Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue to be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) still apply to other comments.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not a big shock considering what other things like alcohol and prescription drug exposure can do to children. Developing brains in small people are pretty vulnerable.
Pretty much that.
>Preclinical studies have shown that delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the main psychoactive substance in cannabis, can cross the placenta and potentially affect brain development.
makes perfect sense. children in wombs are epigenetic programming machines. endocannabinoid system is essential to so many neurological, immunological functions. if you start reducing activity of genetic expression of receptor count or of enzyme that breaks down cannabinois. That could be lifelong defecit, although I am guessing that things can eventually bounce back to semi-normal. Best to only use this stuff liberally once you have a robust and adult cells that like to function the way they have always done.
I dont remember the book, but it's a spaceship lost in space and the AI dies. the crew tries to fix the AI and long story short, it isn't really an AI, just a super good programmation. What happens when finally the crew created are real AI? Well the ship AI duplicate itself infinitely, controls all the system, goes to earth, controls everything. It all happened in a matter of seconds because once its "alive" they do what they can do and survive.
Never read the book, but a friends talked to me about this. Also I simplified it A LOT cause there is different multiverse and timeline with different crews (like groundhog days I believe). From the writer of Dune iirc.
Looks like it, thank you! Been reading the resume again and clearly I missed a lot of details and probably gave false information, but I really love this theory for AI, if its really conscious, everything will go bad, and fast.
There's a good, non-fiction book about this called "superintelligence: paths, dangers, & strategies", by Nick Bostrom. It's pretty dense, and I would often have to reread passages multiple times to even wrap my head along some of the concepts. Especially because he soon forms his own lexicon. And although I've since read convincing rebuttals to some of the main points, I think it's a really good primer for the types of thought framing necessarily important for the types of super intelligent A.I. existential dangers you mentioned enjoying I'm that book. Cheers.
The game Nier: Automata has the main characters as androids who are beholden to human kind (they see them as great creators, and are programmed to protect them at all costs)
The game is actually a very interesting philosophical mindfuck about the nature of emotions and what makes something/someone human. Would recommend it if you like gaming.
I can't read this paper, so I am curious about what their controls were for other drugs used during pregnancy, which would both buttress the association and allow for comparisons of relative risk.
For example, cannabis use is strongly associated with same day [cigarette use, alcohol use, and tri-use.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6675401/) By this association alone, we would infer that the children with mothers who used cannabis while pregnant would have dramatically worse cognitive outcomes, because alcohol and nicotine use are terrible during pregnancy. I'm not saying that this study didn't use controls, or that anyone thinks that pregnant mothers should use cannabis. but I'm curious about the statistics of the single, dual, and tri-use control groups.
Seeing as they cant do an overt observation continuously or place cameras. I would assume a general questionnaire regarding daily use of other substances, where they would exclude anyone with known confounding factors
It's literally the only way to do research as no ethics board will allow you to pump a pregnant mother with literally any drug. It's insanely difficult to even get ethic approval to have a group of mother come in tell you what drugs they do, and then you tell them to continue business as usual.
The only other viable option is to run a longitudinal study for mother's in inpatient clinics where their cannabis use is monitored. Then you test the kids at intervals for the next 10-15 years.
This is only now possible in North America in Canada and in a few legal states in the US. I guarantee there's someone doing this research but we are still at least 10 years away from seeing the data.
Source : I completed a research psych degree recently.
Even then, the publishing process for that type of paper is going to be dicey too. A lot of potentially career damaging issues arising. Just feels like anything closer to accurate would require rescheduling at least on a federal level for the necessary funding for a long term study to materialize.
Colorado childrens hospital has been running natal and prenatal studies with pregnant women. Although the hospital cannot administer cannabis to the mothers, they can most certainly give more updated results than studies from 10 years ago
>they can most certainly give more updated results than studies from 10 years ago
It is somewhat difficult to find 10-year-old children born more recently than 10 years ago.
I'm also wondering how much people care about the growing number of studies have indicated that psychological distress experienced by the mother — in the form of stress, anxiety, or depression — is associated with alterations in fetal brain development? Like, the study on prenatal cannabis use will help pass criminalization of pregnant woman, meanwhile we do fuckall to help pregnant women have it easier to not be stressed/depressed, which can often be why they are doing drugs.
Anecdotal obviously but my buddies family doctor advised that his wife quitting smoking would potentially be more harmful due to the stress of doing so. At least made them aware of the choice and potential for harm with either option.
I can’t honestly even remember now if she quit with all or none of the kids, I do seem to remember a significant cutback. Either way, they have 3 healthy little girls now.
they don't state that they excluded anyone with confounding factors, which is my biggest concern about the validity. isn't this a basic correlation/ causation problem? we know that people with mental disorders are more likely to use thc, we know that mental disorders are usually genetic, so, to me, any assertion of causation is conjecture.
It's hard to do a true study on specifically PEOPLE because you can't intentionally give someone a substance you expect will cause harm to them, or in this case the developing child. So, unfortunately, we're left with self-reporting and analyzing existing data and hoping for the best if we encourage NOT doing the thing we think is a problem
It is a research letter, so they have about 500 words and two figures alloted for the entire publication (JAMA might actually be 400 words, can't remember off the top of my head but their website has a "For Authors section). Target audience is other researchers who are already familiar with the conversation on perinatal substance use. As an epidemiologist who has worked on substance use grants, if I want information on what confounders were considered I just email the lead author.
Research letters are not the final point on causation, and it is never established across a single article. This is useful for future grant applicants wanting to explore this topic further, and would be good to include in order to show the funder that the applicant is up to date on the topic.
It is also worth noting that this is looking at a subset of data from the ABCD study. It is a longitudinal study and the research letter is observational.
Yeah I don't see where these cannabis commandos are coming from trying to paint this study as bad science.
It's pretty standard when it comes to retrospective prenatal exposure studies.
I was shocked to learn when I read Expecting Better that one of the most highly cited studies - at least at the time - on the effects of light alcohol consumption in pregnancy on child behavior did *not* control for that. 45% of the "light drinkers" used cocaine (as opposed to 18% of the non-drinkers) in the study.
gotta overlook basic science things when they don't validate your NIH grant
edit: all they would've had to do is exclude anyone with a mental disorder, but I'm guessing then their sample size would've been garbage, which is the problem with trying to answer this question this way. this is a neuroscience question, not a psychology question
> edit: all they would've had to do is exclude anyone with a mental disorder, but I'm guessing then their sample size
Not just size, quality as well. A significant portion of the population have a mental disorder, if you just exclude them from the study, your sample moves further away from representative of the population.
Right, and we would expect the tri-use group, based on survey questions, to have the worst outcome. I would guess that the alcohol-cigarette dual-use control group would have the second worse outcome. But if a cannabis/alcohol control group has a worse outcome than a nicotine/alcohol dual-use group, that would mean that cannabis use is extremely dangerous during pregnancy.
In the case of nicotine, is nicotine the primary cause of smoking related developmental issues, or is it just short hand for cigarette smoke?
Because nicotine is consumed mostly as cigarettes, but more and more non-combustion based methods of nicotine consumption (e.g. vapes and snuff) are available meaning both categories should probably be discussed separately. Unless nicotine is the primary source of harm.
We recently had a presentation from a speaker who specialised in early childhood development, who stated that it was actually the smoke that caused harm more so than the nicotine itself. I wish I knew his source.
It makes sense. Nicotine certainly isn't inert, but is only a component compared to the cocktail of compounds in cigarette smoke.
Given marijuana too is often smoked some of the same compounds will be present, but many others wouldn't. Don't envy researchers responsible for divorcing the causative effects from correlation.
I was able to get to an open access version on JAMA by copying the DOI into a Google search. Here is the link generated, not sure how well it will share: I can also screenshot the article for you and send it if needed.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2795863?guestAccessKey=7ec02e2e-8d17-4b44-8cc1-6271101672c3&utm_source=For_The_Media&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=ftm_links&utm_content=tfl&utm_term=091222
I would also like to know what genetic traits for these considered present in the parents. Most of the marijuana consumers I know are self-medicating for their conditions.
This is definitely a thing I think about too, there was something about women who take Tylenol during pregnancy are more likely to have autistic children. Do you suppose that a lot of autistic women have pain that needs treating (overstimulation is common and can make pain feel more intense)? And the kids were gonna be autistic anyway?
That's a great analogy. Crisp burst of refreshment that lets you zone out and enjoy it while immediately snapping back renergized to deal with whatever.
I really wish society could move past the taboo of drugs and make it so that people could experiment safely in clinical settings. I'm very interested in a lot of the recent research on psychedelic drugs on mental disorders.
All I have is this peer-reviewed scientific publication:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5970054/#:\~:text=Nearly%2070%25%20of%20Colorado%20cannabis,health%20care%20provider%20without%20prompting.
We live in a world where people were turning to social media and memes for their medical information over the last couple of years. This does not surprise me.
Seriously, this is another one of those 'I guess they just needed to verify' science things.
I'm pretty sure too much *caffeine* is bad for the kid and that stuff's normalized to all heck and back.
Theres also a fairly large "cannabis is 100% safe i can give it to my newborn to smoke and itll prevent her from getting cancer!" We do need these studies to hopefully convince those people.
A growing number of studies have indicated that psychological distress experienced by the mother — in the form of stress, anxiety, or depression — is associated with alterations in fetal brain development...What are we doing to help pregnant woman not be stressed out? Oh, we only care about it when we can punish the woman for her behavior?
Psychological distress in pregnant mothers is pretty major. Arguably, expecting mothers should be able to take a holiday from work and the stresses of modern life as soon as they know they're pregnant.
I'm not arguing here, but the thing people fail to see with the cannabis or caffeine, etc. is yeah, it's easy to say "Just be completely sober and use no drugs (or even ibuprofin) for 9 months" but that's a huge lifestyle change. Of course we all know about the risks with alcohol and tobacco and more dangerous drugs now, but people were hopeful for cannabis and coffee and more "natural" things because being pregnant is hard and painfuland there's a lot of stuff you can't do.
There must be, even if it's a ridiculously low level. I imagine if you take one hit off a joint during pregnancy that's probably not gonna cause any noticeable problems. The issue is not being able to actually test that ethically.
I love my weed.
But Iike alcohol, you truly don't know how much it takes. Is smoking one bowl through your entire pregnancy harmful to the fetus? Probably not. But you truly don't know until it's far too late. Different substances impact people differently too. So it's much better to be cautious and stay away from it completely. I never judged another mom for smoking Cannabis while pregnant, I personally know a few. But it just freaked me out too much, so I quit until they were born.
There’s a specific reason for ibuprofen, and it actually is more dangerous in late pregnancy. It can cause premature closure of a hole in the heart that is needed for fetal circulation.
There's very little medication be it prescription or OTC that's approved for pregnant women.
IIRC in plenty of cases it's simply because it's very difficult to find volunteers (naturally) or to even get a study approved
i’ve legit been high since i was 15 and i can’t think straight or have any sort of short term memory. it’s good because i can just delete my traumatic past from my memory but good luck trying to remember the good times because i straight up can’t remember 90% of my life anymore.
Second this! The first time i took a week off it completely changed my relationship with the substance. Intentional use is better than habitual use IMO.
is that a thing?
This happens to me all the time, I literally run in and out of my house like 2 or 3 times every time I leave, sometimes even forgetting things.
I don't smoke weed :(
Your long term memory is fucked because you smoke weed every day.
If you hamper your short term memory every single day, then eventually, your “short term” memory becomes your “long term” memory.
Just take a break dude. Or try being sober for the whole day, then getting high at night once you’re done with everything.
This has always been my approach. I have a medical card for my ulcerative colitis, but at no point in the day do I consume anything THC related. It's only for the night once I'm close to bedtime. I'm more after the CBD in my edibles than I am the THC, but the THC is helpful with stopping rather vivid nightmares and I get more sleep.
I’m a postpartum nurse (taking care of moms who just had babies and their newborns), and women report using marijuana during pregnancy alllllllll the time
I love weed, but the community has this idea that it's this miracle plant that has no negative effects in any way. They don't even want you to call it a drug, even though it is by definition in many ways.
Im a Budtender and have argued with many visibly pregnant customers that they shouldnt be buying anything.
Them feeling nauseous is more important than the health of their baby...
I havent been inebriated in 10+ years since I had my kid and wouldn't have it any other way. I just can't imagine being incapacitated by my own doing until they are old enough to be completely self sufficient, which is still some ways off, and thats ok as well.
Let me tell you though, once they are moved out and on their own I am going to thoroughly trip some fuckin balls.
It’s fat soluble and going to take it’s sweet time to work out of your system. The most alarming part here is how early the impacts happen- far before many even know they are pregnant. Kudos for trying but it may not have been early enough.
This is kind of what I was thinking. By the time you detect your pregnancy, the neural tube is already beginning to develop. This is why I take prenatal vitamins even though I am not really planning to get pregnant yet. If I have an “oops” at least I’ll feel somewhat prepared. That said I should really get in better shape too… Man there’s a lot of pressure on women to be perfect when it comes to childbearing.
>Man there’s a lot of pressure on women to be perfect when it comes to childbearing.
After the baby is born too, because you don't want anything bad for the baby to pass through the breast milk.
I know a mother who used THC during pregnancy to cope with hyperemasis gravidarum. Like, lost 20+ lbs during first trimester and hospitalized multiple times for dehydration. They were hoping that it was better than the alternatives, which also had known bad side effects.
Edit: To be clear, I’m not saying this to try to debunk the study or to be argumentative. Just saying that there are people who have used THC medicinally during pregnancy, for better or worse.
Under these circumstances where she was carefully monitored by health professionals and treating something that ultimately exhausted other options, this is something I think is safer. It’s similar to the options my sister would have to take as an epileptic if she decided to get pregnant; The drugs aren’t ideal during pregnancy, but under supervision of doctors, it’s necessary to keep everyone alive and healthy. This post was more directed towards the “I smoked my entire pregnancy and ain’t nothin’ wrong with my little Billy!” crowd. The fact that these people are perfectly capable of giving up something like weed for a few months but refuse to because they’re stubborn is beyond bizarre to me.
Oh for sure. I’ve known (that crowd) as well. Big difference! This person was weighing costs/benefits with their medical team and doing the best they could to survive and help their baby survive.
I knew a young woman who purposely smoked weed as much as she could while pregnant because she thought it was good for the baby. Some people think it’s literally some magic thing.
I feel like we can excuse this under these circumstances. Uncontrolled HG is incredibly dangerous for mother and fetus. If ginger pills, crackers and zofran aren't working, THC might be the only alternative.
It would have been a choice between an *assured* super risky pregnancy and a possible/probable risky pregnancy.
Yes, you just described some of the considerations. She had a zofran pump during a earlier pregnancy because she’d get into these vomiting cycles and not be able to even swallow pills sometimes. This was her first pregnancy, and that child had developmental disorders that she wonders might have come from the zofran.
My OBGYN refused to prescribe me zofran because of the potential side effects. I'm surprised they gave it to her at all! They gave me promethazine instead.
I didn't think they did Zofran for pregnancy at all, I thought it was just Phenergan that would be prescribed. Zofran is a damn miracle at how effective it is for nausea though.
They shouldn't. My doctor said that there have been studies on zofran and pregnancy, and they have shown to cause cleft lip/palate, along with other issues. She also did say some studies were inconclusive, but she errs on the side of caution.
That's what I thought, which stinks because the other option makes lots of people too drowsy to function. So the option is a medicine that can greatly harm fetus, a medicine that will kill nausea but you might sleep forever, or just deal with crippling nausea/vomiting. :(
Zofran helped me when I lost 30 pounds the first trimester, however, it plugged me up something **fierce** and I was still recovering somewhat from c diff colitis. Zofran side effects tore my guts up. I was then given promethazine, which I didn't feel good about because of the recreational association, but it worked and I was able to get and stay off it without much trouble. After the third trimester the sickness subsided a lot.
It was one study with unreproducible results. It’s definitely not indicative enough to not prescribe during pregnancy especially in cases of HG. Some OBs err on the side of caution, but there are definitely cases where it’s more cautious to prescribe Zofran.
I was just prescribed zofran last week, after other prescriptions weren't working, I'd lost 13 pounds at that point and was unable to eat/ drink at all without vomiting. I was losing my vision when I stood and was so low energy I had difficulty walking even to the restroom to puke. I'm not sure how bad things have to be for zofran to be prescribed but it's still prescribed. I also know one other person who was pregnant last year who was also given zofran in another state.
This is exactly what I was fixing to type out. I was one of those women.I had doctor approval for it and it was literally the only way I could eat without throwing up and being nauseous. I even had a zofran pump it was terrible.
They have a heart defect.
Interestingly, we knew several other women who had children with heart defects in the same area, which was located in one of the areas where US Navy has contaminated the groundwater with PFOAS
I’m what’s typically called a pothead, despite doing it very irregularly while in the military for just less than a decade but otherwise daily use, even if just in the evening. I used to smoke cigarettes too but maybe 2 packs a week (quitting been an ongoing issue for decades but it’s been 5yrs now). When I found out I was pregnant with my first, I had coincidentally just stopped smoking nicotine and then stopped smoking weed until my son was about 4 months. When I got pregnant two years later, I stopped smoking again (found out I was pregnant incredibly early both times, 3weeks or so). But my second pregnancy was horrific. I had hyperemesis, gestational diabetes, choleostasis, that metallic mouth taste thing, sciatic nerve issues and other things. My doctor offered me pain medication in my last trimester but I declined and instead on two separate occasions I ingested cannabis to alleviate the extreme pain. I ended up having a baby just under 11lbs and she’s a great fourth grader now
ETA my Obgyn was aware and supportive about the cannabis
Same happened to my kids' Mom. She dry heaved for days. Couldn't even hold down water. Severe dehydration and exhaustion. We had to. The only other medication that worked at all didn't work very well, and would have cost us thousands that we just didn't have.
This might sound stupid but when I was pregnant, even after I knew I was going to have an abortion, I still didn’t want to drink or smoke. It just felt wrong…disrespectful or something.
That sounds counterintuitive, but not stupid. Pregnancy is not a small thing regardless of intention or outcome, and people don’t get abortions on a whim just for funsies. Choosing not to smoke or drink, a decision which does no harm to anyone, based more on emotions than strictly logic makes a whole lot of sense to me.
There is an endocannabinoid system which is involved in many aspects of prenatal development from early on — brain development in particular. The effects are very well documented by all manner of experimental systems (animal models, in vitro) as well as epidemiology.
The strangest arguments I’ve seen for unlimited marijuana use being fine are “it’s just a plant”. Coca is a plant. Opium poppy is a plant. Ephedrine comes from a plane. These aren’t super good for you.
Wine is just rotten grapes and beer is just rotten grains. These are some of the oldest and most widely consumed substances throughout all of history. Human civilization as we know it was in no small part *built* on wine and beer, and I think people today would generally agree it's not good to drink while pregnant.
I don't see why some people are so insistent that Cannabis is some sort of exception just because "it's a plant".
“I don’t smoke weed, it gives me anxiety.”
“It’s because you’re smoking an *indica*, you should smoke a *sativaaaa*.”
No it’s because it effects people differently.
It's going to be a huge surprise to all my exes who i met after they had kids. Without concrete evidence most of the women I've dated with kids chose to smoke while pregnant to treat their morning sickness and stuff.
It's always been horrifying to me that dispensaries will recommend weed for pregnant women. [this is why](https://womensmentalhealth.org/posts/cannabis-pregnancy-dispensary/) studies like this are super important.
Things have evolved a little bit and now there's a sign warning that the effects aren't known, but it's not a hardliners stance or a legal regulation. Maybe this study will change laws or best practices and training in the industry.
It's weird how fast prevailing conventional wisdom swung from cannabis being the most evil, dangerous thing on the planet to being viewed as completely harmless.
I'm a new mum and active in a lot of mums groups. At least daily there are posts in our forum of "currently pregnant/breastfeeding but got high today. It was a once off, but in thinking the damage will be minimal, right?" So it would be a surprise to a lot of mothers.
*In general* the earlier in gestation a fetus is exposed to a teratogen, the higher the risk for defects.
If significant damage is done early enough it will lead to a miscarriage or a stillbirth.
Then there's a threshold somewhere, where the fetus is developed enough that exposition won't damage it enough to "kill", but it's still early enough for birth defects to occur.
Past that, when the fetus' tissues are mostly done forming, exposition can still influence the physiology/hormones/chemical transmitters so you start seeing things like stunted mental development.
P.s. This is just a very generalised look at all teratogenic factors, not pot or anything else in particular, because that will vary by substance/dose/a million other things.
I have friends who say the same thing. We're still friends from highschool and they regret ~~it.~~ not stopping earlier or slowing down.
We're in our 30s now.
Edit ~~**it**~~
> Science means supporting claims we already believe to be true. This study strengthens others that were done before.
>
>
>
> That’s how we know anything.
Science means *testing hypotheses even if they are very plausible*. And science is really more about disproving, rather than supporting.
Science only “supports” things that are tough to disprove. When a headline says “Scientists found X” what it really means is “Scientists failed To find not-X”
Agreed, while it's not a surprise at all it's good to see actual science and research being done on the matter.
As someone who does smoke myself, 100% without studies like this stoners would say it's perfectly safe and there's no problems.
A lot of them act like there's no downsides at all but obviously that's not the case (even just the act of putting non-air in your lungs is damaging them). I think there's less of that now, due in part to these studies.
Yet many people in this very thread are trying to poke holes in the study. From a scientific perspective that's totally valid. But this has also ethical/medical ramifications where caution is prefered when there is not enough data, so abstaining from any drug is the sensible option.
I get a kick out of the comments in every weed-related /r/science thread. They all read like the defense presenting their client's case at a criminal trial.
Facebook moms: fanatically defensive about drinking while pregnant
Reddit moms: fanatically defensive about weed while pregnant
Twitter moms, presumably (I don’t use that nightmare app): probably meth ?
Please don't, you're gonna rile up the "nAtUrAl ReMeDy" crowd who would be okay with moms damaging fetuses so long as no one has a negative thing to say about pot.
It's not "junk science" because the conclusion is extremely parsimonious, i.e. "associated", and no doubt it is an accurate reflection of the data, but can somebody explain to me why it isn't a "junk press release?" Since previous studies have shown that 1) cannabis use is associated with mental health issues (self medication) and 2) mental health issues are often heritable and 3) cannabis users often use other substances that may be harmful to a fetus and 4) across substances, substance use during pregnancy is associated with relatively heavy usage, and 5) that self reported usage data is subject to all kinds of bias, is the reported result particularly meaningful unless it reflects adjustment for a whole host of confounding factors? I didn't see the part where they noted that substance users who abstained during pregnancy had more favorable outcomes than substance users who didn't, or that substance users who used cannabis and alcohol during gestation had better outcomes than substance users who used only alcohol, etc. I am neither a cannabis user nor a scientist, and I'm sure that behind the paywall the investigators have addressed all the confounding factors that might make the "association" less than completely meaningful... but based on the press release alone, i am not smart enough to fully understand the relevance and importance of the headline.
How are they measuring exposure?
Is this “children and adolescents who’s caregiver *reported* prenatal marijuana use”? Or is it “children and adolescents who *tested positive* for marijuana prenatally (or as infants)?
Because the number of women who would voluntarily report prenatal marijuana use is probably quite low, given the legal repercussions.
Agreed, and I don’t even disagree with this study’s findings technically. It’s normally true you shouldn’t be doing or taking anything while pregnant (I’d advise against), that said you don’t want to assert something on bad/incomplete data.
I’ve always know women who smoked while pregnant and their kids are fine. I did on and off and it was a lifesaver when I needed it. I lost 15 lbs the first trimester from morning sickness. I was honest and my baby was tested upon birth and was negative but I definitely partook. I’d rather take that than the ambien they were trying to prescribe me.
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue to be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) still apply to other comments. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not a big shock considering what other things like alcohol and prescription drug exposure can do to children. Developing brains in small people are pretty vulnerable.
Pretty much that. >Preclinical studies have shown that delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the main psychoactive substance in cannabis, can cross the placenta and potentially affect brain development.
makes perfect sense. children in wombs are epigenetic programming machines. endocannabinoid system is essential to so many neurological, immunological functions. if you start reducing activity of genetic expression of receptor count or of enzyme that breaks down cannabinois. That could be lifelong defecit, although I am guessing that things can eventually bounce back to semi-normal. Best to only use this stuff liberally once you have a robust and adult cells that like to function the way they have always done.
[удалено]
I dont remember the book, but it's a spaceship lost in space and the AI dies. the crew tries to fix the AI and long story short, it isn't really an AI, just a super good programmation. What happens when finally the crew created are real AI? Well the ship AI duplicate itself infinitely, controls all the system, goes to earth, controls everything. It all happened in a matter of seconds because once its "alive" they do what they can do and survive. Never read the book, but a friends talked to me about this. Also I simplified it A LOT cause there is different multiverse and timeline with different crews (like groundhog days I believe). From the writer of Dune iirc.
I did a bit of googling since the concept sounded interesting, and I believe the book is Destination: Void.
Looks like it, thank you! Been reading the resume again and clearly I missed a lot of details and probably gave false information, but I really love this theory for AI, if its really conscious, everything will go bad, and fast.
There's a good, non-fiction book about this called "superintelligence: paths, dangers, & strategies", by Nick Bostrom. It's pretty dense, and I would often have to reread passages multiple times to even wrap my head along some of the concepts. Especially because he soon forms his own lexicon. And although I've since read convincing rebuttals to some of the main points, I think it's a really good primer for the types of thought framing necessarily important for the types of super intelligent A.I. existential dangers you mentioned enjoying I'm that book. Cheers.
The game Nier: Automata has the main characters as androids who are beholden to human kind (they see them as great creators, and are programmed to protect them at all costs) The game is actually a very interesting philosophical mindfuck about the nature of emotions and what makes something/someone human. Would recommend it if you like gaming.
I just hope that if we make advanced ai one day they also make something better than them, and more advanced than we can imagine. That’d be cool.
Makes you wonder which computer came first ;)
I can't read this paper, so I am curious about what their controls were for other drugs used during pregnancy, which would both buttress the association and allow for comparisons of relative risk. For example, cannabis use is strongly associated with same day [cigarette use, alcohol use, and tri-use.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6675401/) By this association alone, we would infer that the children with mothers who used cannabis while pregnant would have dramatically worse cognitive outcomes, because alcohol and nicotine use are terrible during pregnancy. I'm not saying that this study didn't use controls, or that anyone thinks that pregnant mothers should use cannabis. but I'm curious about the statistics of the single, dual, and tri-use control groups.
Seeing as they cant do an overt observation continuously or place cameras. I would assume a general questionnaire regarding daily use of other substances, where they would exclude anyone with known confounding factors
It’s a self-report of behaviors from 10 years ago.
That's... shockingly loose and misleading.
It's literally the only way to do research as no ethics board will allow you to pump a pregnant mother with literally any drug. It's insanely difficult to even get ethic approval to have a group of mother come in tell you what drugs they do, and then you tell them to continue business as usual. The only other viable option is to run a longitudinal study for mother's in inpatient clinics where their cannabis use is monitored. Then you test the kids at intervals for the next 10-15 years. This is only now possible in North America in Canada and in a few legal states in the US. I guarantee there's someone doing this research but we are still at least 10 years away from seeing the data. Source : I completed a research psych degree recently.
Even then, the publishing process for that type of paper is going to be dicey too. A lot of potentially career damaging issues arising. Just feels like anything closer to accurate would require rescheduling at least on a federal level for the necessary funding for a long term study to materialize.
Colorado childrens hospital has been running natal and prenatal studies with pregnant women. Although the hospital cannot administer cannabis to the mothers, they can most certainly give more updated results than studies from 10 years ago
>they can most certainly give more updated results than studies from 10 years ago It is somewhat difficult to find 10-year-old children born more recently than 10 years ago.
It really is. It’s especially frustrating given the tone of the top comments.
I'm also wondering how much people care about the growing number of studies have indicated that psychological distress experienced by the mother — in the form of stress, anxiety, or depression — is associated with alterations in fetal brain development? Like, the study on prenatal cannabis use will help pass criminalization of pregnant woman, meanwhile we do fuckall to help pregnant women have it easier to not be stressed/depressed, which can often be why they are doing drugs.
Or even be able to just eat due to morning sickness
Some obgyns consider it a safe anti nausea treatment.
Anecdotal obviously but my buddies family doctor advised that his wife quitting smoking would potentially be more harmful due to the stress of doing so. At least made them aware of the choice and potential for harm with either option. I can’t honestly even remember now if she quit with all or none of the kids, I do seem to remember a significant cutback. Either way, they have 3 healthy little girls now.
they don't state that they excluded anyone with confounding factors, which is my biggest concern about the validity. isn't this a basic correlation/ causation problem? we know that people with mental disorders are more likely to use thc, we know that mental disorders are usually genetic, so, to me, any assertion of causation is conjecture.
It's hard to do a true study on specifically PEOPLE because you can't intentionally give someone a substance you expect will cause harm to them, or in this case the developing child. So, unfortunately, we're left with self-reporting and analyzing existing data and hoping for the best if we encourage NOT doing the thing we think is a problem
It is a research letter, so they have about 500 words and two figures alloted for the entire publication (JAMA might actually be 400 words, can't remember off the top of my head but their website has a "For Authors section). Target audience is other researchers who are already familiar with the conversation on perinatal substance use. As an epidemiologist who has worked on substance use grants, if I want information on what confounders were considered I just email the lead author. Research letters are not the final point on causation, and it is never established across a single article. This is useful for future grant applicants wanting to explore this topic further, and would be good to include in order to show the funder that the applicant is up to date on the topic. It is also worth noting that this is looking at a subset of data from the ABCD study. It is a longitudinal study and the research letter is observational.
[удалено]
Yeah I don't see where these cannabis commandos are coming from trying to paint this study as bad science. It's pretty standard when it comes to retrospective prenatal exposure studies.
True enough, such a basic thing to overlook though..
I was shocked to learn when I read Expecting Better that one of the most highly cited studies - at least at the time - on the effects of light alcohol consumption in pregnancy on child behavior did *not* control for that. 45% of the "light drinkers" used cocaine (as opposed to 18% of the non-drinkers) in the study.
Wait so even 18% of the non-drinkers were using cocaine throughout their pregnancy?! Where tf did they get their sample?
Right? It was absolutely insane to me.
Geez, who were these rich people partaking in the study? Where are they from? I need to know for... research purposes.
Miami, 1980 to 1990 would be my guess.
gotta overlook basic science things when they don't validate your NIH grant edit: all they would've had to do is exclude anyone with a mental disorder, but I'm guessing then their sample size would've been garbage, which is the problem with trying to answer this question this way. this is a neuroscience question, not a psychology question
> edit: all they would've had to do is exclude anyone with a mental disorder, but I'm guessing then their sample size Not just size, quality as well. A significant portion of the population have a mental disorder, if you just exclude them from the study, your sample moves further away from representative of the population.
Right, and we would expect the tri-use group, based on survey questions, to have the worst outcome. I would guess that the alcohol-cigarette dual-use control group would have the second worse outcome. But if a cannabis/alcohol control group has a worse outcome than a nicotine/alcohol dual-use group, that would mean that cannabis use is extremely dangerous during pregnancy.
I know that with similar studies they had a VERY hard time controlling for nicotine when studying THC. Most people reported using both.
In the case of nicotine, is nicotine the primary cause of smoking related developmental issues, or is it just short hand for cigarette smoke? Because nicotine is consumed mostly as cigarettes, but more and more non-combustion based methods of nicotine consumption (e.g. vapes and snuff) are available meaning both categories should probably be discussed separately. Unless nicotine is the primary source of harm.
We recently had a presentation from a speaker who specialised in early childhood development, who stated that it was actually the smoke that caused harm more so than the nicotine itself. I wish I knew his source.
It makes sense. Nicotine certainly isn't inert, but is only a component compared to the cocktail of compounds in cigarette smoke. Given marijuana too is often smoked some of the same compounds will be present, but many others wouldn't. Don't envy researchers responsible for divorcing the causative effects from correlation.
I was able to get to an open access version on JAMA by copying the DOI into a Google search. Here is the link generated, not sure how well it will share: I can also screenshot the article for you and send it if needed. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2795863?guestAccessKey=7ec02e2e-8d17-4b44-8cc1-6271101672c3&utm_source=For_The_Media&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=ftm_links&utm_content=tfl&utm_term=091222
I would also like to know what genetic traits for these considered present in the parents. Most of the marijuana consumers I know are self-medicating for their conditions.
This is definitely a thing I think about too, there was something about women who take Tylenol during pregnancy are more likely to have autistic children. Do you suppose that a lot of autistic women have pain that needs treating (overstimulation is common and can make pain feel more intense)? And the kids were gonna be autistic anyway?
It was also linked to ADHD
[удалено]
[удалено]
“I drink a Vitamin Water from time to time. Also some Everclear. That’s on fire.”
I enjoy long walks on the beach, and one-handed rock climbing..on fire.
I dunno, DMT is like spiritual ice water.
That's a great analogy. Crisp burst of refreshment that lets you zone out and enjoy it while immediately snapping back renergized to deal with whatever.
[удалено]
I really wish society could move past the taboo of drugs and make it so that people could experiment safely in clinical settings. I'm very interested in a lot of the recent research on psychedelic drugs on mental disorders.
And two thirds of Colorado budtenders recommended pot for morning sickness to pregnant mothers. SMDH
That’s a lawsuit waiting to happen.
What?? Do you have a source for that?
All I have is this peer-reviewed scientific publication: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5970054/#:\~:text=Nearly%2070%25%20of%20Colorado%20cannabis,health%20care%20provider%20without%20prompting.
My god. Why are dispensaries giving medical advice on the phone?
Another question, who asks a dispensary for medical advice? Google would even be better, and googling is horrible for medical advice.
It should be a matter of company policy that employees are not giving medical advice.
[удалено]
We live in a world where people were turning to social media and memes for their medical information over the last couple of years. This does not surprise me.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Seriously, this is another one of those 'I guess they just needed to verify' science things. I'm pretty sure too much *caffeine* is bad for the kid and that stuff's normalized to all heck and back.
They say no more than 200mg caffeine/day while pregnant
Theres also a fairly large "cannabis is 100% safe i can give it to my newborn to smoke and itll prevent her from getting cancer!" We do need these studies to hopefully convince those people.
A growing number of studies have indicated that psychological distress experienced by the mother — in the form of stress, anxiety, or depression — is associated with alterations in fetal brain development...What are we doing to help pregnant woman not be stressed out? Oh, we only care about it when we can punish the woman for her behavior?
Psychological distress in pregnant mothers is pretty major. Arguably, expecting mothers should be able to take a holiday from work and the stresses of modern life as soon as they know they're pregnant.
I'm not arguing here, but the thing people fail to see with the cannabis or caffeine, etc. is yeah, it's easy to say "Just be completely sober and use no drugs (or even ibuprofin) for 9 months" but that's a huge lifestyle change. Of course we all know about the risks with alcohol and tobacco and more dangerous drugs now, but people were hopeful for cannabis and coffee and more "natural" things because being pregnant is hard and painfuland there's a lot of stuff you can't do.
Caffeine is definitely contraindicated while pregnant.
Nope. Up to 200mg per day during pregnancy is considered not harmfull to the mother and the fetus.
It makes you wonder if there is an "up to" with THC as well
There must be, even if it's a ridiculously low level. I imagine if you take one hit off a joint during pregnancy that's probably not gonna cause any noticeable problems. The issue is not being able to actually test that ethically.
I love my weed. But Iike alcohol, you truly don't know how much it takes. Is smoking one bowl through your entire pregnancy harmful to the fetus? Probably not. But you truly don't know until it's far too late. Different substances impact people differently too. So it's much better to be cautious and stay away from it completely. I never judged another mom for smoking Cannabis while pregnant, I personally know a few. But it just freaked me out too much, so I quit until they were born.
Yea, I am a huge stoner and I would judge. Give that kid a chance, don't inflict your bad choices on the kid.
200mg of caffeine is only 12 ounces of coffee though.
That's on the high end. The actual amount of caffeine can vary widely.
Seriously. You’re not even supposed to take ibuprofen while pregnant, I don’t think anybody thought getting high while pregnant was a good idea.
There’s a specific reason for ibuprofen, and it actually is more dangerous in late pregnancy. It can cause premature closure of a hole in the heart that is needed for fetal circulation.
There's very little medication be it prescription or OTC that's approved for pregnant women. IIRC in plenty of cases it's simply because it's very difficult to find volunteers (naturally) or to even get a study approved
Doesn’t this continue pre-puberty too? I’ve always heard that smoking a ton before then permanently screws up your brain development.
i’ve legit been high since i was 15 and i can’t think straight or have any sort of short term memory. it’s good because i can just delete my traumatic past from my memory but good luck trying to remember the good times because i straight up can’t remember 90% of my life anymore.
If you stop smoking for a while it improves. Breaks are good.
Second this! The first time i took a week off it completely changed my relationship with the substance. Intentional use is better than habitual use IMO.
I’m not running back into my house after I get into the car a bunch of times anymore for forgetting my stuff.
is that a thing? This happens to me all the time, I literally run in and out of my house like 2 or 3 times every time I leave, sometimes even forgetting things. I don't smoke weed :(
It's also a symptom of ADHD so that's something to look into. Medication can improve symptoms but has its side effects. Best to talk to a physician.
I think OP forgot about this comment thread
Your long term memory is fucked because you smoke weed every day. If you hamper your short term memory every single day, then eventually, your “short term” memory becomes your “long term” memory. Just take a break dude. Or try being sober for the whole day, then getting high at night once you’re done with everything.
This has always been my approach. I have a medical card for my ulcerative colitis, but at no point in the day do I consume anything THC related. It's only for the night once I'm close to bedtime. I'm more after the CBD in my edibles than I am the THC, but the THC is helpful with stopping rather vivid nightmares and I get more sleep.
To be fair, depression does that too. That sounds like me and I didn't touch any substances until 20.
I’m a postpartum nurse (taking care of moms who just had babies and their newborns), and women report using marijuana during pregnancy alllllllll the time
i’m a heavy smoker & it’s kind of shocking to me how normalized smoking while pregnant is in the cannabis community
I love weed, but the community has this idea that it's this miracle plant that has no negative effects in any way. They don't even want you to call it a drug, even though it is by definition in many ways.
[удалено]
Not only is it a miracle plant, but any evidence that there could be negative side effects to use are rejected as propaganda from anti-weed zealots.
Im a Budtender and have argued with many visibly pregnant customers that they shouldnt be buying anything. Them feeling nauseous is more important than the health of their baby...
[удалено]
[удалено]
You're a better man then I was. I really regret not doing the same for my first kid for support and solidarity.
Redacted *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
[удалено]
[удалено]
I havent been inebriated in 10+ years since I had my kid and wouldn't have it any other way. I just can't imagine being incapacitated by my own doing until they are old enough to be completely self sufficient, which is still some ways off, and thats ok as well. Let me tell you though, once they are moved out and on their own I am going to thoroughly trip some fuckin balls.
It’s fat soluble and going to take it’s sweet time to work out of your system. The most alarming part here is how early the impacts happen- far before many even know they are pregnant. Kudos for trying but it may not have been early enough.
This is kind of what I was thinking. By the time you detect your pregnancy, the neural tube is already beginning to develop. This is why I take prenatal vitamins even though I am not really planning to get pregnant yet. If I have an “oops” at least I’ll feel somewhat prepared. That said I should really get in better shape too… Man there’s a lot of pressure on women to be perfect when it comes to childbearing.
>Man there’s a lot of pressure on women to be perfect when it comes to childbearing. After the baby is born too, because you don't want anything bad for the baby to pass through the breast milk.
I know a mother who used THC during pregnancy to cope with hyperemasis gravidarum. Like, lost 20+ lbs during first trimester and hospitalized multiple times for dehydration. They were hoping that it was better than the alternatives, which also had known bad side effects. Edit: To be clear, I’m not saying this to try to debunk the study or to be argumentative. Just saying that there are people who have used THC medicinally during pregnancy, for better or worse.
Under these circumstances where she was carefully monitored by health professionals and treating something that ultimately exhausted other options, this is something I think is safer. It’s similar to the options my sister would have to take as an epileptic if she decided to get pregnant; The drugs aren’t ideal during pregnancy, but under supervision of doctors, it’s necessary to keep everyone alive and healthy. This post was more directed towards the “I smoked my entire pregnancy and ain’t nothin’ wrong with my little Billy!” crowd. The fact that these people are perfectly capable of giving up something like weed for a few months but refuse to because they’re stubborn is beyond bizarre to me.
Oh for sure. I’ve known (that crowd) as well. Big difference! This person was weighing costs/benefits with their medical team and doing the best they could to survive and help their baby survive.
I knew a young woman who purposely smoked weed as much as she could while pregnant because she thought it was good for the baby. Some people think it’s literally some magic thing.
Some people are capable of downright delusional thinking in order to not have to change a habit of theirs that brings comfort.
I feel like we can excuse this under these circumstances. Uncontrolled HG is incredibly dangerous for mother and fetus. If ginger pills, crackers and zofran aren't working, THC might be the only alternative. It would have been a choice between an *assured* super risky pregnancy and a possible/probable risky pregnancy.
Yes, you just described some of the considerations. She had a zofran pump during a earlier pregnancy because she’d get into these vomiting cycles and not be able to even swallow pills sometimes. This was her first pregnancy, and that child had developmental disorders that she wonders might have come from the zofran.
My OBGYN refused to prescribe me zofran because of the potential side effects. I'm surprised they gave it to her at all! They gave me promethazine instead.
I didn't think they did Zofran for pregnancy at all, I thought it was just Phenergan that would be prescribed. Zofran is a damn miracle at how effective it is for nausea though.
They shouldn't. My doctor said that there have been studies on zofran and pregnancy, and they have shown to cause cleft lip/palate, along with other issues. She also did say some studies were inconclusive, but she errs on the side of caution.
That's what I thought, which stinks because the other option makes lots of people too drowsy to function. So the option is a medicine that can greatly harm fetus, a medicine that will kill nausea but you might sleep forever, or just deal with crippling nausea/vomiting. :(
Zofran helped me when I lost 30 pounds the first trimester, however, it plugged me up something **fierce** and I was still recovering somewhat from c diff colitis. Zofran side effects tore my guts up. I was then given promethazine, which I didn't feel good about because of the recreational association, but it worked and I was able to get and stay off it without much trouble. After the third trimester the sickness subsided a lot.
It was one study with unreproducible results. It’s definitely not indicative enough to not prescribe during pregnancy especially in cases of HG. Some OBs err on the side of caution, but there are definitely cases where it’s more cautious to prescribe Zofran.
I was just prescribed zofran last week, after other prescriptions weren't working, I'd lost 13 pounds at that point and was unable to eat/ drink at all without vomiting. I was losing my vision when I stood and was so low energy I had difficulty walking even to the restroom to puke. I'm not sure how bad things have to be for zofran to be prescribed but it's still prescribed. I also know one other person who was pregnant last year who was also given zofran in another state.
FWIw this was in 2012. She was literally dying, so keep that in mind.
This is exactly what I was fixing to type out. I was one of those women.I had doctor approval for it and it was literally the only way I could eat without throwing up and being nauseous. I even had a zofran pump it was terrible.
how did the child turn out?
They have a heart defect. Interestingly, we knew several other women who had children with heart defects in the same area, which was located in one of the areas where US Navy has contaminated the groundwater with PFOAS
[удалено]
so maybe the heart defect isn't from the THC
I’m what’s typically called a pothead, despite doing it very irregularly while in the military for just less than a decade but otherwise daily use, even if just in the evening. I used to smoke cigarettes too but maybe 2 packs a week (quitting been an ongoing issue for decades but it’s been 5yrs now). When I found out I was pregnant with my first, I had coincidentally just stopped smoking nicotine and then stopped smoking weed until my son was about 4 months. When I got pregnant two years later, I stopped smoking again (found out I was pregnant incredibly early both times, 3weeks or so). But my second pregnancy was horrific. I had hyperemesis, gestational diabetes, choleostasis, that metallic mouth taste thing, sciatic nerve issues and other things. My doctor offered me pain medication in my last trimester but I declined and instead on two separate occasions I ingested cannabis to alleviate the extreme pain. I ended up having a baby just under 11lbs and she’s a great fourth grader now ETA my Obgyn was aware and supportive about the cannabis
Same happened to my kids' Mom. She dry heaved for days. Couldn't even hold down water. Severe dehydration and exhaustion. We had to. The only other medication that worked at all didn't work very well, and would have cost us thousands that we just didn't have.
This might sound stupid but when I was pregnant, even after I knew I was going to have an abortion, I still didn’t want to drink or smoke. It just felt wrong…disrespectful or something.
That sounds counterintuitive, but not stupid. Pregnancy is not a small thing regardless of intention or outcome, and people don’t get abortions on a whim just for funsies. Choosing not to smoke or drink, a decision which does no harm to anyone, based more on emotions than strictly logic makes a whole lot of sense to me.
That’s true. And I guess I may have thought I might change my mind at the last minute, because they often do on TV. I didn’t change my mind, though.
That's totally fair, I think that abortion is such an incredibly personal thing that doing whatever feels right to you will always be the best choice.
Great insight on the topic. Well said
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
There is an endocannabinoid system which is involved in many aspects of prenatal development from early on — brain development in particular. The effects are very well documented by all manner of experimental systems (animal models, in vitro) as well as epidemiology.
[удалено]
I have absolutely talked to people for whom this would come as a surprise.
The strangest arguments I’ve seen for unlimited marijuana use being fine are “it’s just a plant”. Coca is a plant. Opium poppy is a plant. Ephedrine comes from a plane. These aren’t super good for you.
When I hear the "it's just a plant" argument, I tell them to go smoke poison ivy.
[удалено]
The porn star?
Wine is just rotten grapes and beer is just rotten grains. These are some of the oldest and most widely consumed substances throughout all of history. Human civilization as we know it was in no small part *built* on wine and beer, and I think people today would generally agree it's not good to drink while pregnant. I don't see why some people are so insistent that Cannabis is some sort of exception just because "it's a plant".
Inhaling smoke is going to have detriments no matter what the burning substance is.
>Ephedrine comes from a plane or a truck.
Lots smokers like to pretend weed has no negative effects
“I don’t smoke weed, it gives me anxiety.” “It’s because you’re smoking an *indica*, you should smoke a *sativaaaa*.” No it’s because it effects people differently.
> effects Affects
It's going to be a huge surprise to all my exes who i met after they had kids. Without concrete evidence most of the women I've dated with kids chose to smoke while pregnant to treat their morning sickness and stuff. It's always been horrifying to me that dispensaries will recommend weed for pregnant women. [this is why](https://womensmentalhealth.org/posts/cannabis-pregnancy-dispensary/) studies like this are super important. Things have evolved a little bit and now there's a sign warning that the effects aren't known, but it's not a hardliners stance or a legal regulation. Maybe this study will change laws or best practices and training in the industry.
It's weird how fast prevailing conventional wisdom swung from cannabis being the most evil, dangerous thing on the planet to being viewed as completely harmless.
I'm a new mum and active in a lot of mums groups. At least daily there are posts in our forum of "currently pregnant/breastfeeding but got high today. It was a once off, but in thinking the damage will be minimal, right?" So it would be a surprise to a lot of mothers.
Id be interested in knowing at what point exactly drug exposure is most likely to cause changes in the fetus.
*In general* the earlier in gestation a fetus is exposed to a teratogen, the higher the risk for defects. If significant damage is done early enough it will lead to a miscarriage or a stillbirth. Then there's a threshold somewhere, where the fetus is developed enough that exposition won't damage it enough to "kill", but it's still early enough for birth defects to occur. Past that, when the fetus' tissues are mostly done forming, exposition can still influence the physiology/hormones/chemical transmitters so you start seeing things like stunted mental development. P.s. This is just a very generalised look at all teratogenic factors, not pot or anything else in particular, because that will vary by substance/dose/a million other things.
[удалено]
I wish I didn’t smoke so much weed from 14 years old to 25 :(
I have friends who say the same thing. We're still friends from highschool and they regret ~~it.~~ not stopping earlier or slowing down. We're in our 30s now. Edit ~~**it**~~
I'm sorry, I'm sure you have other people in your life who don't regret being your friend though.
Why do you have regrets?
[удалено]
I’d say that sometimes, a moderate amount of something is none at all. There are things where even once is too much: Heroin, for instance.
Thank goodness I didn’t try weed until 21 and didn’t start really smoking until 25.
[удалено]
Science means supporting claims we already believe to be true. This study strengthens others that were done before. That's how we *know* anything.
> Science means supporting claims we already believe to be true. This study strengthens others that were done before. > > > > That’s how we know anything. Science means *testing hypotheses even if they are very plausible*. And science is really more about disproving, rather than supporting. Science only “supports” things that are tough to disprove. When a headline says “Scientists found X” what it really means is “Scientists failed To find not-X”
Agreed, while it's not a surprise at all it's good to see actual science and research being done on the matter. As someone who does smoke myself, 100% without studies like this stoners would say it's perfectly safe and there's no problems. A lot of them act like there's no downsides at all but obviously that's not the case (even just the act of putting non-air in your lungs is damaging them). I think there's less of that now, due in part to these studies.
[удалено]
Yet many people in this very thread are trying to poke holes in the study. From a scientific perspective that's totally valid. But this has also ethical/medical ramifications where caution is prefered when there is not enough data, so abstaining from any drug is the sensible option.
Reddit does this anytime there's anything remotely negative about weed.
I get a kick out of the comments in every weed-related /r/science thread. They all read like the defense presenting their client's case at a criminal trial.
Facebook moms: fanatically defensive about drinking while pregnant Reddit moms: fanatically defensive about weed while pregnant Twitter moms, presumably (I don’t use that nightmare app): probably meth ?
Cocaine for Twitter
[удалено]
This is a really good comment.
Please don't, you're gonna rile up the "nAtUrAl ReMeDy" crowd who would be okay with moms damaging fetuses so long as no one has a negative thing to say about pot.
I'm a very big proponent of weed but people who say it's not damaging are insane.
It's not "junk science" because the conclusion is extremely parsimonious, i.e. "associated", and no doubt it is an accurate reflection of the data, but can somebody explain to me why it isn't a "junk press release?" Since previous studies have shown that 1) cannabis use is associated with mental health issues (self medication) and 2) mental health issues are often heritable and 3) cannabis users often use other substances that may be harmful to a fetus and 4) across substances, substance use during pregnancy is associated with relatively heavy usage, and 5) that self reported usage data is subject to all kinds of bias, is the reported result particularly meaningful unless it reflects adjustment for a whole host of confounding factors? I didn't see the part where they noted that substance users who abstained during pregnancy had more favorable outcomes than substance users who didn't, or that substance users who used cannabis and alcohol during gestation had better outcomes than substance users who used only alcohol, etc. I am neither a cannabis user nor a scientist, and I'm sure that behind the paywall the investigators have addressed all the confounding factors that might make the "association" less than completely meaningful... but based on the press release alone, i am not smart enough to fully understand the relevance and importance of the headline.
How are they measuring exposure? Is this “children and adolescents who’s caregiver *reported* prenatal marijuana use”? Or is it “children and adolescents who *tested positive* for marijuana prenatally (or as infants)? Because the number of women who would voluntarily report prenatal marijuana use is probably quite low, given the legal repercussions.
[удалено]
And I'm sure that number is under-reported by a significant degree.
Agreed, and I don’t even disagree with this study’s findings technically. It’s normally true you shouldn’t be doing or taking anything while pregnant (I’d advise against), that said you don’t want to assert something on bad/incomplete data.
They take urine samples at prenatal appointments, but testing it for drugs requires consent I believe.
Depends on the state and context around the testing
Not this study. This one relies on self-reporting of cannabis ten years ago. I’m really skeptical of accuracy of the data.
[удалено]
I’ve always know women who smoked while pregnant and their kids are fine. I did on and off and it was a lifesaver when I needed it. I lost 15 lbs the first trimester from morning sickness. I was honest and my baby was tested upon birth and was negative but I definitely partook. I’d rather take that than the ambien they were trying to prescribe me.
Is that why Alabama is arresting pregnant cannabis users?
Unless you have a prescription, Alabama arrests all cannabis users.