3 ms·

Why are people allowed to downvote medical studies from highly regarded journals? Journal of the American Medical Association, American Journal of Obstetrics a

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.

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.