3 ms·

A problem is that women are smoking marijuana and may not yet know they are pregnant. Medical marijuana laws and pregnancy: implications for public health poli

A problem is that women are smoking marijuana and may not yet know they are pregnant. Medical marijuana laws and pregnancy: implications for public health policy. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27422056 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27422056 "Although there is much to learn yet about the effects of prenatal marijuana use on pregnancy and child outcome, there is enough evidence to suggest that marijuana, contrary to popular perception, is not a harmless drug, especially when used during pregnancy. Consequently, the public health system has a responsibility to educate physicians and the public about the impact of marijuana on pregnancy and to discourage the use of medical marijuana by pregnant women or women considering pregnancy." [emphasis added] Long-term Marijuana Use and Cognitive Impairment in Middle Age http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2484901 http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=24849... Association Between Lifetime Marijuana Use and Cognitive Function in Middle Age The Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) Study http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2484906 http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=24849... Marijuana use leads to increased stillbirth: (free download) Association between stillbirth and illicit drug use and smoking during pregnancy http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24463671 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24463671 "CONCLUSION: Cannabis use, smoking, illicit drug use, and apparent exposure to second-hand smoke, separately or in combination, during pregnancy were associated with an increased risk of stillbirth. Because cannabis use may be increasing with increased legalization, the relevance of these findings may increase as well."

davidf18 10y ago
Why are people allowed to downvote medical studies from highly regarded journals? Journal of the American Medical Association, American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and Obstetrics and Gynecology? What kind of human being would want increased babies neurologically deprived from marijuana exposure or additional stillbirths? Instead of downvoting, why don't you explain why you want these effects in infants?
- aianus 10y ago
  Replace Marijuana with Alcohol in that comment and it's all still true. But Alcohol is not schedule 1.
  - davidf18 10y ago
    I don't follow. It is ok to downvote medical studies from leading medical journals because alcohol already harms infants? And I suppose people reason that marijuana use will not lead to any increase at all of neurologically harmed infants? Perhaps someone could explain why they want to adopt policy that will lead to an increase of neurologically harmed infants and stillbirths. Empathy is key. Try to imagine infants that have been harmed by marijuana use by their mothers before their mothers knew they were pregnant. Not certain why anyone would want to increase the number of neurologically harmed infants.
    - aianus 10y ago
      The study is totally irrelevant. Accutane and Thalidomide will do a lot worse to your fetus too... still not schedule 1.
    - psyc 10y ago
      Utilitarian outcome is not the only basis for policy, especially in a society that has individual liberty as a core value. If it was, we could have a much more draconian society than we do. We don't ban things everywhere we find a statistical increase in harm.
      - davidf18 10y ago
        Yet, we also make a distinction where people can harm themselves but we pass laws that protect others from harms. For example, be pass laws banning cigarette smoking in public places, in parks, etc. We also have a drinking age of 21, and many/most states now consider driving with a blood alcohol level above 0.8 as drunk driving. These acts are to protect other drivers and pedestrians from being harmed by drunk driving. It is not unreasonable to want to ensure that fetuses are protected too.
- hurricaneSlider 10y ago
  I suspect it is because they don't appreciate the whole "think of the children" argument.
zeroer 10y ago
100% agree. Isn't this the same situation with alcohol and tobacco?
- crgt 10y ago
  That was the CDC's logic here: http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/02/04/465607147/women-blast-cdcs-advice-to-use-birth-control-if-drinking-alcohol http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/02/04/46560714...

davidf18 10y ago

Why are people allowed to downvote medical studies from highly regarded journals? Journal of the American Medical Association, American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and Obstetrics and Gynecology? What kind of human being would want increased babies neurologically deprived from marijuana exposure or additional stillbirths? Instead of downvoting, why don't you explain why you want these effects in infants?

aianus 10y ago
Replace Marijuana with Alcohol in that comment and it's all still true. But Alcohol is not schedule 1.
- davidf18 10y ago
  I don't follow. It is ok to downvote medical studies from leading medical journals because alcohol already harms infants? And I suppose people reason that marijuana use will not lead to any increase at all of neurologically harmed infants? Perhaps someone could explain why they want to adopt policy that will lead to an increase of neurologically harmed infants and stillbirths. Empathy is key. Try to imagine infants that have been harmed by marijuana use by their mothers before their mothers knew they were pregnant. Not certain why anyone would want to increase the number of neurologically harmed infants.
  - aianus 10y ago
    The study is totally irrelevant. Accutane and Thalidomide will do a lot worse to your fetus too... still not schedule 1.
  - psyc 10y ago
    Utilitarian outcome is not the only basis for policy, especially in a society that has individual liberty as a core value. If it was, we could have a much more draconian society than we do. We don't ban things everywhere we find a statistical increase in harm.
    - davidf18 10y ago
      Yet, we also make a distinction where people can harm themselves but we pass laws that protect others from harms. For example, be pass laws banning cigarette smoking in public places, in parks, etc. We also have a drinking age of 21, and many/most states now consider driving with a blood alcohol level above 0.8 as drunk driving. These acts are to protect other drivers and pedestrians from being harmed by drunk driving. It is not unreasonable to want to ensure that fetuses are protected too.
hurricaneSlider 10y ago
I suspect it is because they don't appreciate the whole "think of the children" argument.

zeroer 10y ago

100% agree. Isn't this the same situation with alcohol and tobacco?

crgt 10y ago
That was the CDC's logic here: http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/02/04/465607147/women-blast-cdcs-advice-to-use-birth-control-if-drinking-alcohol http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/02/04/46560714...