I used to be sceptical about weed addiction, and then it happened to me. It was relatively difficult to quit even though the habit was severely impacting my work and social life. In the end not having any weed around helped a lot. If you have an easy endless supply, boy, you're in trouble.
If you enjoy weed, consider having a strict limit (eg. max 1 smoke per week). If you smoke every day, you might find yourself unable to quit when need arises (eg. pregnancy, yours or your partner's).
I smoke every day. It absolutely impacts my work and social life, as without it I'm a painful ball of irritation that would have to be on opiates to get anything done.
I guess some people may also have some exposure from before they realize they're pregnant. That probably also happens with things like alcohol. I think I've heard some say that's not a big issue, though.
Going out on a limb here but it might be in the same spirit as a similar response to "Strong encryption is for child abuse and terrorism" / "Bittorrent is for pirating movies" in that it's true in some cases but is used as a popular discourse wedge to promote governmental overreach
That's a bad book.
Everything has risk. If you think you're not risking, you're deluding yourself. Trying to avoid "unnecessary" risks is only marginally better. You need to know how big the risks actually are, or your biases will mislead you.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/284135/percentage-americans-smo...
So probably about 20% of women who may become pregnant smoke marijuana, and 75% of them stop when pregnant, before adjusting for whether they are aware of the pregnancy. There are usually a few irresponsible individuals in any group.
Most parents are not thinking ahead.
(I can't think of a way to steelman around the fact that there are many toxic plant and animal substances, and some highly processed ingredients are completely harmless)
This is salicylic acid, in a number of tree barks but most abundantly in white willow.
The medication form is aspirin or acetylsalicylic acid.
No. The right to an opinion and to express it is not contingent on ones gender or gender expression. It is perfectly reasonable for people to make observations, conduct scientific research, form opinions, and discuss those opinions even if the outcome of such doesn't personally affect them. And, in point of fact, it's /strictly necessary/ for societal level issues.
So please take the advice of another man: whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. A woman's right to do as she pleases with her body is as absolute as a man's right to do as he pleases with his body.
While the article concerns a study, I responded to the OP of this thread, which is scrutinizing, "Why are pregnant women smoking weed to begin with?"
Now you have just advanced a straw man argument, as the topic of this thread is not research nor your defense of opinions, but rather, scrutinizing pregnant women.
Do not judge. Let the wicked be wicked.
Don't you read your Bible, child?
So, most doctors would advise against alcoholic beverages during pregnancy, I hope.
The form of my argument is that it is significant that there are not massive amounts of psychosis historically correlated to cannabis use, like we should have seen if this study is valid, and we really would have noticed. You're suggesting no one noticed alcohol was bad, either, but this is false. In fact, alcohol has been widely recognized as being destructive since it first became popular. That no one did any studies on the effect on fetuses until the 1970's is incidental, as anyone should have been able to guess this correctly without a formal clinical study.
Regardless of alcohol being a poor replacement for cannabis in example or metaphor, it is still a straw man argument.
People are not making this up. It's a risk that needs to be weighed.
Acknowledging this fact is not the same as being in favor of prohibition or criminalization or saying it'll happen to everyone.
It happens.
I think psychotic illnesses are complex and there is no one cause. THC can be a factor. This is also what the Google results I linked you to said
I bet they drank water before the bipolar episode too.
Again, cannabis has been in use recreationally and medicinally for more than 10,000 years. There are billions of users on Earth today, but psychotic episode remains a vanishingly rare event among users, insignificantly so. The general scientific consensus still remains that weed is harmless. But these days conservatives have gone overboard in twisting the facts to promote their nanny state agenda. I expect that, given recent assaults on rights, pregnant women alone are going to remove them from Congress.
But by all means, please believe what you wish, just don't expect anyone else to support your fantastic beliefs.
I don't think that's likely to be true at all. Single digit percentages of all humans have a psychotic disorder. If cannabis had no effect and such an event is coincidental, we would certainly not call it "vanishingly rare".
> But these days conservatives have gone overboard in twisting the facts to promote their nanny state agenda.
To be clear I explicitly said this is not a reason to ban on criminalize the substance. Just to not be in denial about it.
Anyway, the Google search I sent to you has plenty of sources who agree with my position.
If being told what to do is intolerable to you, then stop telling others what to do. You are not in charge, nor are those with your false beliefs.
Nor have I given you any false information. I said single digit percentages for psychotic disorders. About 4% of the population has bipolar (bipolar I can involve psychosis) and about 1% has schizophrenia.
This is false, and that was what I meant. BPD is not a psychotic disorder, even if psychotic episodes are possible, they are rare. Schizophrenia is a psychotic disorder, but at a rate of 0.45%, not 1%.
Single digit to double digit percentages.
> Among bipolar patients, the real danger is depression, as they will all experience that.
Iirc you don't need depression to fit diagnostic criteria of bipolar I. Just a manic episode will do it.
Depression will lead the sufferer to seek treatment. Mania and psychosis will make their life hell and possibly have them harm others, but they will think they are ok.
I think maybe you haven't been close to a particularly bad case of bipolar I. It can be very similar to schizoaffective disorder or schizophrenia. People can hop around these diagnoses because they can be hard to pin down and professionals can disagree.
> it is usually the first indicator of BPD, leading to diagnosis, education, and treatment.
That's a fairly optimistic scenario. Spoken like someone who has not seen a loved one deny the illness and avoid treatment.
> What are psychotic symptoms in bipolar disorder?
> Psychotic symptoms are sometimes found in people with bipolar disorder, particularly in the manic phase of the illness.. [snip] ..
> Moderate quality evidence suggests the prevalence of visual hallucinations in people with affective psychosis is around 15%, and the prevalence of auditory hallucinations is around 28% [snip. These rates] are higher than general population rates (7%).
https://library.neura.edu.au/bipolar-disorder/signs-and-symp...
false
> Just as no one has a right to tell you what you can do with your body
parents have this authority over children and the states have police power to tell people exactly what they may or may not do with their bodies
>neither you nor society has any right to tell a woman what she can and can't do with her body
nope
> 4th Amendment guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their person
The 4th amendment prohibits the government from seizing things. It has nothing to say about women from murdering babies.
> about to be creamed in election
seems unlikely from the polls I see but I would gladly trade all Republican political prospects for criminalizing abortions
We already know the results of that bone-headed idea. Criminalizing abortion does nothing to stop abortion, it only denies women the ability to have a safe abortion. Criminalizing abortion only serves to maim and kill teenage girls. Which is the lesser of two evils, the loss of an unknown potential, or the loss of a known viable individual? I am sure you've heard before the famous wisdom of George Santayana:
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
Uh, no.
Criticism does not equate to hatred.
And the more the word "misogyny" is misused by being thrown around frivolously, the less useful it is as an accurate descriptor.
You do our language and society a disservice by conflating the concepts of hate vs critique.
You are not the gatekeeper of what is and is not "misogyny".
Leave women alone? Are women somehow ordained with a shield against any criticism? No one can ever criticize a woman-- following that logic... women are always correct?
That sounds authoritarian to me.
Definition of authoritarian
1 : of, relating to, or favoring blind submission to authority 2 : of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people an authoritarian regime.
__________
The logic in: criticism != hatred is quite sound.
a definition of criticism: the expression of disapproval of someone or something based on perceived faults or mistakes.
a definition of critique: a detailed analysis and assessment of something
a definition of hatred: intense dislike or ill will
_________
TLDR: disapproval does not equal intense dislike
Just curious-- do you mean that in absolute terms?
For example: Can a teacher/parent/manager scrutinize or judge a student/child/employee? Certainly this is expected virtually all cultures.
Or, if you hire someone to do work on your house, or to build a car, train, or airplane, let's say. You cannot scrutinize their work?
There are entire industries & occupations devoted to this very practice-- Inspections.
So, I very much disagree. I think observable premises in reality demonstrate a different reality from what you claim.