative neonatal effects. In fact, in one study done in Jamaica, the babies of women who used the drug regularly were healthier and had higher cognitive function than the babies of non-users.

Do you have a link to this study? I'd be interested in reading it.

Drug use, even of marijuana, is associated with socioeconomic problems which are demonstrated to place a child at higher risk of neglect or abuse. It shouldn't be the sole indicator, but rather raise a red flag when the kid pops positive because of the caregiver's use. The marijuana use, in this case, is not the disease, but a symptom of it.

I know this thread is long dead, but in the hope that you somehow stumble across this post, here's the Link


I did. And in case anyone questions the source, here's a link to the abstract on PubMed.

Interesting. Thanks.

Frederick: I am explaining to you that you have no real data on which to assume a "norm" because the only facts society has are the ones that demonize illicit drug use. The person who just earned their masters degree isnt also exclaiming about their ecstasy use, the parents of the honor students dont put the "I smoke pot" bumper sticker on their car, and Olympic medalists dont bring their pipes onto the podium
There is far more responsible illicit drug use than irresponsible illicit drug use -there just isnt a reasonable way to measure it without dire implications. Understand?

Again. You're claiming anecdotal data based on your own experiences and biases. I'm calling [citation needed] on your claims, especially since they fly in the face of what is known medically and sociologically. The Drug use population in the United States is nothing compared with the drug use population of a country like Amsterdam, where legalization has made drug use the societal norm. The majority of drug users which are seen in the at-risk pediatric population ARE NOT attractive and successful people. While the drug use is NOT the primary problem, it is a sign which should warrant further scrutiny of the household, especially if "responsible" drug users are so irresponsible that they pass their recreational habit to their kid.

foxyshadis: And none of them are even remotely in the same ballpark as the #1 intoxicant. Babies born a little on the small side is something to think about, but hardly worth removing children; if you're going to do that, why not lock people up so that you can restrict everything they eat and do, as well.

That's a little disingenuous there. There is far more of a problem than the baby being "a little on the small side". IUGR and LWB Infants have major health issues which cost tens of thousands of dollars to treat, have worse neurodevelopmental and physiological outcomes, and place an unfair burden on society and the health system because of your decision to smoke during pregnancy.

And, it's also very disingenuous to compare something like methamphetamine or cocaine to alcohol.

Marijuana is no worse than smoking tobacco. But it's no better either, especially in pregnancy.

Acharne: Just like exercise, anything that gets momma's heart pumping is good for baby. However, people will demonise marijuana until their dying breath just to prevent having to challenge long held beliefs.

What. Smoking ANYTHING, tobacco or marijuana is bad for baby. Decreased uterine blood flow and increased carboxyhaemoglobin is bad for baby, mmkay?

I'm not demonizing Marijuana. I'm for legalization. I'm simply using a little common sense and realistic belief here.

Amos Quito: I did. And in case anyone questions the source, here's a link to the abstract on PubMed.

Interesting. Thanks.

The study is from 1994. The studies I linked showing a definite potential for harm during pregnancy are from the last six years, and from countries such as the Netherlands, not just the United States.

BronyMedic: IUGR

Your studies specifically stated that IUGR was not found at all, that they were on average half a kilogram less than normal at 40 weeks, which is within a standard deviation. (Average is 3.3kg, which would make the findings 2.8kg average, well within the normal range, whereas Low Birth Weight and IUGR (for 40 weeks) are lower, at 2.5kg.) Alcohol on the other hand routinely causes IUGR and serious cognitive problems, so let's focus on the much larger problem first. A kid would even be better off if mom lit up every time she was about to toss down a drink, but that's not exactly the best alternative.

As I said, being informed is good, scaring people isn't.

BronyMedic: Acharne: Just like exercise, anything that gets momma's heart pumping is good for baby. However, people will demonise marijuana until their dying breath just to prevent having to challenge long held beliefs.

What. Smoking ANYTHING, tobacco or marijuana is bad for baby. Decreased uterine blood flow and increased carboxyhaemoglobin is bad for baby, mmkay?

I'm not demonizing Marijuana. I'm for legalization. I'm simply using a little common sense and realistic belief here.

I accept your arguments. I do not actively advise pregnant mothers to light up, but I don't really get too bothered by it. I looked into it a bit more and I have to agree with you that smoking anything is not going to have a positive effect (physiologically, not neurologically like that other linked study.)

It's a hot topic for me I suppose. My long held beliefs make me prone to irrationality. I'm not sure why it is a hot topic though. Perhaps it is because I post while high sometimes. Probably that's it.

BronyMedic: Amos Quito: I did. And in case anyone questions the source, here's a link to the abstract on PubMed.

Interesting. Thanks.

The study is from 1994. The studies I linked showing a definite potential for harm during pregnancy are from the last six years, and from countries such as the Netherlands, not just the United States.


I didn't see your links, but I will have a read.

I have reached no conclusion on the topic, and am interested seeing other studies.

Amos Quito: BronyMedic: Amos Quito: I did. And in case anyone questions the source, here's a link to the abstract on PubMed.

Interesting. Thanks.

The study is from 1994. The studies I linked showing a definite potential for harm during pregnancy are from the last six years, and from countries such as the Netherlands, not just the United States.


I didn't see your links, but I will have a read.

I have reached no conclusion on the topic, and am interested seeing other studies.

The general concensus is that it's not the THC that's causing harm, although some studies have demonstrated increased rates of aencephaly (Rare) and the potential for adverse neurodevelopmental effects in animal models, but rather the smoking.

Smoking during pregnancy is bad.

BronyMedic: Amos Quito: BronyMedic: Amos Quito: I did. And in case anyone questions the source, here's a link to the abstract on PubMed.

Interesting. Thanks.

The study is from 1994. The studies I linked showing a definite potential for harm during pregnancy are from the last six years, and from countries such as the Netherlands, not just the United States.


I didn't see your links, but I will have a read.

I have reached no conclusion on the topic, and am interested seeing other studies.

The general concensus is that it's not the THC that's causing harm, although some studies have demonstrated increased rates of aencephaly (Rare) and the potential for adverse neurodevelopmental effects in animal models, but rather the smoking.

Smoking during pregnancy is bad.


Haven't had the chance to peruse your links yet (may not tonight) but there seems to be little doubt WRT smoking during pregnancy.

Perhaps they could test the hypothesis by comparing puffers with MJ brownie munchers?

Anyway. most cigarette smokers inhale far more combustible botanic material than do those who smoke weed alone.

If you played Freespace 2 you know that there was a point when they introduced that ship and you got goose bumps.

Then you saw THAT ship and your jaw dropped and you gaped...

And kept on gaping even while you watched the anti capital beam charging....

/dive dive dive!