Using Medical Marihuana While Pregnant

[peanutbutter]

Like your statement asking what if mmj raised IQ 5 pts. It is a decent enough question but is it based on fact or just hypothetical?

 

I deeply resent an aspect of this.

 

No one would have an issue if it is asked "What if it cause a drop in IQ?" I find this an offensive question.

 

Many find this offensive "What if it caused a rise in IQ?"

 

In a similar way, the Jamacian study showed that when mothers consumed marijuana the resulting babies were better off.

 

That is the RESULT of the study. Not my wild guess.

[peanutbutter]

I'll try to make it a little more clear.

 

There is a presumption that if cannabis does impact humans that impact must be negative. Until proven otherwise.

 

A close relative to "no currently accepted medical use within the united states .." when I see it kinda like nails on a black board ..

[peanutbutter]

Melanie Dreher, who is the dean of nursing at Rush Medical Center in Chicago, did a study in Jamaica. It was actually published in the American Journal of Pediatrics in 1994, but now it's re-circulating because of all the interest in the neuroprotective properties.

Basically, she studied women during their entire pregnancy, and then studied the babies about a year after birth. And what she studied was a group of women who did smoke cannabis during pregnancy and those who didn't. She expected to see a difference in the babies as far as birth weight and neuro tests, but there was no difference whatsoever. The differences that the researchers did notice, that are unexplained and kind of curious are that the babies of the women who had smoked cannabis -- and we're talking about daily use during their pregnancy -- socialized more quickly, made eye contact more quickly and were easier to engage.

We don't know why this is so, but all the old saws of smoking during pregnancy will result in low birth weight did not show up -- at least in the Jamaican study. In U.S. studies where we've seen a similar investigation, women have concurrently been abusing alcohol and other drugs as well

 

Read more: http://www.foxnews.c.../#ixzz1ufPHz3CX

 

See!! That's where everyone's minds balk .. We can get to the point of "no damage" without to much difficulty.

 

People have a hard time with "this stuff is brain fertilizer!" Brain goes .. "no way. can't be so I won't even think about it." BALK BALK BALK ..

[CaveatLector]

Mrd is right. There are a lot of problems with relying on one study.

 

When I read a study my 1st question is, "who funded the research." That is one of the first things they teach you in a social research methods class. Why? Because it is not uncommon for a researcher to deliberately skew results in favor of the funding source in an effort to win more grants. It is also not uncommon for a researcher to skew results in favor of their own viewpoints.

 

Secondly, is this the only study out there? Peer reviewed journal articles exist so that peers may replicate studies in an effort to test outcomes. There is a reason why cancer drugs are tested and tested again in many phases before seeking FDA approval. The reason is that the slightest anomaly in data could skew an outcome. And that sort of result is not uncommon. Many times drugs are tested in one study and appear to be effective but subsequent studies show just the opposite.

 

Thirdly, Jamaica isn't a 1st world country so it would be nice to see a study done that controls for socioeconomic status. The fact that prenatal care wasn't the greatest in Jamaica during this study is a factor. Why? Because one result of smoking mj is appetite increase. Women who eat during pregnancy have far fewer complications and children are born healthier, etc. So comparing outcomes without controlling for socioeconomic status is a huge error. In other words you cannot extrapolate that data as if it holds true for mothers and infants in the US. It very well could be the case that mj does more good than harm for fetuses that start with poor prental care, etc. But it could also be the case that it does more harm than good for fetuses born to women who receive proper prenatal care.

 

Lastly, were these children followed over time to see if there were long term effects as far as development through puberty? I don't think so and long term effects are, of course, important.

 

In conclusion, this referenced study is not enough to go on to conclusively state that using mj has either positive, neutral, or negative effects. So I would suggest not turning your child into a guinea pig based on one study and anecdotal evidence.

Edited May 12, 2012 by CaveatLector

[AKenewell]

No medication unless absolutely neccasary should be used during pregnancy. It's 9 months out of the rest of your life...you should be prepared to give up anything not absolutely necessary.

[peanutbutter]

Mrd is right. There are a lot of problems with relying on one study.

 

When I read a study my 1st question is, "who funded the research." That is one of the first things they teach you in a social research methods class. Why? Because it is not uncommon for a researcher to deliberately skew results in favor of the funding source in an effort to win more grants. It is also not uncommon for a researcher to skew results in favor of their own viewpoints.

 

Secondly, is this the only study out there? Peer reviewed journal articles exist so that peers may replicate studies in an effort to test outcomes. There is a reason why cancer drugs are tested and tested again in many phases before seeking FDA approval. The reason is that the slightest anomaly in data could skew an outcome. And that sort of result is not uncommon. Many times drugs are tested in one study and appear to be effective but subsequent studies show just the opposite.

 

Thirdly, Jamaica isn't a 1st world country so it would be nice to see a study done that controls for socioeconomic status. The fact that prenatal care wasn't the greatest in Jamaica during this study is a factor. Why? Because one result of smoking mj is appetite increase. Women who eat during pregnancy have far fewer complications and children are born healthier, etc. So comparing outcomes without controlling for socioeconomic status is a huge error. In other words you cannot extrapolate that data as if it holds true for mothers and infants in the US. It very well could be the case that mj does more good than harm for fetuses that start with poor prental care, etc. But it could also be the case that it does more harm than good for fetuses born to women who receive proper prenatal care.

 

Lastly, were these children followed over time to see if there were long term effects as far as development through puberty? I don't think so and long term effects are, of course, important.

 

In conclusion, this referenced study is not enough to go on to conclusively state that using mj has either positive, neutral, or negative effects. So I would suggest not turning your child into a guinea pig based on one study and anecdotal evidence.

Oh I agree .. more data is needed.

 

That said, it is biased to assume it can only hurt.

[peanutbutter]

No medication unless absolutely neccasary should be used during pregnancy. It's 9 months out of the rest of your life...you should be prepared to give up anything not absolutely necessary.

 

yes .. they should know better ..

[CaveatLector]

Oh I agree .. more data is needed.

 

That said, it is biased to assume it can only hurt.

So what? Is there something wrong with being biased when you're looking out for your baby? You say it's biased like being biased is a bad thing.

 

I think it makes sense to be overprotective when you're building a child inside you. It's not a time to experiment. It makes sense to assume something is bad unless you know otherwise.

[Dr. Bob]

my standard practice was to limit medication to only that which was essential during pregnancy. the definition of 'essential' was on a case by case basis and worked out with an informed patient. I think I echo the sentiments of AK and CL. Not to mention I've heard issues with MMJ and pregnancy with DSS.

 

I remember basic training at Ft. Jackson in the summer of 84. It sucked. It was hot. I was a private and I don't like getting yelled at. Every night I went to bed reminding myself there was nothing they could do to me in 7 weeks I couldn't tolerate. And in 8 weeks it would be better. Women are tougher, and it is 40 weeks.

 

Dr. Bob

Edited May 13, 2012 by Dr. Bob

[peanutbutter]

So what? Is there something wrong with being biased when you're looking out for your baby? You say it's biased like being biased is a bad thing.

 

I think it makes sense to be overprotective when you're building a child inside you. It's not a time to experiment. It makes sense to assume something is bad unless you know otherwise.

 

Well .. I think it's wrong to ignore published studies while promoting "There could be damage we don't know about!!"

 

A direct question was asked to start this thread!! Do we forbid answers of "x" nature?

[peanutbutter]

So what? Is there something wrong with being biased when you're looking out for your baby? You say it's biased like being biased is a bad thing.

 

I think it makes sense to be overprotective when you're building a child inside you. It's not a time to experiment. It makes sense to assume something is bad unless you know otherwise.

 

So use thalidamide for morning sickness .. Must be safer than using cannabis for morning sickness.

 

'Cause it's been blessed by the FDA ..

[CaveatLector]

Well .. I think it's wrong to ignore published studies while promoting "There could be damage we don't know about!!"

 

A direct question was asked to start this thread!! Do we forbid answers of "x" nature?

Clearly you read what you choose to read rather than everything written.

So use thalidamide for morning sickness .. Must be safer than using cannabis for morning sickness.

 

'Cause it's been blessed by the FDA ..

Is that what I, or anyone else, said or did I say one study does not a safe drug make? Your ignorant comparison to thalidomide makes no sense. What does thalidomide have to do with the price of tea in china? It isn't the only alternative out there and your logical fallacy of a false dilemma is ridiculous.

 

Again, read what was written. No one said ignore a study. What I said was one study isn't enough. Your desire to extrapolate the data to a population that contains 1000 different variables as compared to the studied population is sheer folly. I don't think you understand the scientific principals behind peer review and study replication. If you did then you would understand the major flaws in making decisions based on a 40 year old study that has never been replicated nor conducted while controlling for variables such as socioeconomic standing. In that sense one study is worse than zero because people like you will try to draw conclusions and apply them broadly when the limitations of the study do not allow for such broad application.

 

What you are suggesting is that people ignore accepted scientific methods and principals and embrace this study as valid and widely applicable when you are clueless as to methods employed during the study and variables controlled for in the study.

 

I've noticed that you are a big fan of google. Google is fine but reading info and knowing how to apply info are 2 different things. Alexander Pope once said that a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. He was right. A little knowledge can mislead people into thinking they are more of an expert than they really are.

Edited May 13, 2012 by CaveatLector

[peanutbutter]

Clearly you read what you choose to read rather than everything written.

 

Is that what I, or anyone else, said or did I say one study does not a safe drug make? Your ignorant comparison to thalidomide makes no sense. What does thalidomide have to do with the price of tea in china? It isn't the only alternative out there and your logical fallacy of a false dilemma is ridiculous.

 

Again, read what was written. No one said ignore a study. What I said was one study isn't enough. Your desire to extrapolate the data to a population that contains 1000 different variables as compared to the studied population is sheer folly. I don't think you understand the scientific principals behind peer review and study replication. If you did then you would understand the major flaws in making decisions based on a 40 year old study that has never been replicated nor conducted while controlling for variables such as socioeconomic standing. In that sense one study is worse than zero because people like you will try to draw conclusions and apply them broadly when the limitations of the study do not allow for such broad application.

 

What you are suggesting is that people ignore accepted scientific methods and principals and embrace this study as valid and widely applicable when you are clueless as to methods employed during the study and variables controlled for in the study.

 

I've noticed that you are a big fan of google. Google is fine but reading info and knowing how to apply info are 2 different things. Alexander Pope once said that a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. He was right. A little knowledge can mislead people into thinking they are more of an expert than they really are.

 

You determination to trust government standards is foolish and deadly.

 

Just watch TV late at night. They tell you over and over again that it was a mistake to trust this nations prescription drug system.

Edited May 13, 2012 by peanutbutter

[Highlander]

I think it's kinda funny that people will put up such a fuss about the gateway drug theory and scream and holler that there is no real scientific evidence that marijuana causes people to go on to use harder drugs but then when we talk about marijuana and pregnancy, the same tired, old, and irrelevant study from two generations ago in Jamaica is dragged out as proof that marijuana does more good than harm.

 

In both cases, unscientific data and methods are used to conclude that marijuana use had an effect on the outcome. We all know better than to believe this, so as a community, let's try to do a better job of recognizing good science as very different from anecdotal evidence. Otherwise, we come across as stoners who have unfounded/unbounded faith in a plant without knowledge to back it up.

[knucklehead bob]

oops !

Edited May 13, 2012 by knucklehead bob

[peanutbutter]

I think it's kinda funny that people will put up such a fuss about the gateway drug theory and scream and holler that there is no real scientific evidence that marijuana causes people to go on to use harder drugs but then when we talk about marijuana and pregnancy, the same tired, old, and irrelevant study from two generations ago in Jamaica is dragged out as proof that marijuana does more good than harm.

 

In both cases, unscientific data and methods are used to conclude that marijuana use had an effect on the outcome. We all know better than to believe this, so as a community, let's try to do a better job of recognizing good science as very different from anecdotal evidence. Otherwise, we come across as stoners who have unfounded/unbounded faith in a plant without knowledge to back it up.

 

Oh please!! They should have instantly shut this thread down.

 

Only answers from column "a" are allowed. Since it is possible someone just might take from column 'b' you should close the thread before someone thinks out loud.

[Restorium2]

Every God given thing in moderation holds true, especially when pregnant. I've seen a pregnant lady quit smoking cannabis and keep smoking cigarettes. Dont' let fear lead you around by the nose. Use common sense. Use clean medibles and you don't have a lot to fear. It could be compared to hot peppers for example. It's just a plant with active ingredients.

[peanutbutter]

In the future when someone asks a question,

 

IF answers could make this site uncomfortable .. LOCK THE THREAD.

[peanutbutter]

delete

Edited May 13, 2012 by peanutbutter

[Dr. Bob]

Clearly you read what you choose to read rather than everything written.

 

Is that what I, or anyone else, said or did I say one study does not a safe drug make? Your ignorant comparison to thalidomide makes no sense. What does thalidomide have to do with the price of tea in china? It isn't the only alternative out there and your logical fallacy of a false dilemma is ridiculous.

 

Again, read what was written. No one said ignore a study. What I said was one study isn't enough. Your desire to extrapolate the data to a population that contains 1000 different variables as compared to the studied population is sheer folly. I don't think you understand the scientific principals behind peer review and study replication. If you did then you would understand the major flaws in making decisions based on a 40 year old study that has never been replicated nor conducted while controlling for variables such as socioeconomic standing. In that sense one study is worse than zero because people like you will try to draw conclusions and apply them broadly when the limitations of the study do not allow for such broad application.

 

What you are suggesting is that people ignore accepted scientific methods and principals and embrace this study as valid and widely applicable when you are clueless as to methods employed during the study and variables controlled for in the study.

 

I've noticed that you are a big fan of google. Google is fine but reading info and knowing how to apply info are 2 different things. Alexander Pope once said that a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. He was right. A little knowledge can mislead people into thinking they are more of an expert than they really are.

 

The comparison simply means he missed the entire message of that horrible incident (I was born into that, my mother never used anything, thank God). With that we had something that folks THOUGHT was safe for something as benign as nausea, with terrible consequenses. They thought it was harmless, the studies thought it was harmless. Was it an essential medicine?

 

Dr. Bob

[peanutbutter]

So .. how about we make a list of topics that you are not allowed to be honest about here..

[peanutbutter]

The comparison simply means he missed the entire message of that horrible incident (I was born into that, my mother never used anything, thank God). With that we had something that folks THOUGHT was safe for something as benign as nausea, with terrible consequenses. They thought it was harmless, the studies thought it was harmless. Was it an essential medicine?

 

Dr. Bob

 

LOL they used thalidomide to prove LSD caused birth defects!

 

See how easy the public can be panicked into irrational actions?

[peanutbutter]

OUR FDA SYSTEM takes poisons and calls them good.

 

And takes good and calls it poison.

 

And they will put you in prison if you try to prove them dangerous.

[peanutbutter]

How much credibility do they have left?

[CaveatLector]

You know pb you are making zero sense. I never said trust the government and I never said mj is bad while pregnant. I said we don't know and you pointing to a 40 year old study to "prove" it is harmless is laughable. That's the bottom line.

 

No one said we cannot discuss it here so stop with the borderline ad hominem arguments and your equivication on the issues. If you want to discuss something then discuss it and stop going off on your crybaby tangents and saying people trust the government too much. This argument has zero to do with the government. Mark up and argue the issue. Stay on target and stop your incessant whining. I'm tired of having to follow you around with a pooper scooper.

Edited May 13, 2012 by CaveatLector