Using Medical Marihuana While Pregnant

[peanutbutter]

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.

 

Stop allowing mods and admins to make constant personal attacks.

 

Sorry .. I responded as if you actually could clean up around here.

Edited May 13, 2012 by peanutbutter

[Restorium2]

Stop allowing mods and admins to make constant personal attacks.

 

 

“Don't Take Anything Personally. Nothing others do is because of you. What others say and do is a projection of their own reality, their own dream. When you are immune to the opinions and actions of others, you won't be the victim of needless suffering.”

 

Don Miguel Ruiz

[peanutbutter]

 

“Don't Take Anything Personally. Nothing others do is because of you. What others say and do is a projection of their own reality, their own dream. When you are immune to the opinions and actions of others, you won't be the victim of needless suffering.”

 

Don Miguel Ruiz

 

Why thank you ..

[peanutbutter]

From now on the phrase "the sky is blue" will no longer escape the wrath of the legal system.

 

The FDA has never approved the statement. Since "air" and "sky" contain oxygen, the substance "air" falls within the regulation ability of the FDA.

 

Therefore, any persons making statements such as "the sky is blue," without prior approval of the FDA, shall be subject to criminal penalties.

[Highlander]

PB, why are you tilting at windmills? The OP asked about mmj and pregnancy. Various answers were given. Naturally, some different answers conflict. But you are the one sarcastically saying that uncomfortable answers are cause to lock the thread. Some people think that pregnant women should only ingest substances are medically necessary and proven to be safe.

 

While admonishing some posters for feeling uncomfortable with answers posted, it is obvious that you are uncomfortable with (qualified) medical opinions posted in this thread. Why the hypocrisy and drama?

[Highlander]

From now on the phrase "the sky is blue" will no longer escape the wrath of the legal system.

 

The FDA has never approved the statement. Since "air" and "sky" contain oxygen, the substance "air" falls within the regulation ability of the FDA.

 

Therefore, any persons making statements such as "the sky is blue," without prior approval of the FDA, shall be subject to criminal penalties.

 

How about we just stay on topic and discuss the originals poster's question without getting all PO'ed and making multiple posts with unrelated and contrived comparisons that don't help?

 

One of the problems we had on the old MMMA site was that qualified people - doctors and lawyers got badgered to death and quit posting because they got fed up with people posting outlandish claims and theories and then defending them. I for one am glad to See Dr. Bob posting here again, and I hope that his qualifed answer to the OP's question doesn't get lost in all this childishness.

Edited May 13, 2012 by Highlander

[peanutbutter]

PB, why are you tilting at windmills? The OP asked about mmj and pregnancy. Various answers were given. Naturally, some different answers conflict. But you are the one sarcastically saying that uncomfortable answers are cause to lock the thread. Some people think that pregnant women should only ingest substances are medically necessary and proven to be safe.

 

While admonishing some posters for feeling uncomfortable with answers posted, it is obvious that you are uncomfortable with (qualified) medical opinions posted in this thread. Why the hypocrisy and drama?

The ONLY study that has been done on the topic!!

 

The ONLY one .. is to be considered worthless because it wasn't followed up on????

 

The numbers are invalid because they just might be 20 years old!! (remember .. numbers degrade with age!)

 

With nothing to support the supposed danger, they urge people to ignore the ONLY data compiled.

 

Very scientific ..

[Highlander]

The ONLY study that has been done on the topic!!

 

The ONLY one .. is to be considered worthless because it wasn't followed up on????

 

The numbers are invalid because they just might be 20 years old!! (remember .. numbers degrade with age!)

 

With nothing to support the supposed danger, they urge people to ignore the ONLY data compiled.

 

Very scientific ..

 

Quit exaggerating. Who is saying to ignore the study? People are saying "proceed with care"

 

I guess in your eyes, one unscientific study done in the third world 40 years ago is good enough to support that a mother gives her fetus marijuana here in the USA today. We had studies only 50 years ago right here in the USA that suggested smoking cigarettes was OK.

 

One study, and your baby is getting the MJ.

 

I'm sorry but most parents out there need more than one study to prove something is safe for their fetus.

 

It is clear that you believe cannabis can do no harm. That's a fine position to have with your own body. It is crazy to make that same descision for a fetus when based on a 49-year-old unscientific study.

Edited May 13, 2012 by Highlander

[Mememe]

I have heard that it is unsafe for the baby for a woman to quit smoking once pregnant as the baby goes through withdraw (sp?). Is this true and if so, would the same likely hold true for MM? Would it be safer to continue or quit if already pregnant?

Edited May 13, 2012 by Mememe

[Dr. Bob]

This is one of the examples of bull headed promotion of a marginal concept using data mining to find something that supports you that gets folks in trouble. I guess folks can use what they want to support their belief systems. My advice remains, only essential meds in pregnancy.

 

Take care, I don't really have more to add to this thread.

 

Dr. Bob

[Restorium2]

It is a myth that women shouldn't quit smoking while pregnant. Having said that, you can't compare cigarettes with cannabis. Two totally different substances. One much more deadly than the other. Cannabis is not nearly as dangerous as cigarettes.

Edited May 13, 2012 by Restorium2

[Highlander]

Before anybody uses the jamaica study to support thier position, I just want to know the following:

 

1. Were the women who used mj of a different cultural/economic background, maybe one more or less nurturing?

2. What were the long-term baseline health profiles of the mothers?

3. What were the long-term observatios on the babies?

4. tell me about the MJ. How much THC, CBN, CBD?

5. How would different ratios of the above compounds have affected the outcome of the study - and today's expected experience?

 

There are 1000s of other questions one would need answers to before giving merit to the jamaica study.

 

I think it is best if we still turn to our qualified people with years of education and experience to answer the question.

 

Thank you for your opinion Dr. Bob. This board is lucky to have you as a source.

[cristinew]

Did not the Mach Of Dimes do a study, and found out that Cannabis caused 0 birth defects

[Dr. Bob]

Before anybody uses the jamaica study to support thier position, I just want to know the following:

 

1. Were the women who used mj of a different cultural/economic background, maybe one more or less nurturing?

2. What were the long-term baseline health profiles of the mothers?

3. What were the long-term observatios on the babies?

4. tell me about the MJ. How much THC, CBN, CBD?

5. How would different ratios of the above compounds have affected the outcome of the study - and today's expected experience?

 

There are 1000s of other questions one would need answers to before giving merit to the jamaica study.

 

I think it is best if we still turn to our qualified people with years of education and experience to answer the question.

 

Thank you for your opinion Dr. Bob. This board is lucky to have you as a source.

 

I appreciate the kind words, there are many sources on this board, and I am glad to be considered one of them. You know education is not the only key to the entry into the 'expert opinion' club. There are MANY folks in here that don't have an advanced degree that really understand issues and use logical arguments. I have no idea what your background but clearly, you understand a logical argument. We need to look at and understand source data, what question does the study answer, how reliable is the answer, how valid is the data used, and what variables were studied vs which ones were omitted. You can see some of these questions in your response. PB on the other hand simply tends to find something that supports his position and views the world through that set of eyeglasses.

 

My weakness is that I tend to dismiss that type of narrow position and those that promote them. I'll work on that. We all need to work on seeing things from other perspectives.

 

Dr. Bob

[Dr. Bob]

Did not the Mach Of Dimes do a study, and found out that Cannabis caused 0 birth defects

 

Did not the FDA do a series of clinical trials on thalidomine and find 0 flippers? Let's look at Baycol, Posicor, Fen/Fen, and many other drugs that had MANY studies which didn't show later problems that arose with widespread use.

 

Again, do not hang your hat on a single trial unless you are prepared to fully discuss the construction of the trial, the variables used, the p factor of the results, and the reproduction of the results with other trials. If you can discuss those, it adds strength to your position. If you can't it goes back to non-lawyers looking at laws. There is a difference between reading and understanding, There is a difference between understand a single law and understanding how it fits into the big picture with all the other laws, rules, and practices.

 

Do you have a link to the studies involved, I'll be happy to look at them and see what I can say about them.

 

Dr. Bob

[restlesslegs]

Not my opinion just posted it for those who didn't know what it said.

 

On the other hand my great niece had extreme nausea and they had her on some drug to help but it did nothing. She is a tiny gal and could not afford to lose weight and especially since she needed nutrition for them both. She smoked in the mornings because that was when her nausea was the worse. She had me gagging a few times it was so bad. Her little one is thriving, intelligent, and is very happy.

[Dr. Bob]

Not my opinion just posted it for those who didn't know what it said.

 

On the other hand my great niece had extreme nausea and they had her on some drug to help but it did nothing. She is a tiny gal and could not afford to lose weight and especially since she needed nutrition for them both. She smoked in the mornings because that was when her nausea was the worse. She had me gagging a few times it was so bad. Her little one is thriving, intelligent, and is very happy.

 

Good result, and in this situation it is essential the nausea be controlled for the reasons you cited, or at least a strong argument could be made that it was.

 

Dr. Bob

[CaveatLector]

Stop allowing mods and admins to make constant personal attacks.

 

Sorry .. I responded as if you actually could clean up around here.

What does this thread have to do with mods, admins, personal attacks, or the federal govt? Why do you constantly cloud issues when you start to realize that you aren't making sense?

 

I think think this site is plenty clean since they emptied the dumpster 6 or 7 weeks ago. The people who currently have a problem with it seem to be those who enjoyed free reign under the last admnistration within the "good old boys" club. Suddenly they are required to conform to the standards everyone else must and that ruffles their feathers.

 

And if I were you pb I would suggest not complaining about cleaning up. That's a bit of the pot calling the kettle black. I seem to recall the old "post heist" thread where you, as a mod, materially manipulated other users' posts to make it appear that they agreed with you. But, as a member of the old boys club, the admin turned a blind eye and lied to the membership by pretending they couldn't figure out who did the manipulating. However, the cat soon came out of the bag when garfield and bubblegrower outed the old admin and indicated that the old admin knew you did the deed.

 

So save the accusations directed at mods and admin when you are coming to th table with unclean hands.

[restlesslegs]

This is a more interesting way to talk about this. Let's say the mother actually needs relief from something medical marijuana helps with, like nausea? Would the doctors recommend medical marijuana first, or some other drug? What if the mother is injured during pregnancy and needs pain relief?

Personally I would rather smoke then take any of those drugs if I were pregnant. If it were my own daughter I would rather her smoke then take any of those drugs. I can't say for anyone else but I firmly believe that smoking MM is much safer then most drugs and when it comes to pregnancy I would say the same. I would not condone smoking all day long but given the choice I would choose MM hands down.

[peanutbutter]

PB on the other hand simply tends to find something that supports his position and views the world through that set of eyeglasses.

 

Sorry it seems that way on this one. That item was stressed by the person in the video.

 

The babies seemed to have a net gain because of their exposure to cannabis.

 

I've seen other "studies" where they say "we had some crack cmokin mamas that smoked weed also" "they had babies with problems."

Very odd how many studies and reports you can find with these mixed drug results.

 

The Jamaican study was nice in that it seemed to isolate the cannabis. That is cannabis only.

 

Perhaps the doctors might agree here .. IF IF IF you are going to take ANYTHING at all for nausea, try very small amounts of cannabis before you try anything else.

 

When possible and practical.

 

Naa .. there's the law to consider also. Medically there's very little that's been shown wrong. The law can be a real problem fast,.

Edited May 13, 2012 by peanutbutter

[peanutbutter]

But hands down .. cannabis first for nausea.

 

Talkin nature and the human body. The uterus has a very high concentration of cannabinoid receptors. Something made it so ..

 

That would be a very long history of medical use .. or something wonderful behind the curtain.

Edited May 13, 2012 by peanutbutter

[Dr. Bob]

I would tend to recommend emetrol first. I am not opposed to considering cannabis, especially in a situation as was described (hyperemesis gravidarium I believe it is called) where the mother's nutritional status is at risk.

 

But before I make a blanket statement like 'cannabis first' ask yourself a simple question PB.

 

Are you willing to accept responsibility for a mother LOSING her child because DSS took exception to her use of cannabis? What would you say to the mom? Unfair yes. Does the MMMA say something about this, yes, but it is routinely ignored. It takes money and lawyers to fight city hall and press the issue that this can't be used in court- are you willing to provide both to the mom? Or will she become another victim of the system? I know, let's have a rally for her. Will that get her baby back?

 

Just an example of how there are many factors that go into a decision like that.

 

Gersh, you aren't a bad guy, and you are passionate, but you need to follow through. Here is another example. There was a skin cancer patient about a year ago. I read all over the boards that the cancer was documented as decreasing. I asked for evidence because I wanted to get on board. I got quite a few, essentially unchanged photos over a 21 days period. While there were some that could 'see' differences, they were all the same more or less to my eye (oh yeah, I am actually trained to look at those things). I asked for follow up photos showing the changes after 3 months. Never got anything and the boards got quite over the issue. Now it has been a year. Let's see a photo from LAST year compared to THIS year as see if there actually is a change. What I saw last year was essentially a dirty lesion that was cleaned up a bit with a washcloth- unchanged but neater. Besides, there wasn't really time to see a major difference. Let's see what is there now. Pull up the old photos, be sure to have them right next to you when you take them again so you have the distance and angle the same.

 

Dr. Bob

[MightyMightyMezz]

Setting aside legal ramifications I doubt any harm comes to babies whose mothers smoke quality herb in pregnancy. Never heard of a "pot baby" and I would expect to have heard of them if they existed. I have heard of nebulous "brain changes" in a certain study but that is pretty vague and probably not even a study on human beings.

[Dr. Bob]

problem is, you can't set aside legal ramifications. they are the major side effect of mmj.

 

I too have never heard of a 'fetal cannabis syndrome' BUT just cause I've not seen it doesn't mean I can't say it can't occur. I will go on record to say my suspicions are that cannabis is more than likely very low risk in pregnancy, BUT I just don't know and with my child, even a very low risk is more than I am comfortable with unless there are very unique circumstances.

 

Dr. Bob

 

PS, I think we have beaten this to death. Might I suggest we all give it a week? If someone really wants to come back and add something to this thread then, we'll continue. If not, I think we've discussed it pretty well.

Edited May 14, 2012 by Dr. Bob

[MightyMightyMezz]

problem is, you can't set aside legal ramifications. they are the major side effect of mmj.

 

 

 

I understand your point but actually you can set aside legal considerations if you are having a discussion about potential medical side effects on the baby and mother, which I think is what the OP was asking about.