• D R U G
    C U L T U R E

    Welcome Guest

    ⭐️ Let's Have Fun! ⭐️

    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
    Fun 💃 Threads Overdosed? Click
  • Drug Culture Moderator: Cream Gravy?
  • Bluelight HOT THREADS
  • Let's Welcome Our NEW MEMBERS!

Is it wrong to not let a pregnant chick smoke weed?

Aros2k

Bluelighter
Joined
Oct 8, 2003
Messages
2,270
The people in this thread who are saying its not a bad thing to smoke pot while pregnant are fecking stupid. Think of that 'dumb' feeling you get when your stoned... what kind of effect is that gonna have on your unborn child?
 

Khadijah

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Dec 18, 2003
Messages
16,372
Location
Hell
Aros2k said:
The people in this thread who are saying its not a bad thing to smoke pot while pregnant are fecking stupid. Think of that 'dumb' feeling you get when your stoned... what kind of effect is that gonna have on your unborn child?
What affect is that gonna have on your child? Acccording to extensive medical studies, none.


Thats the stupidest logic i ever heard. I aint sayin you are stupid. but just that your statement is pretty ignorant.
 

phr

Ex-Bluelighter
Joined
May 25, 2004
Messages
36,746
Location
St. Charles, IL
Isn't it proven that if weed is taken at an early age it alter's one ability to learn and has effects on memory?

Even if it's not harmful to the fetus, I don't think you should subject anyone else to recreational drugs without their consent. That's just being selfish imo.
 

Khadijah

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Dec 18, 2003
Messages
16,372
Location
Hell
phrozen said:
Isn't it proven that if weed is taken at an early age it alter's one ability to learn and has effects on memory?

Even if it's not harmful to the fetus, I don't think you should subject anyone else to recreational drugs without their consent. That's just being selfish imo.
Where is that proved? thats the vague, " I think i heard it somewhere" type of reasoning, the 'Well, it seems bad, and i think i heard it was bad, and it makes sense if it was proved to be bad, so im sure someone prooved it somewhere" reasoning, and that dont prove nothing.

If you paid attention to the rest of the thread me and darthmom posted studies that showed that it did NOT make problems. and not to mention that the government puts out studies about marijuana year after year that go DIRECTLY against what studies from europe and independent researchers find. so if you do try and find a study, dont even bother to quote some US gov propaganda bullshit-ass "study" that finds exactly what they wanted it to find, cuz thats all lies and we all know it.

The studies in this thread were large scale, over a long term, and actually found that babies exposed to marijuana in the womb were SMARTER and more responsive to stimulus, interacted better with their parents and caretakers, had better adjustibility, were more even tempered, and many other things.

To all yall saying "Can you take the risk of exposing them, cuz you want the absolute BEST for your kid...." I say.....Can you take the risk of NOT exposing them if you want the best for your kid? Its shown to be HELPFUL lol....

Im just jokin in that last statement, cuz i dont think everyone should smoke weed if they dont want to. i aint someone whose like "the whole world should smoke weed all the time yaaay" Just a advocate of medical marijuana and of recreaional use by those who want to and can be smart with it.

But i think that no matter what mental hangups you might have about it, no matter what information that is stuck in your head, scientific evidence that proves the safety of it should probably change that. if not then youre just letting a "feeling" that been put there by anti drug ads, DARE, and the us government, override facts.

Imagine that you got told that drinking milk was bad for fetuses , for years and years, and then a study came out that said "Nope, milks cool, and the research actually shows that , if anything, it might even be GOOD for babies." What yall are doin in this thread, would be the same as in this hypothetical situation, sayin "well, they said it was bad for a long time, so that had to be for some reason! I still wont let my kid drink milk!"

And once again, A FETUS is not A CHILD, a child would experience the psychoactive effects of weed and experience it as a "high" , a fetus would not, so like i said before, it aint the same as giving a child drugs against their consent. Like the baby is gonna be like "whoa......mom, eat somethin i got the munchies in here!" Usin small amoutns of weed medicinally, in a tea, in food, or in a vaporizer, poses no thread to a fetus, are you familiar with the concept of a moot point? when you say "Well its still wrong to give a kid drugs against their consent" That would be a good example of one. it aint harmful to them, and they dont got consciousness yet or thoughts, so it dont matter anyways.
 

purplefirefly

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Jul 26, 2006
Messages
11,523
Location
Somewhere over the rainbow
phrozen said:
Isn't it proven that if weed is taken at an early age it alter's one ability to learn and has effects on memory?

Even if it's not harmful to the fetus, I don't think you should subject anyone else to recreational drugs without their consent. That's just being selfish imo.
Well said, I completely agree. :)
 
Last edited:

fasteddie

Bluelighter
Joined
Apr 13, 2007
Messages
1,638
Location
The Bronx, NY
lacey k said:
What affect is that gonna have on your child? Acccording to extensive medical studies, none.





Thats the stupidest logic i ever heard. I aint sayin you are stupid. but just that your statement is pretty ignorant.

Nine months is a long time.

All of you fellas, with your ideas of What People Ought To Do...

Stop everything, for nine months.

Nine months from now, come back and tell alla us how much fun it was.
 

phr

Ex-Bluelighter
Joined
May 25, 2004
Messages
36,746
Location
St. Charles, IL
I'm not going to search for studies. There are plenty out there to support each side. Just do a BL search about studies Pdx quoted in the big "heroin vs. weed" thread. That has plenty of studies that show cannabis, thc in particular, affects people negatively. And I'm assuming we're talking about taking it orally and vaping it...

I also disagree with what you said about fetuses. Drugs taken by the mother certainly affect its development. Whether they're psychoactive or not doesn't matter.

------------------------------

Whether it's nine months or three is besides the point. When you choose to have a child you are taking on long term responsibilities. If you can't last nine months without weed, maybe having and raising a child shouldn't be on your agenda.
 

SvnLyrBrto

Bluelighter
Joined
Apr 23, 2001
Messages
699
Location
San Francisco, Ca, US
fasteddie said:
Nine months is a long time.

All of you fellas, with your ideas of What People Ought To Do...

Stop everything, for nine months.

Nine months from now, come back and tell alla us how much fun it was.

I've done so, thanks... twice actually.

First time was when I was being treated for cancer. I wasn't about to subject myself to unknown drug interactions by mixing illicit drugs, or even plain old alcohol, with chemotherapy and the whole bloody cocktail of medicinal drugs I was on. That whole affair, from diagnosis to recovery from the last operation lasted about eight months.

(Actually though, I'm not sure I can claim to have been sober on that one. One thing I came away with after that last operation was a physical dependance on opiates. I had the morphine spinal thing before the operation proper, a morphine drip in my IV, that button you can push every seven minutes for more morphine into the IV, and a big old prescription for Percoset when I left the hospital.

Incidentally, that's why I have pretty much zero sympathy for people who whine about being "addicted" when they don't want to stop or reduce their drug use. Narcotic withdrawal is supposed to be the worst there is, and I'l admit that it's no fun. But it's *nothing* compared to chemotherapy.)

The second time (And this one includes *NO* abuse of prescription meds...), I went sober for over a year just because I decided I was bored with drugs and could spend the money better elsewhere. I went stir crazy on the occasional weekend before I came up with enough non-chemical-related activities to keep me occupied. But at the end of the day, there are plenty of fun ways to spend your time that don't involve getting fucked up.

So no... speaking from personal experience, it's *NOT* too much to ask that someone take a break from the partying and not get fucked up for nine lousy months.

Heck... when my mom did *exactly* that when she had me. She'd missed being a hippie by being too young but was making up for it in her partygirl days. When she found out she was pregnant, she quit everything... cold turkey... including cigarettes. After all, shrooms, NOS, ludes, and acid *might* not have deleterious effects on a fetus either... it's never been CONCLUSIVELY proven. But as a mother she felt that she owed me the responsibility to be certain.

Drugs are fun and all, but if you can't have a good time without them, to the point that you're going to fuck up your unborn child by continuing to party it up while pregnant, than I've just got no bloody sympathy. YOU are a defective person, and YOU should have been aborted.


cya,
john
 

kultron

Bluelighter
Joined
May 15, 2007
Messages
682
no dearie, you fail, becaue i already did post such a thing.
The studies have not proven anything. Funny how when you quoted it you left out this crucial section:

Strengths and Limitations

It should be noted that there are several limitations posed by this study and caution must be used in interpreting the results. First, the means by which the study participants were recruited may have introduced a bias in the sample. Second, the sample size is small, obviating the use statistical procedures that might be able to account for the many environmental variables that seem to influence some of the outcomes. Third, in a prospective study of this nature it is impossible to foresee and control for all the potential environmental and maternal confounders. Finally, this study has not eliminated alternative explanations. It is possible for example, that the outcomes at 1 month are related to neonatal exposure to marijuana constituents via breast milk or to prenatal influences that simply were not manifested at the 3-day examination.

On the other hand, the prospective design, using ethnographic techniques and inductive analyses, offers several advantages to the exploration of prenatal exposure to illicit drugs. First, given the difficulties encountered in recruiting participants who are engaging in an illegal activity and then retrieving credible data from them, identification by fieldworkers, with assistance from local midwives, represented a contributive alternative to a random sampling strategy. Second, although the sample size is small, it provided an opportunity to follow up drug-using women through pregnancy with the level of detail that often is lacking in retrospective studies of large numbers of women. Finally, the effects of prenatal exposure to drugs such as marijuana depend on several factors for which it is difficult and sometimes impossible to control in most clinical investigations. 8 Although this study was successful in controlling for polydrug use and SES, other variables (financial independence, mothers education, and household child / adult ratio) emerged as meaningful during the course of this study. Indeed a strength of the inductive design is its capacity to identify such unanticipated variables and to understand how they are linked in Jamaican culture with heavy marijuana use and a roots daughter syndrome. Although some might interpret this failure to identify the relevant variables at the outset of the study and control for them in a more experimental design as a weakness of the study, one could argue, conversely, that the project's greatest value is its capacity for discovery and the generation of hypotheses and research questions that can be explored in subsequent studies.
The researchers themselves say that they have not proven that it is not harmful or their findings absolute.

And that is YOUR FUCKIN OPINION!
Who's else would it be?
Humans aint made to inhale smoke? Why do you say that? you still aint responded to the fact that humans have been smoking and using plants and psychoactive plants as medicine for thuosands and thousands of years. if it wasnt meant to be i dont think that from the earliest times of man that people would be doin it. If we werent meant to smoke weed, why is there cannibinoids naturally occuring in the brain and receptors made just for cannibis.
I say that because they are not. Replace inhaling oxygen with inhaling smoke, and see how far you get. It is not natural at all. And the receptors's main purpose isn't soley reacting to THC administered externally.
As far as your would you smoke down a 3 year old question,
A fetus is not a concscious being and therefore cannot experience the psychoactive effects of the drug, so it aint even the same thing dude. Smokin weed to feel better while your kid in the womb is makin it impossible to eat or sleep is alot different than smokin a joint and handing it to a 3 year old kid like "haha, lets get little dude STOOONEEEDD!!"
We aren't talking soley about the psychoactive effects of the drug, we're talking about them all, including the most important, physical. And your analogy is a false dichotomy. A more realistic situation would be locking a 3 year old child in a cage and blowing hoot after hoot in his face.
. its different physically, and its different as far as the intent goes. its 2 seperate situations. Just the same way that a mother in afghanistan putting opium in tea to give to her screaming baby is alot different than a mom addicted to heroin in the US who thinks its funny to blow hits of smoke in her kids face.
What are you even trying to say? It's and Its are two different words with two different meanings, please use the proper word when trying to explain yourself. And it isn't different, because both are against the will of the child.
I get it, it IS the same thing to you, thats cool. but it aint to me. So lets agree to disagree, becuz this aint goin nowhere, you aint willing to listen to logic and you got the right to your own opinion, and i aint really interested in tryin to make someone see shit my way if A, its impossible and B, there is no point, since you aint me and will never be pregnant and will never be the person that is with me when i become pregnant someday. at this point ur opinion is pretty much irrelevant, I said my piece but obviously you aint tryna hear it.
No. Your logic is not sound or absolute, and downright circular at times. Are you giving up?
its funny how someone says one thing and the rest of you follow like "yeah, poor baby!!!! what a stupid bitch!!!! kill her!!!!"

but most of you are dudes and have no idea what you're talking about. the girl can make her own decisions. if she's not an idiot she won't do anything that she believes will harm her baby. and besides, it's not like she was slamming down beers. a little marijuana never hurt anybody.

i'm with lacey k on this one, if i ever get pregnant i'd much rather take a hit off a pipe rather than pop a painkiller.
How is one's opinion invalid if one is a male? I have easily had my fair share of intense pain. When I was 9 I was hospitalized with pneumonia and nearly died. Have you ever coughed so hard that blood came with it, being unable to sleep or eat? If not, you have no right to speak on anything related to pneumonia. So sorry. (ps i didn't get high to cure the pain i toughed it out) That is easily on par or greater than the pains of motherhood (not counting labour and delivery, mind you).

I've never been in the position. But it's like Darth Mom said, it's not like the lady's slamming down beers. I'd never presume to interfere if some pregnant woman wanted to toke up a little, or even take a drink or smoke a cigarette. Even if it was my kid she was carrying.
Do you like having retarded children that look like aliens? You would seriously in your right mind not object to your wife having an alcoholic drink, which is proven to cause retardation (F.A.S.)? And you wouldn't mind having a child with asthma, because it's quite the awesome disease I hear.
What affect is that gonna have on your child? Acccording to extensive medical studies, none.


Thats the stupidest logic i ever heard. I aint sayin you are stupid. but just that your statement is pretty ignorant.
Effect. Not Affect. Remember what I said about choosing words? Yeah. Did you even read the whole study? It outright says that it does, yes, have effects. Somehow in my googling of such things, I missed the pages and pages of studies that all conclusively agreed that it has 'no effect whatsoever'.

Isn't it proven that if weed is taken at an early age it alter's one ability to learn and has effects on memory?

Even if it's not harmful to the fetus, I don't think you should subject anyone else to recreational drugs without their consent. That's just being selfish imo.
Holy crap, am I seeing what I'm seeing? Yes, it's common sense! Normally I wouldn't care if someone exercised common sense, but since it seems to be lacking in this thread, i demand that this guy be given some kind of award. Hats off! (Ps this isn't sarcasm.)
Where is that proved? thats the vague, " I think i heard it somewhere" type of reasoning, the 'Well, it seems bad, and i think i heard it was bad, and it makes sense if it was proved to be bad, so im sure someone prooved it somewhere" reasoning, and that dont prove nothing.

If you paid attention to the rest of the thread me and darthmom posted studies that showed that it did NOT make problems. and not to mention that the government puts out studies about marijuana year after year that go DIRECTLY against what studies from europe and independent researchers find. so if you do try and find a study, dont even bother to quote some US gov propaganda bullshit-ass "study" that finds exactly what they wanted it to find, cuz thats all lies and we all know it.

The studies in this thread were large scale, over a long term, and actually found that babies exposed to marijuana in the womb were SMARTER and more responsive to stimulus, interacted better with their parents and caretakers, had better adjustibility, were more even tempered, and many other things.

To all yall saying "Can you take the risk of exposing them, cuz you want the absolute BEST for your kid...." I say.....Can you take the risk of NOT exposing them if you want the best for your kid? Its shown to be HELPFUL lol....

Im just jokin in that last statement, cuz i dont think everyone should smoke weed if they dont want to. i aint someone whose like "the whole world should smoke weed all the time yaaay" Just a advocate of medical marijuana and of recreaional use by those who want to and can be smart with it.

But i think that no matter what mental hangups you might have about it, no matter what information that is stuck in your head, scientific evidence that proves the safety of it should probably change that. if not then youre just letting a "feeling" that been put there by anti drug ads, DARE, and the us government, override facts.

Imagine that you got told that drinking milk was bad for fetuses , for years and years, and then a study came out that said "Nope, milks cool, and the research actually shows that , if anything, it might even be GOOD for babies." What yall are doin in this thread, would be the same as in this hypothetical situation, sayin "well, they said it was bad for a long time, so that had to be for some reason! I still wont let my kid drink milk!"

And once again, A FETUS is not A CHILD, a child would experience the psychoactive effects of weed and experience it as a "high" , a fetus would not, so like i said before, it aint the same as giving a child drugs against their consent. Like the baby is gonna be like "whoa......mom, eat somethin i got the munchies in here!" Usin small amoutns of weed medicinally, in a tea, in food, or in a vaporizer, poses no thread to a fetus, are you familiar with the concept of a moot point? when you say "Well its still wrong to give a kid drugs against their consent" That would be a good example of one. it aint harmful to them, and they dont got consciousness yet or thoughts, so it dont matter anyways.
My guess is that he probably has smoked marijuana, and experienced the effects. This is called reason.
I don't know where you live, but I don't live in America and therefore I haven't read any studies at all put out by the government. I can tell you sure do, judging by your ever so eloquent use of the word 'yall'.
And what you say about the studies is an outright lie. In the paragraph I quoted they specifically said it was done on a small scale. And it was not a 'long-term' study, because it only covered the early years of the babies's lives. I'd like to see an analysis of their highschool test scores. Also your milk analogy is false, because unlike inhaling smoke, drinking milk (ie breastmilk) is 100% natural (Animals drink milk, animals don't smoke, etc).
It has nothing to do with it being a child or not. It is still an organism which is affected by external factors, including marijuana smoking.

I could debate this all year. Or you could just admit you are a selfish person, and we could be done with it.
 

sc4t

Bluelighter
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
1,914
Location
chicago, il
phrozen said:
Drugs taken by the mother certainly affect its development. Whether they're psychoactive or not doesn't matter.
amen.

put the drugs away for 9 months. please.

there's enough jackasses running around this world as is. :)
 

Khadijah

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Dec 18, 2003
Messages
16,372
Location
Hell
phrozen said:
I'm not going to search for studies. There are plenty out there to support each side. Just do a BL search about studies Pdx quoted in the big "heroin vs. weed" thread. That has plenty of studies that show cannabis, thc in particular, affects people negatively. And I'm assuming we're talking about taking it orally and vaping it...

I also disagree with what you said about fetuses. Drugs taken by the mother certainly affect its development. Whether they're psychoactive or not doesn't matter.

------------------------------

Whether it's nine months or three is besides the point. When you choose to have a child you are taking on long term responsibilities. If you can't last nine months without weed, maybe having and raising a child shouldn't be on your agenda.
Dude, are you illiterate? I said FOR MEDICINAL USE. It aint about getting high. The point was, and the whoe entire arguemetn i was makin , was that SMALL AMOUNTS OF MARIJUANA used for MEDICINAL PURPOSES, to help the symptoms of pregnancy, aint harmful to the fetus, and is totally acceptable. DOCTORS confirm this. What dont you get about it?
 

Khadijah

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Dec 18, 2003
Messages
16,372
Location
Hell
kultron said:
I know it all.
Dude, i already said my piece to you. I got no interest in anything else you want to say. You already stated your opinion multiple times, we know what you think. Thats great, but i really dont care because theres nothing new you can say about this except repeat yourself. Im tired of doin that myself, and the discussion aint gonna go nowhere, so I hope you enjoyed the time it took you to write all that cuz it aint gettin read.
 

TheDrizzle

Bluelighter
Joined
Mar 13, 2007
Messages
641
Location
St. Louis Greater Metropolitan Area
Kultron your opinion is one thing but the way you are addressing others is another. You have posted absolutely nothing to support your views, other than opinions. And furthermore you just look like a stupid fuck by talking about people saying ya'll (it is in the dictionary, asshole). Canadians say "Oot and Aboot" does that make them fucking retarded? Furthermore one drink or one cigarette is not going to make a child retarted. Did your mother drink a beer and smoke a cig while she was carrying you to make you believe that logic?. YOU are starting to sound like a "stupid fucking american" though by your jumping to conclusions and degrading people by the way they talk though.

The truth is no study is going to prove anything in this thread because as most of us realize there are a million conflicting studies. Regardless VERY infrequent use of any medicine is not going to harm the fetus, the same goes with marijuana. The only thing here to argue is whether or not you are morally opposed.
 

sc4t

Bluelighter
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
1,914
Location
chicago, il
TheDrizzle said:
YOU are starting to sound like a "stupid fucking american" though by your jumping to conclusions and degrading people by the way they talk though.
yeah, you're done buddy. come with me.
 

thujone

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
10,578
Location
::1
good call op... drugs are drugs, and just because one study says getting high won't impact a child's health, psychoactive substances are a radical change in mental and physical functioning and there's no telling how it may impact a fetus.

That study is just a working hypothesis, and may easily be total bullshit since it's extremely brief and completely glosses over how they're testing for post-natal neural function, when neurology is an extremely fickle field where not a whole lot is known. Actually, having just clicked the study link, I wouldn't put any stock in it since one of the authors only has an MA (i.e. unqualified to speak on behalf of science) and the fucking study has ETHNOGRAPHY in the title. Trusting a bunch of anthropologists with complex neurology that even scientists don't know enough about is the rough equivalent of trusting a team of apes with the construction of a space station.

I know plenty of women who have dealt with the whole 9 months completely free of any drugs, and in worst-case scenario have taken herbal remedies (not psychoactive) to alleviate shit like nausea. Creating a child in your guts is not supposed to be an easy thing; discomfort is a poor excuse for callously toying with the future of a human life.
 

Khadijah

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Dec 18, 2003
Messages
16,372
Location
Hell
TheDrizzle said:
The truth is no study is going to prove anything in this thread because as most of us realize there are a million conflicting studies. Regardless VERY infrequent use of any medicine is not going to harm the fetus, the same goes with marijuana. The only thing here to argue is whether or not you are morally opposed.
dingdingding
 

SpunkySkunk347

Bluelighter
Joined
Jan 15, 2006
Messages
1,709
jesus lacey k,
smoking in cars with children,
and now smoking pot while your pregnant?
do you downright beat your kids?
 

phr

Ex-Bluelighter
Joined
May 25, 2004
Messages
36,746
Location
St. Charles, IL
lacey k said:
Dude, are you illiterate? I said FOR MEDICINAL USE. It aint about getting high. The point was, and the whoe entire arguemetn i was makin , was that SMALL AMOUNTS OF MARIJUANA used for MEDICINAL PURPOSES, to help the symptoms of pregnancy, aint harmful to the fetus, and is totally acceptable. DOCTORS confirm this. What dont you get about it?
It doesn't matter whether the use is medicinal or recreational, it's using either way. Also, I'd find hard to believe that the average doctor would recommend cannabis to pregnant women. Even so, just because a doctor recommends it, it doesn't mean it's safe. Plenty of medicine has been recommended that ended up causing more harm than good to the patient.


Let's just agree to disagree.
 

Coolio

Greenlighter
Joined
Feb 29, 2004
Messages
6,948
thujone said:
Creating a child in your guts is not supposed to be an easy thing; discomfort is a poor excuse for callously toying with the future of a human life.
Bull fucking shit. A fetus is a parasite the woman's being so kind as to share her body with. If technology and medicine can make a woman have a discomfort-free pregnancy, that should be the goal of technology and medicine. Are periods supposed to be uncomfortable too? Should we outlaw birth control, because women are supposed to have to worry about the consequences of pregnancy when they have sex?
 
Top