Tennessee just became the first state that will jail women for their pregnancy outcomes

[dannno]

You seriously do not believe that a pregnant woman doing cocaine or heroin harms her unborn child?

Some of the shit they give them at the hospital is worse, did you skip over Nirvikalpa's post?

The problem is that they could have a child with an abnormality that was NOT caused by drug use, but because their blood has, say for example, THC in it they can then put them in prison even though the THC had nothing to do with the abnormality. You can't prove the drugs caused the abnormality.

 

[donnay]

Dangerous Doors to Open:

Whats next? Imprison mothers who smoke tobacco or drink alcohol at ANY point during their pregnancy? How about Aspirin? Or other over the counter drugs? Do we want to Drug Test all pregnant women for ALL pregnancy banned substances, including nicotine and tobacco? Ignore any big pharma drugs, including Opiates and other pharma drugs known to cause problems with pregnancies? Who gets to pay for their incarceration? Who gets paid for their incarceration?

Again, Govt hiding behind "safety of children" in order to expand Govt intrustion into EVERY aspect of your already overregulated lives.

Yes, yes, yes...a mother was already arrested about a couple months ago when a nosy waitress, at a pizza joint, saw her drinking and knew she was breast feeding.

People need to learn to mind their own business and stop buying the BS that government is doing these things to protect the children.

 

[dannno]

Valid point, yes... But the difference is that is given under close medical supervision by people with years of training and experience.

But the entire industry is run by highly regulated agencies that either are or are involved with the federal government, and if a doctor with years of training and experience has a differing opinion then they can get their license taken away and it makes it illegal for them to practice.

So what about those of us who don't believe in the system? Where is our health freedom? Why can't I believe cannabis is harmless, considering it is intimately linked to and promotes our body's entirety of regulatory processes more closely than any other substance on the planet? You should really research a little bit about cannabinoids before deciding that cannabis is an inherently unhealthy substance.

 

[Ender]

Except that when she is putting drugs in to her child's system at the same time, it is no longer a victimless crime.

Dude- learn to read.

I'll keep it simple: If the WoDs was stopped, then an addict could get some help before pregnancy happened.

 

[Matt Collins]

But the entire industry is run by highly regulated agencies that either are or are involved with the federal government, and if a doctor with years of training and experience has a differing opinion then they can get their license taken away and it makes it illegal for them to practice.

Not if they have the research to back it up.

Why can't I believe cannabis is harmless...?

You can believe whatever you want. But you don't have any credentials or education on the subject, or professional experience. And I assure you that you do not have any concept of how it affects an unborn child.

 

[angelatc]

You seriously do not believe that a pregnant woman doing cocaine or heroin harms her unborn child?

What I believe has nothing to do with it. It is really hard to find accurate research on topics like this, because nobody in their right mind would run a double-blind study on drugs in pregnant women. Because of the legal implications, a lot of women lie when asked, and of course there are cultural and socioeconomic factors in play.

Having said that...it is pretty clear that the dramatic effects we expected to see in the crack / cocaine babies never came to fruition. (I selectively clipped paragraphs out of the story. )

Did cocaine harm the long-term development of children like Jaimee, who were exposed to the drug in their mother's womb? The researchers had expected the answer would be a resounding yes. But it wasn't. Another factor would prove far more critical. .....

The researchers consistently found no significant differences between the cocaine-exposed children and the controls. At age 4, for instance, the average IQ of the cocaine-exposed children was 79.0 and the average IQ for the nonexposed children was 81.9. Both numbers are well below the average of 90 to 109 for U.S. children in the same age group. When it came to school readiness at age 6, about 25 percent of children in each group scored in the abnormal range on tests for math and letter and word recognition.

Coles said her research had found nothing to back up predictions that cocaine-exposed babies were doomed for life. "As a society we say, 'Cocaine is bad and therefore it must cause damage to babies,' " Coles said. "When you have a myth, it tends to linger for a long time."

As for heroin,

There is no clear evidence that heroin causes malformations to the foetus, but there is an increase in premature delivery, low birth weight and death around the time of delivery. Forty to eighty per cent of babies will develop a withdrawal syndrome lasting from several days to several months. The children tend to grow normally afterwards, although small head circumference may persist. There is no clear evidence of abnormal brain development in most of the children studied. Although methadone can be substituted for heroin, it may be more beneficial for the mother, and more toxic for the newborn.

I think alcohol is surprisingly far more dangerous than the two drugs you mentioned.

 

[dannno]

You can believe whatever you want. But you don't have any credentials or education on the subject, or professional experience. And I assure you that you do not have any concept of how it affects an unborn child.

Ron Paul has spoken many times saying that he believes medical marijuana has efficacy for some patients, yet the medical establishment disagrees with him and says it does not.

Are you saying Ron Paul doesn't have the credentials or education on the subject, because while he may not weight his opinion on the subject of whether it harms a small child, in the general sense his views are closer to mine than they are to the establishment in that we both agree it can provide medical efficacy.

Why do you worship the medical industrial complex? Don't you realize it is almost as bad as worshiping the military industrial complex?

Also, please just take 10 minutes out of your life and educate yourself on cannabinoids, it should change your opinion on the subject drastically.

 

[angelatc]

But the entire industry is run by highly regulated agencies that either are or are involved with the federal government, and if a doctor with years of training and experience has a differing opinion then they can get their license taken away and it makes it illegal for them to practice.

So what about those of us who don't believe in the system? Where is our health freedom? Why can't I believe cannabis is harmless, considering it is intimately linked to and promotes our body's entirety of regulatory processes more closely than any other substance on the planet? You should really research a little bit about cannabinoids before deciding that cannabis is an inherently unhealthy substance.

OFFS. Just don't get knocked up and your life wont change.

 

[tod evans]

Which drugs in what quantities are alleged to be harmful?

This little blurb scratches the surface to prove how illogical this legislation is, it is strictly emotion driven and Boobus is sucking it up like a slurpie in August..

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7758253

Placental transfer of drugs administered to the mother.
Pacifici GM1, Nottoli R.
Author information
Abstract
Drugs administered to mothers have the potential to cross the placenta and reach the fetus. Under particular circumstances, the comparison of the drug concentration in the maternal and fetal plasma may give an idea of the exposure of the fetus to the maternally administered drugs. In this review drugs are classified according to their type of transfer across the placenta. Several drugs rapidly cross the placenta and pharmacologically significant concentrations equilibrate in maternal and fetal plasma. Their transfer is termed 'complete'. Other drugs cross the placenta incompletely, and their concentrations are lower in the fetal than in maternal plasma. The majority of drugs fit into 1 of these 2 groups. A limited number of drugs reach greater concentrations in fetal than maternal plasma. It is said that these drugs have an 'exceeding' transfer. The impression prevails that suxamethonium chloride (succinylcholine chloride) and doxorubicin do not cross the placenta. However, a careful analysis of the literature suggests that this impression is wrong and that all drugs cross the placenta, although the extent transfer varies considerably. The following parameters were considered as possible factors determining the extent of placental transfer: (i) the molecular weight of the drug; (ii) the pKa (pH at which the drug is 50% ionised); and (iii) the extent of drug binding to the plasma protein. Drugs with molecular weights greater than 500D have an incomplete transfer across the human placenta. Strongly dissociated acid drug molecules should have an incomplete transfer, but this does not seem to be an absolute rule. For example, ampicillin and methicillin transfer completely and they are strongly dissociated at physiological pH. The extent of drug binding to plasma protein does not influence the type of drug transfer across the human placenta.

 

[tod evans]

Thus your immaturity is why no one takes you seriously. How old are you?

I'm 12 and living in my mothers basement..

Immature is refusing to get off your lazy ass and look up readily available information, instead posting a link you've been called out on dozens of times this year alone.

When are you going to learn that it's not anyone elses job to educate you?

Simple, easily researched statements have been made, they've been acknowledged by other forum members as being factual but for you, that's not enough...

Stop acting like a spoiled child. Boy.

 

[Bryan]

Let's please keep this civil everyone. It's best to stick with facts, ideas and the like.

Thank you.

 

[Matt Collins]

Ron Paul has spoken many times saying that he believes medical marijuana has efficacy for some patients, yet the medical establishment disagrees with him and says it does not.

Are you saying Ron Paul doesn't have the credentials or education on the subject, because while he may not weight his opinion on the subject of whether it harms a small child, in the general sense his views are closer to mine than they are to the establishment in that we both agree it can provide medical efficacy.

Of course Ron has the credentials, education, and experience on the subject. But in order to prove his theories on the subject he has to show peer reviewed research.

 

[angelatc]

Which drugs in what quantities are alleged to be harmful?

This little blurb scratches the surface to prove how illogical this legislation is, it is strictly emotion driven and Boobus is sucking it up like a slurpie in August..

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7758253
.

This is more recent, and it concurs:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15170365

However, the impression that the placenta forms an impenetrable obstacle against most drugs is now widely regarded as false. It has been shown that that nearly all drugs that are administered during pregnancy will enter, to some degree, the circulation of the foetus via passive diffusion. In addition, some drugs are pumped across the placenta by various active transporters located on both the fetal and maternal side of the trophoblast layer.

 

[tod evans]

Not if they have the research to back it up.


You can believe whatever you want. But you don't have any credentials or education on the subject, or professional experience. And I assure you that you do not have any concept of how it affects an unborn child.

Matt,

You have legislation not research that you're arguing for...

Why don't you provide the research used to justify the legislation............If there is any!

I suspect this silly bill is driven purely by emotion just like your backing of it.

 

[Matt Collins]

I'm 12 and living in my mothers basement..

Seems about right given what you have posted...

Immature is refusing to get off your lazy ass and look up readily available information, instead posting a link you've been called out on dozens of times this year alone.

When are you going to learn that it's not anyone elses job to educate you?

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

 

[Matt Collins]

Matt,

You have legislation not research that you're arguing for...

Why don't you provide the research used to justify the legislation............If there is any!

I suspect this silly bill is driven purely by emotion just like your backing of it.

Fair enough... except that I haven't once mentioned the legislation in the OP, I don't know that much about it to be honest, it could be a complete turd.

I am discussing the general principles of using the government to stop the mother from harming their unborn child.

 

[angelatc]

Of course Ron has the credentials, education, and experience on the subject. But in order to prove his theories on the subject he has to show peer reviewed research.

You're not seriously asserting that there is no peer reviewed research demonstrating the effectiveness of marijuana as medicine, are you? Because there's quite a bit out there.

 

[DamianTV]

What does Govt do? It creates problems while absolving itself of responsibility for creating those problems.

It goes for Laws. It goes for Warfare. It goes for Welfare. It hides its guilt behind whever they want focus to be put on. It blames Gun Owners and Free Speakers while pointing out those people cause problems. The result is Govt solution ends up being worse than the the problem itself. This case is no different. Place blame on the pregnant women, hide behind babys health, and absolve itself of responsibility.

How about Stress?

Does the level of stress a pregnant woman feels have any impact on the baby inside of her? Govt solution: throw the pregnant woman in jail, as if that will decrease her stress levels.

There are people in the world that truly need help, but wont ask for it because the help they get is to have a Gun pointed at their skulls. People that truly need the services of 911. Im being robbed! Im having a heart attack! My house is on fire! And what happens when they do call for help? Robbery victim gets shot / arrested / sued! Heart Attack victim gets tazered by cops for not having control over their body! House is on fire and Firemen get arrested and victim gets charged with Arson! And we wonder why we say DO NOT CALL THE COPS?

Responses to situations can be either Positive or Negative. So youre addicted to Heroin. Maybe instead of throwing the person in jail, they could use some Positive Reinforcement to get off the drug? What about legally prescribed Opiates or other Big Pharma manufactured drugs that people are addicted to? Are they criminals? Or maybe they'd benefit more from a helping hand? Our world of negativity is turning us all into Terrorists and Criminals by definition, not by action. The sooner we realize this, the sooner we can change the eventual outcome. If we continue down this path, we will all end up in jail for not calling 911 when we see a pregnant woman eating fast food because it is determined to be bad, thus, illegal.

 

[angelatc]

I am discussing the general principles of using the government to stop the mother from harming their unborn child.

Remember, you're in crowd that doesn't think car seats and seatbelts should be mandatory. Having said that, don't you think the government should at least need to prove that the drugs are harmful to the fetus before putting women in prison for using them?

I get it - the knee jerk reaction is "OF COURSE drugs hurt babies." But the reality is that perhaps that isn't accurate.

 

[Matt Collins]

You're not seriously asserting that there is no peer reviewed research demonstrating the effectiveness of marijuana as medicine, are you? Because there's quite a bit out there.

I am referring to how it affects unborn children, not fully grown adults.

Having said that, don't you think the government should at least need to prove that the drugs are harmful to the fetus before putting women in prison for using them?

Absolutely. And with a court order derived from probable cause by a neutral judge.

But the reality is that perhaps that isn't accurate.

Is there any peer reviewed research to show that drugs have zero effect on an unborn child?