4 ms·
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 mar
by 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 agoThe study is totally irrelevant. Accutane and Thalidomide will do a lot worse to your fetus too... still not schedule 1.
- psyc 10y agoUtilitarian 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 agoYet, 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.