@m0sh
Evidence posted on first page to support the claim:
First link is a doctor who admits himself that there is not enough data. But he gives the opinion that in a few decades research might come out that points to MJ having positive effects due to its anti-inflammatory properties.
Totally sounds like solid research
Article #2:
Is about the benefits of breastfeeding and how they
might outweigh any risks of cigarette/MJ tainted breast-milk. Interesting thought, 1) this has no relation to the first post, from what I can tell it doesnt even touch on smoking while pregnant, it is about smoking while breastfeeding. Interesting that they want to claim that the positives outweigh the negatives when we dont know what the negatives are. Impressively sloppy "science"
Article #3:
Dr. Dreher (lead researcher of the study):
"We can’t really conclude that there’s necessarily no impact from ganja use prenatally whatsoever, but what can be concluded is that the child who attends basic school regularly, is provided with a variety of stimulating experiences at home, who is encouraged to show mature behavior, has a profoundly better chance of performing at a higher level on the skills measured by the McCarthy
whether or not his or her mother consumed ganja during pregnancy"
This is definitely the most interesting article posted, below is the actual paper for anyone who is interested. Reading a summary on a website of a paper can OFTEN lead you astray. One of the reasons why the actual scientists who conduct the research have to correct the news all the time. Sensationalism and sloppy journalism makes the story hot, but it does not make it an accurate representation of the study (or often even evaluates the study). It takes alot of knowledge and expertise to read a study and be able to pinpoint the flaws in it, and its a very time consuming process.
A perfect example would be this story:
http://fuckcombustion.com/threads/1st-thc-overdose-death.25699/
Lots of claims by news on "first overdose" but thats not what the actual paper is saying at all. Yet many users jumped to conspiracy theories.
Study #3 link:
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/medical/can-babies.htm
I see alot of large logical leaps in this thread. Sorry science isnt simple. Embryology is far from simple (dont take my word for it, just go read some prenatal vitamin studies yourself). The conclusions drawn by
@MinnBobber takes so many leaps it makes my head spin. The science IMO does not support your large conclusions. More research needs to be done to make the statements that your making.
Opposing:
"However, surveys in humans and studies in rodents suggest detrimental effects stemming from prenatal exposure to cannabinoids. Some studies report that children exposed to marijuana during pregnancy have a slower gestational growth rate (
Hurd et al., 2005) and lower birth weight (
Zuckerman et al., 1989;
Hurd et al., 2005), as well as reduced gestational length (
Fried et al., 1984;
Hurd et al., 2005). In addition, perinatal exposure to THC has been shown to affect brain development, resulting in an alteration in behavioral responses, in both rodents and humans (
Bonnin et al., 1995;
Vela et al., 1995;
de Moraes Barros et al., 2006). Still, very little is known about the effects of perinatal exposure to cannabinoids on the developing immune systems. Perinatal exposure to (6
aR,10
aR)- 9-(hydroxymethyl)- 6,6-dimethyl- 3-(2-methyloctan-2-yl)- 6
a,7,10,10
a-tetrahydrobenzo[
c]chromen-1-ol (HU-210), a cannabinoid agonist, caused altered distribution of lymphocyte subpopulations in the spleen and peripheral blood of Wistar rats. In addition, there was a reduction in the T helper subpopulation in the spleen and a decrease in the rate of T helper/T cytotoxic cells in peripheral blood (
del Arco et al., 2000)."
"Studies from our laboratory and others have shown that THC and other cannabinoids induce apoptosis and alter the proliferative response as well as effector functions of a variety of adult immune cells, such as thymic T cells (
McKallip et al., 2002b), splenic B and T cells (
McKallip et al., 2002b), natural killer cells (
Patrini et al., 1997), macrophages (
Sacerdote et al., 2000), and bone marrow-derived dendritic cells (
Do et al., 2004), resulting in overall immunosuppression of the host (
McKallip et al., 2002b;
Do et al., 2004). Such studies suggest that cannabinoids may serve as a double-edged sword, on one hand exhibiting the potential to treat inflammatory diseases, while on the other hand, potentially increasing the susceptibility to cancer and infections (
Nagarkatti et al., 2009,
2010;
Rieder et al., 2010). In this article, we show that perinatal exposure to THC negatively affects the immune system of the offspring, potentially compromising its response to infections. In particular, there is some evidence linking the use of marijuana to a higher risk of contracting HIV (
Roth et al., 2005). However, not much work has been done to study how maternal use of marijuana during pregnancy affects the offspring's risk of getting infected with HIV. "
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3199982/
Does that mean that everything in the last two paragraph are true? No hardly. More research needs to be done. But to act like there is settled science and making a bunch of leaps related to the endocannbinoid system? Idk man seems just as sloppy as the people who say MJ cures cancer (that statement is borderline negligent). Many drugs typically have negative effects on the fetus (like alcohol fetal syndrome), yes the potiential negative effects of MJ on a fetus are likely not as apparent as crack cocaine (otherwise we would know right now), that does not mean there are no negatives. It is 100% possible for it to have less apparent negative effects.
... Because that's definitely not how if feel after using.
