ReInformUrself

So,, missed my period today.
I've been freaking out all month.
b4 i started freaking out.. as a pot head// i was smoking weed eeerday since i had sex. . . now my questions to all you other pot heads out there is..
Is THC really bad for the fetus? Cause for at least 15 days I was smoking it... and well Now I've just completely stopped cause I'm scared it might really harm my baby. Although I am also thinking that my stress levels might be even worse for it.

I guess I'm just looking for some answers from girls who have gone through this before. I love weed, and I'm hoping it hasn't done anything bad to my unborn child.

I was looking it up and its basically a REALLY touchy subject..
many many ladies were saying that they smoked weed all through there pregnancy.. not eerday but when they got stressed and such. And they say their kids are fine and very smart. But like.. every kid is different right?
cause then there were people saying how there friends smoked weed and now there kids are slow and shit... I defiantly don't want my kids to be slow if i can prevent it. Both me and the father are smart people and I don't think he/she would be slow.. and if it is,, then i would feel very responsible for giving a living thing a drug without its permission.

So yeah.. I've stopped completely.
but i REALLY... REALLY need a fucking joint right about now.
please give me your thoughts.

Much Appreciated

slapstick

I'm sorry that I can't offer any advice, but I really hope everything turns out ok. My friend's mom smoked when she was pregnant with him, think she was even a tweaker, and he's fine, no abnormalities at all.

__________________
^
nigga went to "dont know what the fuck is going on" college - GHM

"well, they say that life is a joke. so try not to wait til the last moment to laugh at it." -verklingen

AlteredStateGrl

I'm pretty sure thc doesn't stunt the growth of a baby.

Also, I'm not sure I'd classify THC itself as a toxin...the smoke yes...thc...no.

If you must smoke during pregnancy, vaporize it or eat it.

Just my opinion.

__________________

*The sweetest kittens have the sharpest claws.*

AlteredStateGrl

This is an incredible study and video. Yes, it's half an hour long and a bit boring at times, but well... it was a huge study and verrrrrry informative.

__________________

*The sweetest kittens have the sharpest claws.*

OldMan&TheWeed

While I doubt it would do any harm, why take ANY chances?

If it were my child, I'd say take a break for nine months.

__________________
Nintey-three percent of what I say is brilliant, factual information and seven percent is complete bullshit. Have fun deciding which is which.

OldMan&TheWeed

AlteredStateGrl, I'm on your side, but what training I've had in statistics has me thinking - hold on here.

While this is a study I'm sure NIDA wishes it had never funded, the sample group of 70 women may may make it too small to draw any valid conclusions from.

If the researches were to ever apply again to NIDA to repeat the study on a larger scale, you can bet they would be denied since NIDA only funds research designed to support their pre-existing conclusions.

__________________
Nintey-three percent of what I say is brilliant, factual information and seven percent is complete bullshit. Have fun deciding which is which.

AlteredStateGrl

I'm not looking at this for the stats and funding, larger scales and so on.

I'm looking at the results of their study. So, I'm not sure what your point is.

__________________

*The sweetest kittens have the sharpest claws.*

OldMan&TheWeed

Two Points:

1. The study, while possibly being indicative of a positive correlation between neo-natal health and the mothers’ use of cannabis, may be too small scale to draw any valid conclusions from.

2. Unfortunately a larger scale study would never be funded or approved by NIDA for political reasons.


Also, I would like to see the peer review on this.

__________________
Nintey-three percent of what I say is brilliant, factual information and seven percent is complete bullshit. Have fun deciding which is which.

AlteredStateGrl

1. I personally think 70 women who smoke mj (in excess to some standards) is plenty for me to grasp the concept of the study and take very seriously. Whether alone or supported.


Where is this proven?

__________________

*The sweetest kittens have the sharpest claws.*

Geeno

Well jamaica aint full of midgets so idk about the stunts

__________________

OldMan&TheWeed

__________________
Nintey-three percent of what I say is brilliant, factual information and seven percent is complete bullshit. Have fun deciding which is which.

AlteredStateGrl

First of all, if the study is American...lol. You're not going to find an American Study that will tell you anything honestly in regards to mj...LET alone whether or not it has any effect on a fetus.

__________________

*The sweetest kittens have the sharpest claws.*

Geeno

Honestly I think looking at a place like Jamaica or another culture where cannabis consumption is more common is the way to go.

I'm no expert on it, infact I know absolutely nothing and this is all from my ass.

But I've used the Jamaica argument vs the low sperm count argument and the retarded babies argument.

__________________

ReInformUrself

that's fucking hilarious. && very true.
I've watched 10 mins of it..and well it basically just said that there were no signs of anything different from non smoking mj mothers and smoking mj mothers. Ill watch the rest when i get back home.
i have completely stopped.. but i don't think my stress level is good for it either.. . I don't know.. thanks so far for all of ur thoughts and opinions. keep em coming.

AlteredStateGrl

The studies are biased and full of lies ('above the influence' anyone?? )...yes, it absolutely matters if it's American. Saying "babies are babies" is completely missing my entire point.

Take the time to compare American studies (the few there are on MJ and it's effects) vs. studies done around the world...The US's always reflects the glaring opposite of the rest of the worlds and are blatenly one sided.

__________________

*The sweetest kittens have the sharpest claws.*

Bad dog

Heavy smoking is dangerous for the fetus. However reasonable / light smoking 2 or 3 joints a day max, can be ok.

If the smoking reduces stress this can counter balance any toxic effects. Stress is one of the most dangerous things in pregnency

__________________

this is where i live

AlteredStateGrl

AND/OR you can always vap or eat it and eliminate the smoke altogether.

__________________

*The sweetest kittens have the sharpest claws.*

OldMan&TheWeed

Yes, The U.S. government doles out hundreds of millions of dollars worth of research grants through its National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA). According to NIDA's website, the agency "supports over 85 percent of the world's research on all drugs of abuse." Which studies get funded by NIDA, and which do not, constructs the landscape of our scientific knowledge with regard drugs. NIDA tends not to support research whose conclusions may run counter to their politically-driven agenda.

I'm sure they regret ever funding this research and you can be sure they'll never fund research in the area of pre-natal cannabis exposure ever again.

__________________
Nintey-three percent of what I say is brilliant, factual information and seven percent is complete bullshit. Have fun deciding which is which.

OldMan&TheWeed

Here's a little tidbit I found about NIDA:


Open Source Becomes Open Sore For NIDA
Printer Friendly Version Printer Friendly Version Email this Article Email this Article
Posted in Speakeasy Main by Scott Morgan on Fri, 01/26/2007 - 4:56pm

Wikipedia has accused the National Institute on Drug Abuse of "vandalism" following repeated attempts by NIDA staff to alter the organization's wikipedia entry.

As with any controversial subject, NIDA's wikipedia page has frequently included links to sources that expose NIDA's penchant for quackery and junk science. Of course, wikipedia is a user-maintained encyclopedia that permits readers to add relevant information at their discretion. NIDA's attempted censorship reveals a failure to comprehend the spirit of wikipedia or the tenacity of its users.

DrugWarRant has links to the various disputed wiki pages. And my terrifying encounter with NIDA director Dr. Nora Volkow is detailed here.

Ultimately, this is just another case of bizarre drug warrior behavior that, though vexing, is preferable to what they'd otherwise be doing with their time. Indeed, I'd rather they occupy themselves vandalizing wikipedia than vandalizing the scientific method.

Predictably, this latest attempt at drug war censorship has utterly backfired.

AlteredStateGrl

^
^^
you get the thanks button AND a typed thank you.

__________________

*The sweetest kittens have the sharpest claws.*