Chainer
Bluelighter
if that is you, CONGRATU-FUCKING-LATIONS UGLY!!!!!!!!!
-
CD Moderators: someguyontheinternet
Marijuana while pregnant
- Thread starter ineffableahimsa
- Start date
hamwaggle
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2012
- Messages
- 90
Why would you even risk it? This shouldn't be a discussion about whether or not it harms the baby or not. Who cares. If you cannot stop smoking pot for your CHILD'S health than frankly I don't think you deserve to have a child. That's really all that needs to be said.
szuko000
Bluelight Crew
I would avoid all substances if I could get preg (male) why risk it. Even caffeine and tylonal.
When my girl gets preg. I will quit everything too.
When my girl gets preg. I will quit everything too.
Newbierock
Bluelighter
So you quit to get your husband to stop bitching, and not to prevent any possible effects it could have on your child? God fucking damn i'm glad you ain't my mom.
Even if weed is mildly harmful at worst (and don't tell me it's harmless because it's not.) Surely you should be doing everything you fucking can to help your child? But no mommy can't handle giving up weed, so baby has to possibly suffer. Brilliant.
We'll see you on the news in 5 years when your kid shows up to school with half an ounce you just had laying around.
i against i
Bluelighter
this. i just don't understand how you could value being high a few times over potentially, however slim, harming your baby. selfishness to the extreme.
You all do know that according to a recent study, babies exposed to marijuana smoke during pregnancy had a much higher chance of not dying during the birthing process or being born will illnesses... correct? Which literally means, your child is less likely to be killed during pregnancy than in a sober mother.
For bluelight members to be so absolutely mis-informed is not something I'd expect.
i against i
Bluelighter
o rly? i call total bullshit. given that, you can't smoke in a hospital, thus, must be out of one for this to happen, where maternal death and risk of stillbirth are much higher due to not being surrounded by medical equipment and doctors, this is fucking stupid. especially considering that deaths during childbirth are low in the western world to begin with, how much "much higher" really be?
"Well, tonight, I found a study that seems to say just that! It's a sad little thing - an abstract of a study on the death of babies - yet vital facts can be learned from those soulless statistical studies. This one gave the infant death rates per 1,000 live births, and the drugs, if any, that the mother used during pregnancy.
A total of 2,964 babies were drug-tested at birth to see if they were positive for drugs - cocaine, opioids or cannabis were studied. 44% of the infants tested positive for all varieties of drugs, including the 3 being studied. During the first two years of their lives, 44 babies from the original group died. Since statistics are a drag to slog through, I'll cut right to the chase - the deaths per thousand live births - the numbers tell the story.
"No drugs at birth" deaths....... 15.7 deaths per 1000 live births
"Cocaine positive" deaths.......17.7 deaths per 1000 live births
"Opiate positive" deaths.......18.4 deaths per 1000 live births
"Cannabis positive" deaths.... 8.9 deaths per 1000 live births [5]
The cocaine and opiate babies have a higher death rate than the "No drugs" babies - that was to be expected. But look at the "cannabis" babies! Having extra cannabinoids in their bodies at birth (and likely later, from 2nd-hand exposure, or breast milk) seems to have some sort of a protective effect. The "cannabis" infants have a mortality rate almost half of what the "No drugs" infants have!"
You are quite the fool, as this study has shown, 15.7 deaths on average per 1000 live births. That is quite a lot, really. Shows how much you know. Secondly, this is speaking of smoking during the time you are pregnant.
Lofiel, if you want to quote a study and be looked at legitimately while calling justifiably skeptical people "fools", please source your post.
For a Greenlighter to try and tote facts and withhold a source-- well... it's actually exactly what I expect. Break the trend. Don't expect us to treat you as the Prophet. If you want to be looked at with credibility, you need to earn that shit, playa. The best way is to allow us to independently verify that you're not pulling numbers out of your ass and presenting them as fact.
For a Greenlighter to try and tote facts and withhold a source-- well... it's actually exactly what I expect. Break the trend. Don't expect us to treat you as the Prophet. If you want to be looked at with credibility, you need to earn that shit, playa. The best way is to allow us to independently verify that you're not pulling numbers out of your ass and presenting them as fact.
I am not in the mood to look through Granny Stormcrow 2012's list for this specific study. If you think I typed this up just as a joke, then feel free to pass on without enlightening yourself. Interested in just why the mortality rate declined by over 50% in babies exposed to marijuana? Go look it up, it'll take you about 3 minutes.
If you're pregnant and want to smoke weed, I will suggest to take it in either edible form or vaporized form, due to the fact that smoke is indeed harmful (but not as harmful as people claim)
Not in the mood? Then don't post random shit, treat it as factual, insult someone for reasonably calling you out on it, and then claim to be too lazy to link a study that you copy and pasted directly from roughly 8 hours ago. I mean, it'll only take 3 minutes, right?
I don't think you're making it up (though I admit I find your post hard to believe), it's the principle of the thing. We don't like it when governmental leaders and people with influence throw random facts based in their own headspace out to the public, and I sure as shit don't want pro-MMJ groups' works and words being discredited in the mainstream eye by people who make a habit of disguising their own opinions and assessments as legitimate by claiming "it was in this one study that I can't remember how to get to, but it was important enough for me to remember where the footnotes were place," either. What you posted is in the same league as my country's age-old anti-drug propaganda, even if you're doing it in reverse and in favor of the side that I support.
Fuck, man, is it really that hard to pretend like you've got some semblance on how to effectively present this kind of thing?
[EDIT:
Storm Crow Article You Pulled Information From
and then the source of the study Storm Crow pulled their information from, prefaced by the conclusion that doesn't definitively say anything about marijuana use whilst pregnant effecting infant mortality rates for better or for worse:
Last edited:
Hate to break it to you, but it's not my job to prove anything to you. I am answering for the original posters concerns about smoking whilst pregnant, and scientifically speaking if you eat or vaporize marijuana you can't actually harm the baby.
Also, I'm not saying marijuana caused the decrease in mortality rate, but I am saying it definitely has not shown to cause a higher mortality rate, or post-birth difficulties. Really, it's much safer than even taking prescription medication. Again, I posted this for the original poster so that they do not worry about marijuana consumption.
If the woman requires marijuana, she can consume it, I just do not believe smoking it is in the babies best interest. I was just very startled by the large percentage of mis-informed people in this thread so far that would make such claims as "THAT WOMAN IS TOTALLY SELFISH, FUCK HER, WHAT A BAD MOTHER" when they know absolutely shit all about the subject. I believe I've been very nice actually, compared to many of the people insulting the mothers.
Chainer
Bluelighter
You trollin' brah? Don't bother coming in here, insulting people, and spewing around your own bullshit conclusions from a study you refuse to cite, but have no issue with copying random lines of text. Even if you provided a link in the first place, what makes you think ONE study of it's kind proves much of anything at all? Nope, it's published, it MUST BE TRUE! I love your refusal to post a source to something you are directly quoting because you took it completely out of context in the first place.
Oh sure, your groundless claim, which you interpreted 100% incorrectly, most likely on purpose, sounds a bit more on base now. Thank god we have someone like you to 'protect the mothers,' all knowledgeable one.
but wait...
Fantastically played. Now shut up.
Edit: Thanks Jib for taking the time to pull the study, and you've pretty much hit every nail directly on the head here.
Oh sure, your groundless claim, which you interpreted 100% incorrectly, most likely on purpose, sounds a bit more on base now. Thank god we have someone like you to 'protect the mothers,' all knowledgeable one.
but wait...
Fantastically played. Now shut up.
Edit: Thanks Jib for taking the time to pull the study, and you've pretty much hit every nail directly on the head here.
Last edited:
Honestly, you have been nice. Super nice, even. My issue wasn't in your word choice or tone, it was that you were claiming things to be true that no one else had heard of before without any verifiability. You know, kind of like the claims that MDMA punches holes into your brain, or that taking LSD one time will burn your retinas out and have you thinking you're a glass of orange juice for the rest of your life.
I agree with the sentiment that everybody, including pregnant women, should get the medicine necessary to treat any medical issues they're dealing with. I didn't view that as the point of the thread, though... I was under the impression that the thread was about recreational drug use by pregnant women, not medical treatment for them. Regardless, though, my opinion's as an outsider looking in. I've never been a woman or pregnant and I doubt I'll ever be either of those in the future, so I guess my thoughts on it have to be taken with that in mind.
Oh, and one point of contest? It totally was your job to prove your claims, not just to me but to everyone who might come into this thread and see your post. The burden of proof lies with the one making a claim, not with those hearing it. I would've checked this out even if you had posted a link, and it was that much sweeter when I found that you either misinterpreted or misrepresented the findings of the research you were alluding to but not quite citing. No worries, though, I'm trying not to hold grudges over stupid shit these days.
