Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Medicine

Study of 11,000 Kids Links Cannabis Use During Pregnancy To Child Behavioral Change (sciencealert.com) 82

Posted by EditorDavid from the going-to-pot dept.
Slashdot reader omfglearntoplay shared this article from Science Alert: A cross-sectional analysis of 11,489 children, 655 of whom were exposed to THC in the womb, has found cannabis use during pregnancy is tied to a small elevation in psychotic-like behaviours later in life. These include aggression towards others, as well as attention and social problems... the relationship stood even when other confounding factors, such as genetic predispositions, were considered.

Whether or not this link is causal is another matter — after all, there are many other factors the researchers may not have considered — but in the context of other research, it's an interesting link worthy of further exploration... [S]everal other lines of evidence have shown prenatal cannabis exposure is associated with decreased attention span and some behavioural problems in children...

While research on the health effects of cannabis is slowly catching up with legalisation, data on cannabis use during pregnancy is still lagging far behind. And that could be inadvertently harming the next generation. A 2019 study of over 450,000 pregnant women found cannabis use more than doubled between 2002 and 2017, reaching 7 percent... Cannabis is reportedly used to deal with nausea and vomiting in early pregnancy, but there's little evidence to say whether this actually works or if it's safe... There is currently no known safe level of cannabis use during pregnancy or lactation.

The potential risks have led the American College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the American Academy of Pediatrics to both advise against using cannabis in early pregnancy or while breastfeeding. Even the U.S. Surgeon General advises against cannabis use during pregnancy... While alcohol and tobacco during pregnancy are also linked to adverse health outcomes, these are already well documented. But many women don't know these are risks that might also come with prenatal exposure to weed.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Study of 11,000 Kids Links Cannabis Use During Pregnancy To Child Behavioral Change More

Study of 11,000 Kids Links Cannabis Use During Pregnancy To Child Behavioral Change

Comments Filter:

  • Generally, I like drugs. Take them. Enjoy them. Just don't harm others while you do.

    Taking drugs while pregnant is a bad thing. It fucks up your kid.

    • The problem here seems to be that you assume people have full control over themselves and hence only themselves to blame.
      With professional manipulators, using NLP and other nasty techniques, developer over decades by large think thanks... and you in drugs...

      I learned to stop and think, whenever I start saying something like "Just ..." or "simply ...". Because I'm oversimplifying. And everything is easy if you ignore half the details.

      In reality, people take drugs (or become addicted) for a reason. That reaso

      • You are assuming that I assume... I don't. I don't care what you do, or why, as long as you don't harm others in the process.

        Back to basics: "An' it harm none, do as you will shall be the whole of the law."

        • Not sure that's a sound principle.

          Rare indeed are the circumstances in which your action have no impact on others.

          • Rare indeed are the circumstances in which your action have no impact on others.

            Harm. I said do not harm others. That is quite a stretch to misread it like that.

            • My statement still works when you s/impact/harm.

              • There are beneficial impacts. Impact is not a synonym for harm. You broadened his meaning on him.

                • Re: (Score:1)

                  by MrNaz ( 730548 )

                  Oh for phuqs sake. Ok so let's roll this back and clarify for the idiots so wrapped up in detail they miss the point.

                  "It's rare that you can do something that in no way harms another person."

                  This is because everything we do dovetails into each others' interests. This basic realization is the basis for the social contract. Even if you just mind your own business, then you're using the roads, street lights, electricity, and other pieces of your country's infrastructure. This is why we have taxes; to pay for t

      • The body is used to having wide swings in blood glucose/fructose, putting sugar on level with alcohol is going full keto. Never go full keto.

      • Yep, it's not easy for addict to get off drugs. Ask me how I know. It's still *necessary*.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by rtb61 ( 674572 )

      I'll bet this study is a crock, what they have hidden most likely is those kids were also exposed to alchohol in the womb. Study paid for most likely by alchohol industry dollars. They did slip in mention of alchohol and tobacco being the greater problem but did not mention whether those tested also used alchohol and tobacco. They just sort of slipped past that issue and just sort of focused on whether or not those individuals smoked pot. No quality of life measurement, the environment in which the child wa

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Megol ( 3135005 )

        Ridiculous. I'll just counter your last issue with the fact it isn't possible to just add "genetics" to the study and that it isn't relevant here. For a follow-up study, sure, but here it would be of no use.

      • did not mention whether those tested also used alchohol and tobacco

        Yes, they do mention this.

        "prenatal exposure to tobacco or alcohol before or after maternal knowledge of pregnancy" is mentioned in the Covariates section. It is absolutely one of the variables they accounted for.

        no mention of genetics

        There are multiple mentions of genetics. Including in the first paragraph of the summary.

        Doesn't seem like you read very much before jumping to your pre-determined conclusion.

        And btw, I'm as pro-cannabis as t

    • Yea I thought the basic rule was to avoid everything when carrying a child. No alcohol, no medication stronger than tylenol. No smoking. And preferably no caffeine. My wife had pubic symphysis pain during her last 3 weeks of pregnancy. It was severe and agonizing. The OB prescribed her Percocet and highly suggested she use it sparingly. She only took it 3 times, at night, simply because the pain was so severe she could not sleep. Just those 3 pills, were enough than when my son was born, for a couple days,

      • How are you coming to the conclusion that this 'shake effect' is from the percocet?

        • Because the nurse told us, and we got a visit by the social worker on call. Even though the cause is explainable and there was a Rx, they still have to mandatory report and social services has follow up. Apparently this is the tell-tell sign of babies born to opiate abusers. The babies will just be be lying there and suddenly it looks like they got startled, or someone zapped them with a low powered taser.

  • If your mom consumed Cannabis, chances that she was at least somewhat psychotic are significantly elevated. And that could, even in absence of any THC induced effects on the child, explain such increased prevalence of "behavioral changes".

    • Yep. This study would only be valid if all the kids were adopted by normal parents afterwards.

      • Yep. This study would only be valid if all the kids were adopted by normal parents afterwards.

        Any conclusions about causality would still be invalid because the kid lost the genetic lottery.

        The only valid test would be to randomly assign pregnant women to smoke dope.

    • The article indicates the study was not sufficiently powerful to correct for "correlated factors".

      Conclusions and Relevance This study suggests that prenatal cannabis exposure and its correlated factors are associated with greater risk for psychopathology during middle childhood. Cannabis use during pregnancy should be discouraged.

    • Thinking about it further, a similarly constructed study of just about any anti-psychotic drug might yield a similar "conclusion".

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by geekmux ( 1040042 )

      If your mom consumed Cannabis, chances that she was at least somewhat psychotic are significantly elevated.

      If you want to assume that out of a few hundred children there may be a few psychotic mothers in that statistical pool naturally, that's fine. But this bullshit statement of yours more implies that cannabis-consuming mothers are psychotic and that is the reason they chose to consume cannabis.

      I mean did you even make it through TFS?

      "Cannabis is reportedly used to deal with nausea and vomiting in early pregnancy..."

      Vomiting and nausea during pregnancy, are not early warning signs of psychotic behavior. Th

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • An assumption could easily be made that a woman who smokes weed during pregnancy with all the information being spewed at her about taking good care of her body during that time frame is a fucking idiot.

          Or, it could be that a mother is consuming (as in eating, not smoking) cannabis based on the recommendation of someone with a doctorate degree in taking care of the human body during pregnancy, in order to curb excessive nausea and vomiting which is depleting the mother of critical nutrients, causing direct harm to the baby.

          Big Pharma waives the "danger, danger" flag over the devil plant every few months, because cannabis threatens their massive profits. Pay attention. Greed is obvious to all but fucking

  • Might be less complicated than all that. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by egyas ( 1364223 ) on Saturday October 10, 2020 @02:53PM (#60592386)

    Just to get my personal bias out there, it's safe to say I'm anti-pot use. I'm anti-narcotic use at all, unless it pharmaceutical, and then narcotics need to be under strict control. That's not to say I'm a "big government" guy, because I am totally a small government person, and have a massive libertarian streak. But I also understand that when people destroy their lives with drugs, the public is expected, or rather forced to via government (ie: taxpayer) funded programs to pay for rehab, housing, welfare, etc. As such, I want the availability of narcotics to be reduced and controlled. If we want to let the junkies rot to death because of their own poor decisions, and not force the tax-payers to pay for an addict's stupid choices, then hell I say legalize them all! But that's not the world we live in.

    Now that my bias is available for all to see, take the next portion of my OPINION for what it's worth to you. Maybe there is a link between THC exposure in the womb and "Child Behavioral Change". Given some of the studies I have read about genetic damage as a result to heavy THC use, I wouldn't be surprised. Then again, maybe it's a simpler connection. Exposing a child in the womb to any narcotic (outside of controlled prescription, Dr. supervised use), or any substance that is known to damage a developing child (like tobacco smoking) is a STUPID decision. Which obviously means that anyone capable of making stupid decisions, especially repeatedly making them, while pregnant is likely to continue making stupid decisions after the child is born. It's really a 1+1=2 kind of thing, this isn't rocket science. Come on, you all KNOW someone like this. They may even be in your family. I know for a fact my sister falls into this category. She RUINED her daughter with her repeated stupid decisions, and my niece is now continuing that cycle with her three kids (from three different "daddies").

    We know that children are the result of a combination of their nature (genetics), and their nurture (parents and environment). Could it not also be that the reason these children (the ones mentioned int he study) have an increased rate of "Child Behavioral Change" might simply be because that have bad parents, that keep making stupid decisions, that negatively impact their kids entire developmental life, and as a result create ill-adjusted kids?

    Or heck, maybe it's a combination of both.

    • Could it not also be that the reason these children (the ones mentioned int he study) have an increased rate of "Child Behavioral Change" might simply be because that have bad parents, that keep making stupid decisions, that negatively impact their kids entire developmental life, and as a result create ill-adjusted kids?

      Just to let you know, none of these papers provided an actual causation link and are just weak correlation. So yes, it’s entirely possible.

    • I also understand that when people destroy their lives with drugs, the public is expected, or rather forced to via government (ie: taxpayer) funded programs to pay for rehab, housing, welfare, etc. As such, I want the availability of narcotics to be reduced and controlled.

      You know that "reduction and control" currently costs billions, right?

    • Re:Might be less complicated than all that. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by gweihir ( 88907 ) on Saturday October 10, 2020 @03:33PM (#60592502)

      The fallacy you are falling for here is that drug use can actually be prevented or even strongly reduced. It cannot. Those that want it will find it, "small government" or full blown fascist empire. The difference with legal availability is good information, clean, standardized quality, low cost, removal of the mystique and the "forbidden", removal of all the criminals that of course want more customers, etc.

      Once you have gotten rid of the fantasy that making this stuff illegal is helpful in any way, this becomes pretty obvious.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by egyas ( 1364223 )

        No fallacy intended here. I know that drug-control is not 100% effective, or anywhere near close to that. I also know that addiction costs taxpayers $600 billion annually. Also, not the point.

        I think the fallacy is more in part of what you posted. This statement specifically ... "clean, standardized quality, low cost, removal of the mystique and the "forbidden". Let's look at that, part by part. Yes, this is my OPINION..

        "Clean". How? In order to get that you'd have to allow US companies to create t

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by gweihir ( 88907 )

          And then you look at history and find that all that _has_ been done before. "Heroine" is a _trade_ _mark_, not a street name. It is time for the insanely costly "war on drugs" to end. But I think you are arguing in bad faith anyways. Or you would have complained about the mass of money going into this "war" and about all the infringements on freedoms that are justified with it.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by PPH ( 736903 )

        The fallacy you are falling for here is that drug use can actually be prevented or even strongly reduced. It cannot.

        That fits the definition of addiction [wikipedia.org].

    • Cannabis is not a narcotic. Cripes.

    • But I also understand that when people destroy their lives with drugs, the public is expected, or rather forced to via government (ie: taxpayer) funded programs to pay for rehab, housing, welfare, etc. As such, I want the availability of narcotics to be reduced and controlled.

      I think you're underestimating the true cost of the war on drugs. I bet its much cheaper for society to let people make their own choices about drug use (and provide help to those who seek it) than it is to enable organized crime to destroy the lives of millions of people globally. The cost of drug abuse would be (mostly) limited to the abuser themselves and not on the millions of innocent people that are killed by the illicit drug trade.

      And to be clear, I agree with you 100% that drug abuse and use can b

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by egyas ( 1364223 )

        I did a quick google search and can't find the budget #'s for how much taxpayers are bilked for treatment, housing, meds, etc, used to treat addiction. I know that the NIH says that addiction costs the US $600 Billion a year, but the article is fuzzy on what that cost includes. https://www.drugabuse.gov/publ... [drugabuse.gov]

        I'll grant you that the "War on Drugs" (WoD) has been a spectacular and costly failure. Totally hasn't stopped the suppy, transport, or use of drugs. But it has made a dent. But honestly, what el

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by jemmyw ( 624065 )
          <quote><p>Cartels FLOODING our streets w/ drugs, and China flooding us w/ fentanyl.</p></quote>

          Seeing as they already are, letting it happen with less friction would probably just dissipate the power of those cartels.

        • I did a quick google search and can't find the budget #'s for how much taxpayers are bilked for treatment, housing, meds, etc, used to treat addiction. I know that the NIH says that addiction costs the US $600 Billion a year, but the article is fuzzy on what that cost includes. https://www.drugabuse.gov/publ... [drugabuse.gov]

          I think it's really quite clear if you read the link you posted. That cost is calculated based on prison costs, costs related to crime, and a lot of other costs that disappear 100% by legalizing the drugs (such as foreign aid to fight drug wars overseas). Just admit that you're a prohibitionist and that you want the government to decide what others should be doing despite claiming to be a libertarian. It's okay, everyone is a hypocrite, myself included. You need to calculate the cost based on rehab, DUI

    • I am totally a small government person, and have a massive libertarian streak.

      No, you are not even close to a libertarian.

      Nor do you know much about logic or evidence.

      Where is your evidence that the criminalization of drugs leads to fewer junkies? States that have legalized pot have seen no measurable change in consumption rates. Countries that have legalized or decriminalized heroin have seen the same.

      Where is your evidence that the PIC [wikipedia.org] is more cost-effective than doctors and nurses at treating addiction, which is a medical problem?

      Of all the stupid justifications for the WOD, "We

    • We know that children are the result of a combination of their nature (genetics), and their nurture (parents and environment). Could it not also be that the reason these children (the ones mentioned int he study) have an increased rate of "Child Behavioral Change" might simply be because that have bad parents, that keep making stupid decisions, that negatively impact their kids entire developmental life, and as a result create ill-adjusted kids?

      Or heck, maybe it's a combination of both.

      That's exactly the first thing that came to mind when I read the OP. Have there been any studies where decent people were forced to take mind-altering drugs while getting pregnant and after? Of course there haven't - that would be completely unethical. So, the sample we're left with are the dregs of society, and it's little wonder their offspring end up antisocial bundles of psychosis. A more positively correlated metric would be the number of kids that managed to claw their way up to respectability from su

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Baki ( 72515 )

      You assume a lot. B.t.w. THC is technically not a narcotic (maybe according to some laws).

      There are clear links between alcohol, tobacco and child health. Also apparently some (weaker it seems) to THC.
      There are many other negative correlations, with some medicines, too much sugar or otherwise bad diet or lack of vitamines, even some of the widely used painkillers. Also it depends on the amount. Yes and some people are more disciplined than others. Half a glass of wine per week is not good, but not a disaste

  • Did the parents have psychotic behaviors before? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Somervillain ( 4719341 ) on Saturday October 10, 2020 @02:57PM (#60592400)
    I am sure studies show that people whose parents took chemotherapy drugs are more likely to develop cancer as well.

    This is that classic correlation vs causation. If you're drawn to drugs, there's a reasonable chance your genetic makeup has a predisposition to attention and social problems. I am autistic and have quite a few autistic, OCD, ADHD friends, a significant subset of which choose cannabis over prescription meds because they feel it treats their symptoms. I have a very good friend who was diagnosed as bipolar...no one knows but her parents because no one has seen her act out. She stopped taking medication and used pot instead. I don't know if that's the smart thing to do. I don't judge those sort of things, but I have bipolar friends, all but her on medication, and she's the first that I have never seen have an episode.

    My 7yo son is autistic and in intensive special ed. He recently started medication which altered his behavior in ways we never anticipated, all for the better. I thought when he was aggressive or stubborn he was just an asshole, but then a pill made him actually a much nicer kid, without affecting his energy/metabolism too much (he actually stopped the behavior...it wasn't a case where he was simply too tired to be a dick). It opened my eyes that many traits I thought were fundamental to a person are actually chemical imbalances.

    Lots of people use cannabis recreationally...to have fun and get high, but lots also use it to self-medicate. Think what you will of them, but I am not surprised if some people with real genetic chemical imbalances that makes it hard to live daily life in the precise way society expects. Some can't afford years of therapy and psychiatry to diagnose them. That's VERY expensive in the US, even when you have decent insurance...whereas legalized pot is pretty cheap and if it makes you feel more balanced and in control, then it's a good choice. So yeah, some potheads are self-medicating underlying issues....so I am not surprised if their kids develop issues as well.

    It is very difficult to separate the pot from the underlying biochemistry, genetics, even the environment (air pollution, lack of sleep, ambient stress, etc)
    • Yes - lots of people use alcohol/tobacco/canabis to self medicate for stress, anxiety or pain - all valid reasons. Canabis seems to be the less harmful one of the three.

  • Or... (Score:3)

    by xlsior ( 524145 ) on Saturday October 10, 2020 @02:58PM (#60592404) Homepage
    ...It's also possible that heavy users are using it to self-medicate underlaying psychological problems of their own, which could potentially have a hereditary link.

    Or that habitual users simply have different parenting styles than non-users.

    Or...
    • You are already the third commenter stating a similar suspicion, and all three of us have been down-modded by what I can only assume to be a psychotic pot-head :-)

    • That is why research usually looks into estblishingehich is the cause and which is the effect.

      The short answer: Usually it's network of feedback loops of many factors that look like the olympic rings and require linear algebra to untangle. ;)

  • The church! Mass-psychosis is their whole thing, after all! :D

    (I'm mostly not serious. Still, it would not surprise me the least, to hear it really happened, 50 years into the future. :)

    (Also, my stance is that only you own your body, so nobody can tell you what not to do with it. Though I still obviously have a problem with when that ultimately results in my own equal freedom being harmed, no matter how indirectly.)

    (Finally, do you remember when we didn't have to add a disclaimer to everything, just in cas

  • The first few comments are nothing but excuses for why this research can't possibly be correct. Marijuana is harmless. Everyone knows it so there's absolutely no way a pregnant woman inhaling or ingesting marijuana could possibly affect her potential child. Nope, no way, no how. Just not gonna happen. It's not as if marijuana alters you in anyway so there can't possibly be any issues with a pregnant woman using it.

    Drug users can always find an excuse.

  • Scare tactics (Score:3)

    by burtosis ( 1124179 ) on Saturday October 10, 2020 @03:15PM (#60592446)
    Cannabis seized and sampled in the past was typically transported large distances, was not properly stored, and consisted of quite a bit more seeds, stems, and the larger fan leaves which have less THC content. Even so, Samples tested from seizures show the average was over 4% [nih.gov]. 4% is already huge, but even so, proper quality manicured and stored cannabis was likely closer to 6-10% back then. Now it’s closer to 17-23%, and this is due to indoor growing, better technology in growing plants in general, better manicuring and better storage as much as improvements in actual strains. So, at best, basically what took two, three or four hits now takes one - it’s not some dramatic difference like opium and fentanyl. It boggles my mind that a plant that needs all of those biological systems, can be such a high percentage by weight of a specific chemical. It would have to be some damn good shit to surpass 100% cannabinoids by weight.

  • So what they really found (Score:3)

    by gweihir ( 88907 ) on Saturday October 10, 2020 @03:27PM (#60592482)

    Is that Cannabis is pretty safe during pregnancy. Otherwise they would have found a much stronger effect. Sure, any drug use (including alcohol and nicotine) or bad nutrition (too much sugar or salt, e.g.) during pregnancy is a very bad idea, but this is not news.

  • The refer madness meme strikes again.

  • Effect is swamped.... (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    By thte lack of a father. Think I'm kidding?

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]

    The negative effect of growing up with a single mom swamps *everything*, income, race, drug addiction, parental education, and history of physical abuse. Having a single dad isn't as bad for various reasons, but growing up with a single mom overrides all other negative factors for children. It also *correlates* with other factors such as addiction and poor education, but it's the largest *single* factor.

    Why do we have BLM in politi

  • Will their lives be any better if they went to prison, instead? Who paid for the study, and why?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by PPH ( 736903 )

      Will their lives be any better if they went to prison, instead?

      No. But ours would be.

  • For my generation it was lead and PCB and other garbage they were dumping in the waterways near low rent communities. It would take more than THC and FAL to explain my graduating class.

  • But I would think zero would not be too controversial.

  • If we've been looking high and low for the environmental, genetic, etc causes of autism spectrum disorders and it turns out it happens because some women were closet weed smokers while they were pregnant.

  • In the phrasing of this article and on further reading, as well as follow up on the study itself, this was a headline designed to bait readers, not functional or healthy information. A non causal relationship without a direct correlation to a system analysis of life habits over a control group over more than two decades of Childrenâ(TM)s lives and neurological studies to align with the behavioral potential observation is hollow and conjectural. This was an âEarth is at the center of the universe

Slashdot Top Deals

"More software projects have gone awry for lack of calendar time than for all other causes combined." -- Fred Brooks, Jr., _The Mythical Man Month_

Close