SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Pregnant women are increasingly using cannabis, according to two studies published this year:
More pregnant women seem to be using pot -- sometimes to ease the nausea of morning sickness or heightened anxiety -- and a new study suggests that this slight rise in marijuana use is most pronounced among those younger in age. The prevalence of marijuana use among a sample of moms-to-be in California climbed from 4.2% to 7.1% from 2009 through 2016, according to a research letter published in the journal JAMA on Tuesday [DOI: 10.1001/jama.2017.17225] [DX]. Among pregnant teens younger than 18, marijuana use climbed from 12.5% to 21.8%, and among women 18 to 24, marijuana use climbed from 9.8% to 19%, the researchers found.
That research involved only certain women in California, but a separate study of pregnant women across the United States, published in JAMA [open, DOI: 10.1001/jama.2016.17383] [DX] in January, found that those who reported using marijuana in the previous month grew from 2.37% in 2002 to 3.85% in 2014. The women were 18 to 44.
Doctors caution that the health effects of marijuana on a fetus remain unclear but could include low birth weight and developmental problems [DOI: 10.1097/CHI.0b013e318160b3f0] [DX], according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Many of the chemicals in marijuana, like tetrahydrocannabinol, known as THC, could pass through a mother's system to her baby. The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends that "women who are pregnant or contemplating pregnancy should be encouraged to discontinue marijuana use" and "to discontinue use of marijuana for medicinal purposes in favor of an alternative therapy." Additionally, "there are insufficient data to evaluate the effects of marijuana use on infants during lactation and breastfeeding, and in the absence of such data, marijuana use is discouraged," according to the recommendations.
Also at LA Times.
Related: Tennessee to Jail Women Who Use Drugs while Pregnant
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 29 2017, @12:07AM (17 children)
Well, it sounds like we'll have the data soon, right?
We are going to collect the data instead of just moralizing, right?
I'm even expecting that the data won't be peachy. But we're going to get it, right? Right?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 29 2017, @12:53AM
I am bootyass process! I am bootyass process! I am bootyass process! I have my online degree in chemical mathematics again!
Now that I've firmly established my immense superiority, my fetid little friend can get this feces fiesta started!
(Score: 1, Troll) by linkdude64 on Friday December 29 2017, @12:56AM (11 children)
I have no place in telling a pregnant woman (other than, perhaps, one I pregnated) what she should or shouldn't do, but in the case of a pregnant woman I would have a say in, I would say that some data is not worth collecting.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 29 2017, @01:48AM (1 child)
We have the data on alcohol.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 29 2017, @02:39AM
Indeed, here it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2j8kUXxxStA [youtube.com]
(Score: 2) by unauthorized on Friday December 29 2017, @06:35AM (1 child)
Well, you might not, but I am perfectly comfortable with giving other people advise and reasoning with them. Furthermore, when their actions impact another human being, I am more than willing to condone the removal of someone else's autonomy if their actions are deemed harmful to that other human being and the later is not even capable of objecting.
Your rights to harm people only extent to yourself and those who are both willing and capable of consenting to it. If you harm anyone else, then society has every right to revoke your body autonomy for the purposes of minimizing harm to other human beings, until it is deemed that you will not harm anyone else.
And on a final note, this story notes that doctors are cautioning women not to, and it absolutely IS their place, not to mention their job, to tell women what to do with their bodies.
(Score: 2) by ragequit on Friday December 29 2017, @03:25PM
But that's rather the point.
1. The data is unclear, so there is no direct evidence to believe that it will cause more harm than overdosing on vitamin C.
2. Women who are going to smoke pot against their doctors' advise aren't going to listen to you, way up there on your high horse.
3. Given #2, we may as well gather the data from them to remedy #1.
(Full disclosure, I smoked a fair amount of weed in the mid-90's, but am not interested in it at all personally, even though it's legal in my state.)
The above views are fabricated for your reading pleasure.
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Friday December 29 2017, @05:07PM (6 children)
And yet you support the party* which is very clear on its intent to tell pregnant women what they can and cannot do.
* based on your comment history, I am drawing the conclusion that you vote R.
(Score: 0, Troll) by linkdude64 on Saturday December 30 2017, @10:29AM (5 children)
The sign of a true partisan: "Everyone I disagree with is exactly alike."
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Saturday December 30 2017, @04:49PM
So my assumption is false? You don't support the party that is engaged in telling pregnant women what they should or should not do?
Either my assumption is false, or you were lying. Which is it?
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Saturday December 30 2017, @05:03PM (3 children)
I realized that there is one more possibility:
You vote R but don't support its core principles.
That would be pretty stupid.
(Score: 0, Troll) by linkdude64 on Sunday December 31 2017, @11:20PM (2 children)
The other possibility is that women having too much sex and rapes that lead to pregnancies are very low on my list of priorities for the entire country to deal with, because the occurrence of rape leading to pregnancy is not as large or important an issue as the entire country being invaded by more rapists, drug dealers, and criminals, all of whom likely also receive social services, which destroys the country for everyone else and their children. Saving two children is more ethical than saving one. I don't care what you say, or what kind of "corner" you try to push me in: I do not give a fuck about child birth issues, because the majority of pregancies occur during consensual sex as a result of personal irresponsibility, and far more people are affected by other issues which I agree with Trump - Not the Republicans - on. Don't forget that Rs tried their damndest to get him out of their party and utterly failed - his election was a huge middle finger to the establishments of BOTH parties.
When you see the bigger picture rather than inflating single issues and attempting to virtue-signal and shame others by misrepresenting them you will stop sounding so petty and upset.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Whoever on Monday January 01 2018, @08:28PM (1 child)
You *almost* presented yourself as a decent human being, but then your authoritarian and misogynistic attitudes overwhelmed you.
In your rant, women are having too much sex. With whom? Men perhaps? But it's only a problem when women do it?
You parrot Trump's narrative of immigrants as committing more crime, when the reverse is true: immigrants are less likely to be engaged in criminal acts.
Authoritarian and racist attitudes are the best predictor of someone being a Trump supporter. I guess you fit right in.
Let's remind you of your own post:
Clearly, based on your own remarks, you would love to tell women (including pregnant women) what they should or should not do.
Summary: you are a liar. Perhaps you lie to yourself as well as others.
Plonk!
(Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Thursday January 04 2018, @12:12AM
"In your rant, women are having too much sex. With whom? Men perhaps? But it's only a problem when women do it?"
I don't care if they're having sex with men or women - if they aren't protecting themselves from pregnancy, that is willful negligence. How on earth that is a misogynistic statement is beyond me. When people die in car crashes and were not wearing their seatbelts, it is their responsibility. If someone has unprotected sex leading to an unwanted pregnancy, that is also their responsibility.
"You parrot Trump's narrative of immigrants as committing more crime, when the reverse is true: immigrants are less likely to be engaged in criminal acts."
Please post a source to back up your claim.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/21/report-reveals-92-percent-foreign-nationals-in-federal-prisons-are-illegal-immigrants.html [foxnews.com]
https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/special-reports/alien-incarceration?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery [dhs.gov]
This is directly from the DHS. Please post a source to back up your claim that illegal immigrants - who, let's not forget, are immediately federal criminals - are less likely to commit crimes.
"Clearly, based on your own remarks, you would love to tell women (including pregnant women) what they should or should not do."
Conviction is not the same as hubris, opinions are not the same as commands, and my opinion is not even necessarily tied to the way I vote, because ethical "right" and civil "Right" are completely different.
Your conflation of basic terms, your petty and irrelevant characterizations, and your ineffective non-statements like "You almost presented yourself as a decent human being" are foolish and a waste of time. I assume you have nothing useful to say anyway, so we will go our separate ways.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 29 2017, @01:25AM (2 children)
Never mind the drugs. Suppose they smoke 100% cotton rag paper. That's how you get cancer.
Also stay away from candles, fireplaces, diesel exhaust, incense, fireworks, etc.
Causes include polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and fine particulate matter.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday December 29 2017, @01:51AM (1 child)
What if the prego women use cannabis edibles instead of smoking or vaping?
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 29 2017, @07:37AM
Not sure what this "prego" means, but maybe lay off the pot for a while?
(Score: 5, Informative) by Ellis D. Tripp on Friday December 29 2017, @03:54AM
"Society is like stew. If you don't keep it stirred up, you end up with a lot of scum on the top!"--Edward Abbey
(Score: 2) by looorg on Friday December 29 2017, @12:55AM (17 children)
Is that perhaps then not something they should test instead of guess about? Sure it would involve human experiments and the repercussions might be dire. You don't want the fetus to come out as a retarded stoner children. But how else are they going to find out if there is a different if the child is inside or being breastfed on the outside. That said I do seriously doubt they are going to get any such data anytime soon. But it could be interesting; "Hi want to take part in an experiment where you get to smoke weed, under controlled circumstances, for 9 months while you are pregnant?".
Come to think of it are there any studies of stoner sperm? There probably is. That is after all a lot easier to test then if smoking weed has an effect on a fetus or if you breast feed your infant weed fueled breast milk.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by takyon on Friday December 29 2017, @01:01AM (11 children)
You could look at reports in which a pregnant woman tested positive / were caught using cannabis, and then track the development of the children. Or ask pregnant women to self-report whether they are currently using cannabis or had done so during pregnancy, and track the development of the children.
It's not great (when is biomedical science ever?), but possibly better than just forcing some pregnant mice to toke up.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 29 2017, @01:12AM (9 children)
Yeah that does not seem like a study where you want to 'go first'.
Seems like a study you want to err on the side of caution. As is being pregnant has a very strict set of things you can and can not eat.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday December 29 2017, @01:17AM (8 children)
I guess some other approaches would be to do more statewide studies like these, and then track birth defects, etc. across the state. Or look for any trends specifically in states that have legalized recreational or medical cannabis and compare those states to ones that haven't.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Whoever on Friday December 29 2017, @02:45AM (7 children)
You are assuming the the use of weed is significantly higher in states that have legalized it. That may not be true.
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Friday December 29 2017, @06:55AM (6 children)
Before legalization I didn't smell pot everywhere. In my 15 min drive to work I pass three different houses growing enough that I can smell it from a distance, I presume the grow is not just for fun. At least twice a week I encounter a person smoking pot as I walk from my parking structure to work, this was not common before legalization
I dont know that more people are smoking, but I know that people are smoking more.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Friday December 29 2017, @04:18PM (3 children)
Not necessarily...
So you have a few houses you expect are growing...that doesn't prove usage increased unless you also have some measure of how much is being imported/exported. These people might just be displacing stuff previously brought up from Mexico/South America or just from other states. Now that it's legal there wouldn't be much point in trafficking the stuff in. And there's probably a good profit to be made in trafficking the stuff out. Perhaps your state has just moved from a net importer to a net exporter!
And of course you see more people smoking it in public now that they aren't literally risking their lives in doing so. People have been publicly executed in this country for lesser "crimes". It ain't legal (yet!) in my state, but walk into literally any apartment building and you'll smell it. Plenty of users, but you'll still never see them in public, because that would just be fuckin stupid.
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Friday December 29 2017, @05:55PM (2 children)
If every day you can smell pot from 1k feet away from the nearest residential area from the inside of a car, there is something weird going on in that neighborhood
I voted for legalization, I just didn't expect to smell it non-stop everywhere I go. If a neighbor starts growing or whatever and I have to smell it every day i'm going to sue them using those same pig farm smell laws or airport noise laws over loss of property value.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Friday December 29 2017, @06:37PM
I don't disagree with that...I'm just saying it doesn't necessarily mean people in the area are using more. It's entirely possible that the only difference is that they're now growing it locally, and that's what you're smelling.
Sounds reasonable. I'm assuming the area is not zoned for agriculture...? :)
In a few years I'd expect that to sort itself out though...partly the regulations suck because nobody knows what needs to be regulated yet; and partly it's just a problem of needing to build up the infrastructure for the new market. Eventually these guys should be selling more than they can grow in their house, and they'll find some industrial or agricultural land to buy up and do it there instead. But nobody has the money for that yet, and banks won't do business with them so it's not like they can take out a loan. Although it's also tough to regulate because of the continued unlawful federal prohibition...it's probably a lot easier to raid the warehouse of Mike's Bud Farm LLC compared to the basement of Mike's house, so the problems might not resolve themselves until that goes away...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 30 2017, @02:41AM
I'm betting there is some inside the car. It's like someone who doesn't know he stepped in a turd - "everywhere I go today smells like dogshit!!"
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Friday December 29 2017, @05:01PM
Your anecdotes may merely show that the pot growing and consumption is now in the open, rather than hidden.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 29 2017, @07:41PM
You know that you encounter more people smokling, not people are smoking more. For all you know, the dude smoking a j walking down the street used to do it in his car to keep it on the low. And someone growing weed openly now might have used some random backwoods spot or the like.
I think it's reasonable to assume usage goes up, but nothing you offered makes your argument, even anecdotally.
(Score: 2) by looorg on Friday December 29 2017, @01:19AM
That could be an option. Problem might be that they did more then just smoke weed. It would be hard to link it just to the potential weed usage. Self reporting might be an issue to since you'll probably want to know about dosage and strength etc plus if child welfare found out there could be issues.
Indeed. But the to have some poor mice toke up is probably as close as you get without actual human experiments..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 29 2017, @02:11AM
It's called a "natural experiment", all that is necessary is to gather data (as much as possible, not just on pot usage) --
from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_experiment [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by frojack on Friday December 29 2017, @02:17AM (3 children)
The quote is the usual scare tactic employed when they don't know didly squat.
It could just as well read:
There is a large cadre of kids of stoners and hippies from the 60s through the 80s. I've known some of them, and most are normal, certainly on average no different from any other random group. Wouldn't we know by now?
Fetal Alcohol Syndrome became a Thing virtually over night.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 5, Informative) by dry on Friday December 29 2017, @03:49AM (2 children)
There were studies done in the '70's, in Jamaica where people use a lot of marijuana. The findings were that babies exposed to larger amounts of pot as fetuses were born slightly larger. They weren't sure if it was the pot or the subjects selling pot and having a higher standard of living.
There were quite a few various studies done back in the '70's on marijuana usage, but much of it was repressed as the findings didn't agree with what the politicians wanted to find.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday December 29 2017, @04:28AM (1 child)
It's because the babies were born with an unholy case of the munchies and nursed more. And that applied to the third trimester too, meaning the placenta became more efficient at drawing nutrients.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 5, Informative) by dry on Friday December 29 2017, @04:58AM
Yea, that was my thought as I typed the above.
Unluckily it is hard to find studies from the '70's and I might be mis-remembering dates.
Here's one from the '94, http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/medical/can-babies.htm [druglibrary.org] which shows no differences at 3 days and at 1 month, to quote,
With the conclusion that it was mostly,
An article about a study from the '80's, https://herb.co/2016/03/02/jamaican-study-gives-surprising-insight-into-cannabis-pregnancy/ [herb.co] which seemed to conclude that mellow mothers raised better children whether using pot or not.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 29 2017, @01:07AM (5 children)
The children will be precognitive psychics.
The old fucks of ShitstainNews are old enough to remember Minority Report, right?
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 29 2017, @01:16AM (4 children)
Owww gawwwd downmods feel soooo goood.
Go down on me again, fuckers!
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 29 2017, @02:54AM (3 children)
Have you considered that the "old fucks" of "ShitStainNews" may posses precognitive abilities that would enable them to pre-moderate your comments based on prior knowledge that you are an obnoxious retard? Do you think it possible that your stupid comments are all the evidence needed for unilateral support for in-utero cannabinoids? Glad your hypothesis worked out for you!
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 29 2017, @03:15AM (2 children)
Hey, moron. Tell me something I don't know.
(Score: 0, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 29 2017, @04:00AM (1 child)
A curious self-admission of your retardation. At least you're honest.
-- "Moron" AC
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 29 2017, @07:02AM
Keep censoring me, dumbfuck. Try harder, incompetent fascist wannabe.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 29 2017, @07:05AM
..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 29 2017, @12:26PM
Asking their mom?