Pregnant vaping?

[C No Ego]

I'm really surprised there hasn't been any differentiating of THC and CBD in this discussion. Pregnant women can vape all they want and incur the benefits of this wonderful plant... They just need to make sure they're consuming CBD products only for those 9 months. Avoid THC during pregnancy; it's common sense.

except ther is zero evidence concluding CBD is better / safer than THC... they both look almost exactly alike , they both are plant ligands that metabolize... they even mimic naturally occurring human created ligands .
too, CBD acts on PPAR gene transcription factors way more than THC can as THC is faster acting and does not make it through as many factors. that could mean CBD is worse but we are talking about fundamental lipid metabolism... ( cannabis is a lipid) . plus, there is no verified provable example of THC being harmful... it is a bunch of hype or reefer madness... the more we find out the more healthy the plant presents even for pregnant mothers... if anything they could say do not smoke it and that is about the best wisdom even though the plant phytocannabinoids' protective properties too protect from smoke related insult
edit - Dr Donald Tashkin research
and too- #6630507 ( cannabinoids as anti oxidants and neuroprotectants ) patent explaining the protection- cannabinods are protective compounds the plant makes and this transfers to man via ingestion of them

 

[hinglemccringleberry]

there is no verified provable example of THC being harmful... it is a bunch of hype or reefer madness...

You're living in a fantasy land. And why do you guys always default back to the same old "you're on the reefer madness train" straw man argument? It completely shuts down opportunity for intellectual discussion. @EverythingsHazy knows what I'm talking about.

 

[C No Ego]

You're living in a fantasy land. And why do you guys always default back to the same old "you're on the reefer madness train" straw man argument? It completely shuts down opportunity for intellectual discussion. @EverythingsHazy knows what I'm talking about.

if that was not intellectual enough for you ok... show ( I implore you directly) one example of a cannabinoid being harmful ............. just one biochemical example ( just one teeny tiny example Please)

How is a cannabinoid harmful except in reefer madness scenarios or NIDA smoke only studies... ????

if not THC being the [problem explain how cannabis is harmful in any way whatsoever... I can only present the actual proven biochemistry examples identifying the metabolic pathways and their elimination pathways and how phytyocannabinoids are bio-mimetic to our own cannabinoids... here I am yet again asking for some type of harm that you can prove with 100% certainty like biochemistry presents for the metabolism we do know... match that in any way...

why phytocannabinoids? they are the active lipids in cannabis that impart bio activity... all other plants parts are esters /waxes / phenols and terpenes... none of which have any toxicity whatsoever ( nor the cannabinoids) ... so all that remains to be concerned about are the actives. cannabis is not an alkaloid either which is toxic , cannabis is an Angiosperm species

 

[Tranquility]

if that was not intellectual enough for you ok... show ( I implore you directly) one example of a cannabinoid being harmful ............. just one biochemical example ( just one teeny tiny example Please)

At the very least, you might want to limit your claim to cannabinoid's that are NOT synthetic. (aka "Spice" or "K-12".)


As to the more natural, I guess I'm missing what you're trying to point out. Just putting in a search of:
cannabinoid being harmful

Gives many instances. The first study that comes up on my list talks about many of the deleterious effects. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4604177/

If you're talking about something more subtle, remember we can't really prove cigarette smoking is harmful or causes cancer. We just know that there is an amazing correlation between smoking and any of a number of horribles.

Other seemingly teeny-tiny examples:
https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/cam/hp/cannabis-pdq#_11
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4827335/

Recognizing cannabis and the component cannabinoids are a drug is just accepting reality, not creating Reefer Madness.

 

[EverythingsHazy]

And why do you guys always default back to the same old "you're on the reefer madness train" straw man argument? It completely shuts down opportunity for intellectual discussion. @EverythingsHazy knows what I'm talking about.

Trust me, when I say I do.

I get that this is Cannabis forum, mainly populated by people who support, or are at least ok with its use, but that doesn't mean that we all have to pretend that it's perfect. In fact, that just furthers the divide between those who are pro/anti-Cannabis, by making those on the pro side sound somewhat extreme and delusional.

There is also a big difference between admitting that there are or at least may be some negative effects of consuming Cannabis, and being a supporter of "reefer madness" style propaganda. The former is taking a scientific approach to the subject, and admitting that we do not know everything there is to know about the plant and how it affects us, while the latter is going in the complete opposite direction of those who pretend that Cannabis is something borderline mystical with its perfectness.

Also, a brief description of a chemical or a biological process is not sufficient to make a judgement that holds any weight. A lot of people here, read something that sounds somewhat scientific, and assume it makes sense, and that it is in line with what they/the poster believes.

This is the kind of thing that my signature describes... "The problem with people these days, is that they know just enough to think something makes sense, but not enough to realize why it doesn't."

I think (or hope, anyway) that most people here would find the idea of blowing Cannabis vapor into a newborns face, or giving one a little bit of an edible, to be absolutely ridiculous, and terrible ideas. Why is it so hard, then, to admit that there might be a chance of a pregnant person harming her developing baby by consuming Cannabis?

 

[MinnBobber]

I think (or hope, anyway) that most people here would find the idea of blowing Cannabis vapor into a newborns face, or giving one a little bit of an edible, to be absolutely ridiculous, and terrible ideas. Why is it so hard, then, to admit that there might be a chance of a pregnant person harming her developing baby by consuming Cannabis?

.............................................................................................

In the spirit of being open to other possibilities, when one is willing to learn, why is it so hard to admit that there might be a chance of a pregnant person getting a benefit from consuming cannabis.......and that giving a newborn a little bit of an edible ( which IS exactly what mamma gives her/him when breastfeeding) could be a good thing???
Is it ridiculous and terrible for mom to breastfeed cannabinoids into her baby---NOTE: hope you realize that mom's milk of non-cannabis users has plenty of endocannabinoids.

Mamma's endocannabinoids/ ECS are an important ingredient in getting pg, developing the fetus, and breastfeeding after the birth. Her milk is very rich in endocannabinoids---speculation is that the cannabinoids serve the purposes of improving the baby's appetite (makes sense) and feeding the baby's newly independent ECS system, so baby's ECS can start off fully stoked with cannabinoids. So why isn't it possible that cannabis is good for all ?

I divide folks into two main groups, those that really understand the endocannabinoid system (ECS) and those that don't really understand it, as the ECS is really the key to the whole issue.

Those that truly understand the ECS , understand how and why cannabis works on dozens of medical conditions. Phytocannabinoids which feed our ECS have the most amazing healing powers that there are in all of medicine (natural and big-pharma).

The research and experiments are growing and the vast majority points to the growing super-powers of cannabis and the continued record of zero deaths in 6000 years. You may jump on the term "super-powers" phrase but how can you call it anything less? Have you seen what it does for epilepsy? No previous drug has had any meaningful success with epilepsy, yet cannabis cures immediately for some. That would be a miracle unto itself but that's one of dozens of different conditions that cannabis can dramatically help. I don't know how one can even argue against the gigantic medical properties of cannabis.

Is there any substance with a higher benefit:risk ratio?
Drinking too much water kills more people each year than cannabis (still 0).

I call cannabis an ECS supplement, as that's really what it is.
Do you realize how many people likely have an ECS deficiency?

I'll go on record admitting that there may be negative risks associated with cannabis use BUT
IMEO the known benefits of cannabis vastly outweigh potential negatives. Is there any medicine
that is as safe?

Phytocannabinoids in moderation for mom and baby can be a beneficial supplement. Possible????

 

[Ramahs]

Trust me, when I say I do.

I get that this is Cannabis forum, mainly populated by people who support, or are at least ok with its use, but that doesn't mean that we all have to pretend that it's perfect. In fact, that just furthers the divide between those who are pro/anti-Cannabis, by making those on the pro side sound somewhat extreme and delusional.

There is also a big difference between admitting that there are or at least may be some negative effects of consuming Cannabis, and being a supporter of "reefer madness" style propaganda. The former is taking a scientific approach to the subject, and admitting that we do not know everything there is to know about the plant and how it affects us, while the latter is going in the complete opposite direction of those who pretend that Cannabis is something borderline mystical with its perfectness.

Also, a brief description of a chemical or a biological process is not sufficient to make a judgement that holds any weight. A lot of people here, read something that sounds somewhat scientific, and assume it makes sense, and that it is in line with what they/the poster believes.

This is the kind of thing that my signature describes... "The problem with people these days, is that they know just enough to think something makes sense, but not enough to realize why it doesn't."

I think (or hope, anyway) that most people here would find the idea of blowing Cannabis vapor into a newborns face, or giving one a little bit of an edible, to be absolutely ridiculous, and terrible ideas. Why is it so hard, then, to admit that there might be a chance of a pregnant person harming her developing baby by consuming Cannabis?

^ what they said.

 

[C No Ego]

At the very least, you might want to limit your claim to cannabinoid's that are NOT synthetic. (aka "Spice" or "K-12".)


As to the more natural, I guess I'm missing what you're trying to point out. Just putting in a search of:
cannabinoid being harmful

Gives many instances. The first study that comes up on my list talks about many of the deleterious effects. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4604177/

If you're talking about something more subtle, remember we can't really prove cigarette smoking is harmful or causes cancer. We just know that there is an amazing correlation between smoking and any of a number of horribles.

Other seemingly teeny-tiny examples:
https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/cam/hp/cannabis-pdq#_11
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4827335/

Recognizing cannabis and the component cannabinoids are a drug is just accepting reality, not creating Reefer Madness.

Great point - I am only talking about real grown on the plant phytocannabinoids with all naturally occurring enzymatic formation and catalysts that creates solid structures in the void, these are exogenous signalling plant metabolites that bio-mimic mans endogenous metabolites...
this is all secondary metabolism( peripheral adjustments) not primary metabolism ...
and too- there is decarboxylated cannabinoids and non decarbed with worlds apart differences @ the point of metabolism in man.
the only reason I mention toxicity, a secondary signalling metabolite does not present as toxic in any way... it is not possible at moderate to even high dosage... our cells would reject such toxicity and not allow the metabolism of the ligand if it presents as toxic ( our cells suck up and metabolize every C-18 to C-22 lipophilic fatty acid compound available) ... predicated that each neuronal cell signals 15,000 cannabinoids a second... every one of those signalling metabolites rely on an exacting amount of PUFAS as derived from eating essential fatty acids in diet.
there have been studies showing how important correct lipid content is for expecting mothers... cannabinoids are metabolically helping just as any fatty acid does...
LD50 rating for Cannabis is 40,000-50,000 to one. it takes like 90,000 times the average dose to even reach a toxic threshold.
Real problems people need to be concerned about= allergies and unknown pesticides herbicides on plants that could be consumed... IMO, phytocannabinoids can even help us protect ourselves against man made chemicals in our foods that cause issue collectively in all man mainly digestive problems like leaky gut flora

 

[His_Highness]

Is it possible that cannabis is beneficial to babies and those who are pregnant? Yes.

Is it possible that cannabis is not beneficial to babies and those who are pregnant? Yes.

Is it possible that I would want cannabis being given to babies and those who are pregnant in my family. No. Not until the word "possible" can be removed and replaced with something more concrete in terms of scientific research. Children are too precious for "it's possible".

The exception to the above for me would be if there was a serious issue, like some types of seizures, that isn't successfully being dealt with or safely being dealt with that cannabis could "possibly" help with.

This is somewhat like the abortion debate to me......I have my own opinions and would not judge anyone for disagreeing with me.

 

[C No Ego]

Is it possible that cannabis is beneficial to babies and those who are pregnant? Yes.

Is it possible that cannabis is not beneficial to babies and those who are pregnant? Yes.

Is it possible that I would want cannabis being given to babies and those who are pregnant in my family. No. Not until the word "possible" can be removed and replaced with something more concrete in terms of scientific research. Children are too precious for "it's possible".

The exception to the above for me would be if there was a serious issue, like some types of seizures, that isn't successfully being dealt with or safely being dealt with that cannabis could "possibly" help with.

This is somewhat like the abortion debate to me......I have my own opinions and would not judge anyone for disagreeing with me.

seeing all the life threatening issues cannabis helps people with shows how healthy it is... only downside the person could be paranoid because of association. Even the Israeli molecular scientist who has been researching THC since 1964 claims it is non toxic, incapable of causing toxic response, Raphael Mechoulam claims that THC is non toxic https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Raphael+Mechoulam+claims+that+THC+is+non+toxic&t=ffcm&atb=v1-1&ia=web

 

[Ramahs]

Is it possible that cannabis is beneficial to babies and those who are pregnant? Yes.

Is it possible that cannabis is not beneficial to babies and those who are pregnant? Yes.

Is it possible that I would want cannabis being given to babies and those who are pregnant in my family. No. Not until the word "possible" can be removed and replaced with something more concrete in terms of scientific research. Children are too precious for "it's possible".

The exception to the above for me would be if there was a serious issue, like some types of seizures, that isn't successfully being dealt with or safely being dealt with that cannabis could "possibly" help with.

This is somewhat like the abortion debate to me......I have my own opinions and would not judge anyone for disagreeing with me.

Exactly. It may be one way or the other. But the fact is that we do not have the peer-reviewed and repeated studies enough to have a consesnus between experts in the field. Untill we do we are coming to conclusions that are not adequately supported.

Also remember, no ammount of anecdotal reports equals sufficient evidence to reach a conclusion.

 

[Tranquility]

Great point - I am only talking about real grown on the plant phytocannabinoids with all naturally occurring enzymatic formation and catalysts that creates solid structures in the void, these are exogenous signalling plant metabolites that bio-mimic mans endogenous metabolites...
this is all secondary metabolism( peripheral adjustments) not primary metabolism ...
and too- there is decarboxylated cannabinoids and non decarbed with worlds apart differences @ the point of metabolism in man.
the only reason I mention toxicity, a secondary signalling metabolite does not present as toxic in any way... it is not possible at moderate to even high dosage... our cells would reject such toxicity and not allow the metabolism of the ligand if it presents as toxic ( our cells suck up and metabolize every C-18 to C-22 lipophilic fatty acid compound available) ... predicated that each neuronal cell signals 15,000 cannabinoids a second... every one of those signalling metabolites rely on an exacting amount of PUFAS as derived from eating essential fatty acids in diet.
there have been studies showing how important correct lipid content is for expecting mothers... cannabinoids are metabolically helping just as any fatty acid does...
LD50 rating for Cannabis is 40,000-50,000 to one. it takes like 90,000 times the average dose to even reach a toxic threshold.
Real problems people need to be concerned about= allergies and unknown pesticides herbicides on plants that could be consumed... IMO, phytocannabinoids can even help us protect ourselves against man made chemicals in our foods that cause issue collectively in all man mainly digestive problems like leaky gut flora

I think one reason why cannabinoids are not a life or death issue was mentioned in one of the links I provided:

Because cannabinoid receptors, unlike opioid receptors, are not located in the brainstem areas controlling respiration, lethal overdoses from Cannabis and cannabinoids do not occur.[1-4]​

 

[EverythingsHazy]

.............................................................................................

In the spirit of being open to other possibilities, when one is willing to learn, why is it so hard to admit that there might be a chance of a pregnant person getting a benefit from consuming cannabis.......and that giving a newborn a little bit of an edible ( which IS exactly what mamma gives her/him when breastfeeding) could be a good thing???
Is it ridiculous and terrible for mom to breastfeed cannabinoids into her baby---NOTE: hope you realize that mom's milk of non-cannabis users has plenty of endocannabinoids.

Mamma's endocannabinoids/ ECS are an important ingredient in getting pg, developing the fetus, and breastfeeding after the birth. Her milk is very rich in endocannabinoids---speculation is that the cannabinoids serve the purposes of improving the baby's appetite (makes sense) and feeding the baby's newly independent ECS system, so baby's ECS can start off fully stoked with cannabinoids. So why isn't it possible that cannabis is good for all ?

I divide folks into two main groups, those that really understand the endocannabinoid system (ECS) and those that don't really understand it, as the ECS is really the key to the whole issue.

Those that truly understand the ECS , understand how and why cannabis works on dozens of medical conditions. Phytocannabinoids which feed our ECS have the most amazing healing powers that there are in all of medicine (natural and big-pharma).

The research and experiments are growing and the vast majority points to the growing super-powers of cannabis and the continued record of zero deaths in 6000 years. You may jump on the term "super-powers" phrase but how can you call it anything less? Have you seen what it does for epilepsy? No previous drug has had any meaningful success with epilepsy, yet cannabis cures immediately for some. That would be a miracle unto itself but that's one of dozens of different conditions that cannabis can dramatically help. I don't know how one can even argue against the gigantic medical properties of cannabis.

Is there any substance with a higher benefit:risk ratio?
Drinking too much water kills more people each year than cannabis (still 0).

I call cannabis an ECS supplement, as that's really what it is.
Do you realize how many people likely have an ECS deficiency?

I'll go on record admitting that there may be negative risks associated with cannabis use BUT
IMEO the known benefits of cannabis vastly outweigh potential negatives. Is there any medicine
that is as safe?

Phytocannabinoids in moderation for mom and baby can be a beneficial supplement. Possible????

Yes, it is possible, and I am completely supportive of having it tested in a controlled, scientific manner, by professionals. I am not, however, supportive of self-testing such hypotheses while one is pregnant, nor am I in support of recommending that others do so. As mentioned by a few others, children are not to be casually experimented on.

Also, something to keep in mind when discussing the potential negatives of something, is that death isn't the only way something can be harmful. Cannabis may not kill people, but it has been shown to have the ability to negatively affect the brain, especially in users who are not fully developed. Something like water, which people here love to claim is more dangerous than Cannabis, can (and must) be consumed on a regular basis, in order to survive, and will have absolutely no negative effects on those who drink it in a normal manner, whereas the same cannot be guaranteed with Cannabis. For one Cannabis =/= THC. THC is in Cannabis, but so are dozens of other chemicals that have been studied even less. Water is also not going to lead to harmful behavior patters, which Cannabis use can encourage in some users, especially those who are not (do not quote me saying that I am calling Cannabis some super addictive life destroyer).

Also, I don't like how scientific terms and explanations are being used in misleading or at least careless ways. I could make a post filled with scientific terminology that almost nobody here would understand, about glucose and how the brain uses it for energy, which means it is vital for our survival, and then go on to claim that I just proved my theory that we should be cramming down extra glucose to load up the baby's sugar stores, but that wouldn't mean that I am correct. It would just mean that very few people would be able to call me out on my claims, since they aren't even fully understood in the first place. I can mention how sugar is processed in the body, and mention this and that receptor, all without explaining anything of relevance. That's basically what happens here, very often.

 

[Ramahs]

...I don't like how scientific terms and explanations are being used in misleading or at least careless ways. I could make a post filled with scientific terminology that almost nobody here would understand, about glucose and how the brain uses it for energy, which means it is vital for our survival, and then go on to claim that I just proved my theory that we should be cramming down extra glucose to load up the baby's sugar stores, but that wouldn't mean that I am correct. It would just mean that very few people would be able to call me out on my claims, since they aren't even fully understood in the first place. I can mention how sugar is processed in the body, and mention this and that receptor, all without explaining anything of relevance. That's basically what happens here, very often.

________________

________________

 

[C No Ego]

I think one reason why cannabinoids are not a life or death issue was mentioned in one of the links I provided:

Because cannabinoid receptors, unlike opioid receptors, are not located in the brainstem areas controlling respiration, lethal overdoses from Cannabis and cannabinoids do not occur.[1-4]​

cannabinoids are lipids and not alkaloids... that is why they are safe... they conform to receptivity in man... they do not overtake or over control in any way... LD50 rating for cannabinoids - 50,000 to one
edit - plant cannabinoids that is

 

[Tranquility]

cannabinoids are lipids and not alkaloids... that is why they are safe... they conform to receptivity in man... they do not overtake or over control in any way... LD50 rating for cannabinoids - 50,000 to one
edit - plant cannabinoids that is

While I agree they are lipids, these guys might disagree on why they are safe:

1. Adams IB, Martin BR: Cannabis: pharmacology and toxicology in animals and humans. Addiction 91 (11): 1585-614, 1996. [PUBMED Abstract]
2. Grotenhermen F, Russo E, eds.: Cannabis and Cannabinoids: Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Therapeutic Potential. Binghamton, NY: The Haworth Press, 2002.
3. Sutton IR, Daeninck P: Cannabinoids in the management of intractable chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and cancer-related pain. J Support Oncol 4 (10): 531-5, 2006 Nov-Dec. [PUBMED Abstract]
4. Guzmán M: Cannabinoids: potential anticancer agents. Nat Rev Cancer 3 (10): 745-55, 2003. [PUBMED Abstract]

 

[C No Ego]

While I agree they are lipids, these guys might disagree on why they are safe:

1. Adams IB, Martin BR: Cannabis: pharmacology and toxicology in animals and humans. Addiction 91 (11): 1585-614, 1996. [PUBMED Abstract]
2. Grotenhermen F, Russo E, eds.: Cannabis and Cannabinoids: Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Therapeutic Potential. Binghamton, NY: The Haworth Press, 2002.
3. Sutton IR, Daeninck P: Cannabinoids in the management of intractable chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and cancer-related pain. J Support Oncol 4 (10): 531-5, 2006 Nov-Dec. [PUBMED Abstract]
4. Guzmán M: Cannabinoids: potential anticancer agents. Nat Rev Cancer 3 (10): 745-55, 2003. [PUBMED Abstract]

yeah, the only harm reference is in relation to how the pathways cannabinoids metabolize in effect other medications that are using those pathways as well ( CYP450 / COX / LOX / main three)... this goes back to man interfering with our anatomy ( pusher doctors ) and trying to self adjust it with chemicals. it is predicted that 40 -50% of approved medications are made to target G protein-coupled receptors ... that is where cannabinoids express too

Edit- cannabis too is dose dependent completely... amounts matter ( literally solid objects ) as to expression... bi-phasic response can occur etc...
and an actual few harms I've identified! Eureka
FAAH- THC can decrease FAAH! thc is directly a cannabinoid and the mechanisms it modulates in our cells require FAAH FABP ( fatty acid binding proteins) . it is actually in order of MAGL then FAAH but MAGL is not depleted. a supplement of magnesium is proposed to take up for any deficiencies
and too , allergic reaction... that is a real direct harm when dealing with plants and people... most folks most likely are allergic to pollen and not cannabinoids

 

[EverythingsHazy]

________________

________________

To be fair, I don't think it is necessarily being done intentionally, or out of spite. That wasn't a dig at anyone in particular. I just don't think anyone here has the knowledge to safely claim that Cannabis use is 100% safe for anyone, let alone a fetus.

A developing brain is extremely plastic, and a slight change can cause life long problems. Self-dosing during pregnancy, based on partial knowledge, is irresponsible, as is advising others to do so. Again, this is not a dig, but the amount of both human and Cannabis biochemistry that you would have to know, would be immense, and even if you managed to acquire all of that information, you would still need to find, or run and replicate numerous, long term, scientific experiments to validate any of your opinions about its effects on pregnancy and fetuses.

 

[olivianewtonjohn]

I'm really surprised there hasn't been any differentiating of THC and CBD in this discussion. Pregnant women can vape all they want and incur the benefits of this wonderful plant... They just need to make sure they're consuming CBD products only for those 9 months. Avoid THC during pregnancy; it's common sense.

Science doesnt work by assuming things or "common sense", there is a reason for that. Times where we relied on "common sense" (or assumptions) are when we literally had snake oil sales men.

 

[Ramahs]

Science doesnt work by assuming things or "common sense", there is a reason for that. Times where we relied on "common sense" (or assumptions) are when we literally had snake oil sales men.

 

[olivianewtonjohn]

Yeah man unfortunately this thread is riddled with people who dont know what they are talking about (why alittle knowledge can be dangerous), who use logical fallacies to reach grand conclusions that arent supported by science. I rather approach this topic and other MJ health topics wanting to know the truth. You can only be rationally justified in reaching scientific conclusions by looking at the evidence and seeing if it meets the burden of proof. Instead what we see are people who start with a conclusion (MJ=good) and then work from there, much like a religious person finding evidence that matches their opinion after already believing based on faith. While I love MJ I recognize that is a terrible way of going about it.

I honestly wonder what my previous professors would think of some of the posts here. I see alot of random biology buzzwords that I guess are supposed to make the conclusions true or support them in some way? But I really wonder what my pharmacology professor with a PharmD and PhD in molecular biology would think LOL. How many times are people in this thread going to repeat the appeal to nature fallacy? In my experience that is taught in introductory biology courses.

 

[C No Ego]

Yeah man unfortunately this thread is riddled with people who dont know what they are talking about (why alittle knowledge can be dangerous), who use logical fallacies to reach grand conclusions that arent supported by science. I rather approach this topic and other MJ health topics wanting to know the truth. You can only be rationally justified in reaching scientific conclusions by looking at the evidence and seeing if it meets the burden of proof. Instead what we see are people who start with a conclusion (MJ=good) and then work from there, much like a religious person finding evidence that matches their opinion after already believing based on faith. While I love MJ I recognize that is a terrible way of going about it.

I honestly wonder what my previous professors would think of some of the posts here. I see alot of random biology buzzwords that I guess are supposed to make the conclusions true or support them in some way? But I really wonder what my pharmacology professor with a PharmD and PhD in molecular biology would think LOL. How many times are people in this thread going to repeat the appeal to nature fallacy? In my experience that is taught in introductory biology courses.

for my part in this , All I've asked is for anyone to provide a solid example with provable results showing how cannabis is not good for any type person, especially pregnant mothers, @OldNewbie got as close to that as possible yet the toxicity was related to other drugs beingf used and cannabis' effects in conjunction with them ... like the patent # 6630507 showing how cannabis is great for everyone because of the protective properties and their expression. we have gone over how the endocannabinoid system works and cannabis' impact on the system which leads into the protective examples provided in that patent ETC..... the pathways are explained right there ... if there are other observed pathways that enlighten everyone then show them with certainty... we can certainly say that a cannabinoid metabolizes as anti oxidant and provides neuroprotection. it is what they do

Edit-We need better research that is not claiming an anti oxidant neuroprotective plant metabolite is a harm to people just because everyone is uncertain about that til now . more so , we need research that shows healthy amounts of them and how much to consume per individual ... we have plasma measuring devices that can determine our ECS tone ETC... still we are in the dark ages on this somewhat yet can conclude with certainty the cannabinoiods are protective compounds and pregnant mothers need neuroprotection just as much as the next person

 

[MinnBobber]

Instead what we see are people who start with a conclusion (MJ=good) and then work from there, much like a religious person finding evidence that matches their opinion after already believing based on faith. While I love MJ I recognize that is a terrible way of going about it

............................................................................................
Totally not true!!!! So let's back up a second, please.
Many I know, including myself, started from a skeptical attitude, basically --- medical marijuana, huh, is that maybe just an excuse to get it, or can that really be medical??? See "Dr Sanja Gupta", same deal or "worse", anti-cannabis to very pro.

I started my "marijuana" knowledge quest (now "cannabis") many years ago when my 90+ year old father had chronic pain and they had him popping opioids, so I saw first hand the effects of opioids - bad bad side effects and taking a fentanyl pill was like "eating a piece of candy, no help".

So please don't disrespect the pro cannabis health group by saying we start with a pro cannabis bias! Most come to that opinion (the vast medical benefits of cannabis vs possible negatives) after learning about it.

The group saying don't give cannabis to pregnant mom and baby ( even though mom has her own internal supply of cannabinoids for her and baby) is a very "tough" crowd. Why? Because they want 100% stat-of-the-art double blind placebo long-term testing to be 100% sure (in their minds) that there will not be any possible damage.

Those that know the history of cannabis becoming illegal know that's impossible due to the Schedule 1 status here in US and worldwide US arm-twisting to get that language in all international treaties. I'm following hundreds of great scientific tests currently, but they are not completed studies.

Looking at cannabis for my dad started an amazing path of learning (daily) and he passed before ever trying medical cannabis. He was gone but cannabis became my passion as it is the most interesting topic there is IMO.

Anecdotal info may not "prove" anything to the "no cannabis for mom" group but I consider it foolish to ignore 6000 years of anecdotal evidence as cannabis has been used billions/trillions of times for mom to manage pregnancy and nausea and childbirth, with a big thumbs up and no deaths. And science reinforces that use, why does it work? The Endocannabinoid System (ECS and key to all things cannabis) in mom gives a heavy dose of endocannabinoids to baby in the milk. And what do moderate doses of cannabis to mom do, supplement here ECS as she is now needs to produce for two. Cannabis is merely a phytocannabinoid supplement ( a twin product to what mom produces).

Can someone who understands the ECS please tell me, why would you not give mom a microdose or moderate dose of phytocannabinoids (cannabis)? Do you understand all the positives it brings to mom and her ECS?
If mom got morning sickness, would you have her take big-pharma pills vs cannabis? What for moms pain?
Anxiety??

Based on what I know of cannabis, from all the intake of info (and throwing out bad studies that are pro and anti cannabis), I certainly feel that a pregnant mom should consider a proper daily dose of cannabis. Her physical, mental, emotional, and ECS health will benefit and same for the baby.

Put another way, if I were pregnant (tough for a senior male) I would absolutely continue daily microdosing, believing that is best for me and for my little one.
If I stopped, I'd consider that "child neglect" , not giving the baby something that I know is of great health value to them,
the most effective health supplement in the world.

 

[C No Ego]

............................................................................................
Totally not true!!!! So let's back up a second, please.
Many I know, including myself, started from a skeptical attitude, basically --- medical marijuana, huh, is that maybe just an excuse to get it, or can that really be medical??? See "Dr Sanja Gupta", same deal or "worse", anti-cannabis to very pro.

I started my "marijuana" knowledge quest (now "cannabis") many years ago when my 90+ year old father had chronic pain and they had him popping opioids, so I saw first hand the effects of opioids - bad bad side effects and taking a fentanyl pill was like "eating a piece of candy, no help".

So please don't disrespect the pro cannabis health group by saying we start with a pro cannabis bias! Most come to that opinion (the vast medical benefits of cannabis vs possible negatives) after learning about it.

The group saying don't give cannabis to pregnant mom and baby ( even though mom has her own internal supply of cannabinoids for her and baby) is a very "tough" crowd. Why? Because they want 100% stat-of-the-art double blind placebo long-term testing to be 100% sure (in their minds) that there will not be any possible damage.

Those that know the history of cannabis becoming illegal know that's impossible due to the Schedule 1 status here in US and worldwide US arm-twisting to get that language in all international treaties. I'm following hundreds of great scientific tests currently, but they are not completed studies.

Looking at cannabis for my dad started an amazing path of learning (daily) and he passed before ever trying medical cannabis. He was gone but cannabis became my passion as it is the most interesting topic there is IMO.

Anecdotal info may not "prove" anything to the "no cannabis for mom" group but I consider it foolish to ignore 6000 years of anecdotal evidence as cannabis has been used billions/trillions of times for mom to manage pregnancy and nausea and childbirth, with a big thumbs up and no deaths. And science reinforces that use, why does it work? The Endocannabinoid System (ECS and key to all things cannabis) in mom gives a heavy dose of endocannabinoids to baby in the milk. And what do moderate doses of cannabis to mom do, supplement here ECS as she is now needs to produce for two. Cannabis is merely a phytocannabinoid supplement ( a twin product to what mom produces).

Can someone who understands the ECS please tell me, why would you not give mom a microdose or moderate dose of phytocannabinoids (cannabis)? Do you understand all the positives it brings to mom and her ECS?
If mom got morning sickness, would you have her take big-pharma pills vs cannabis? What for moms pain?
Anxiety??

Based on what I know of cannabis, from all the intake of info (and throwing out bad studies that are pro and anti cannabis), I certainly feel that a pregnant mom should consider a proper daily dose of cannabis. Her physical, mental, emotional, and ECS health will benefit and same for the baby.

Put another way, if I were pregnant (tough for a senior male) I would absolutely continue daily microdosing, believing that is best for me and for my little one.
If I stopped, I'd consider that "child neglect" , not giving the baby something that I know is of great health value to them,
the most effective health supplement in the world.

as fas as I've been able to figure out ECS in the mom is established and requires different types of ligands to maintain... the babies ECS is not established and does not need the amides FAAH/ MAGL / DAGL epoxides to maintain it yet... the mother " should" metabolize the effective phyto compounds that are introduced into her ECS... efficacy of delivery to receptors is not certain and latent phytocannabinoids remain in fat storage to possibly pass to child ETC....
so that remains, how will late stage metabolites effect newly developed cells in a baby that has not established an ECS tone yet? worse problems would be the mother not containing anti oxidant ligands to signal efficient messages with for her to maintain the baby ETC... the importance of omega three is profound... cannabis is a form of more bio-active omega three ( plants , ding ding )

 

[hinglemccringleberry]

To the guy who said THC hasn't been shown to do any harm, that's 100% bullshit, but at this point that should just go without saying. It has a well documented effect on the growing brain but you apparently have some sort of bias that blocks out factual information. Its shown to decrease brain mass and gray matter in regular users who started in adolescent years. It's best to use after the brain is fully devleoped so 21+ is reasonable if not on the more liberal side of things, and it's not until adulthood that you reap thc's benefits (the benefits that Carl Sagan discussed) without incurring detriments (Carl didn't start using until he was in his 20's - his academic achievements were completed THC-free, which is probably what made them possible). Most sane cannabis proponents are in favor of regulated adult use.
The evidence tends to support the idea that earlier age of initiation of cannabis is associated with earlier age of onset of psychosis.
A study just came out demonstrating that early age THC use negatively affects verbal recall in adolescents.
And before people reply to this with the whole "but did psychosis occur before cannabis exposure" , well, even after adjusting for confounding variables, the groups that are exposed to cannabis at a younger age still show increased odds of developing psychosis, anxiety, and cannabis dependence at a younger age.
Your endocrine system doesn't finish developing until you are in your 20s. You are messing with stuff before it's developed, which seems to carry an increased risk of developing psychological disorders the individual may not have grown up to have otherwise.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...-experiences/5F38C97180F394DE47C48F5B7816902E
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.325.7374.1212
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08897077.2014.995332?journalCode=wsub20
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25875137
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24345517
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21389110
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2811144/#!po=13.7500
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4032934/
https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/abs/10.1176/ajp.138.2.231?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub=pubmed&code=ajp-site#/doi/abs/10.1176/ajp.138.2.231?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub=pubmed&code=ajp-site
https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...brief-review/82B02735F420CB287DCC80843FC34AE1
So why a mother would force this on an even lesser developed being (fetus) and think it's a good idea is beyond me. What if the little guy just wants a clean start? He doesn't even get a say.