FYI subby, my (NC) family doesn't get high like they used to, and during pregnancy it was just cigarettes anyway. Thanks for asking.

Here's a rather long list (a couple hundred items, at least) of prescription and non-prescription drugs that will test false positive for narcotics.
(Marijuana appears 42 times.).

Vangor: Newborn screening for marijuana at hospitals, particularly among babies of women who are considered at high risk of drug use, is not uncommon: at U.N.C. Chapel Hill, 10% to 40% of newborns are tested.

10% to 40% of newborns? Nice, narrow numbers.

Umfufu: I say we pass on testing the babies, and just test those whose lifestyle is supplemented by the state.

I say we pass on testing everyone because I do not care about cannabis use and would rather not spend money combating a nonissue through enforcement or testing, not to mention I want to avoid infringing upon the privacy of people without a compelling interest. Simply receiving welfare, disability, unemployment, etc., is not a compelling interest.

^^^Read this part twice. Learn it. Love it.^^^

BronyMedic: Amos Quito: But they're not talking about testing newborns after delivery, they're testing urine samples of kids coming in for check-ups or other purposes.

If a kid is acting altered or with a decreased mental status in any way, shape, or form, they're going to run a Urine Drug Screen. It's pretty much considered a legal and clinical standard of care. Since it's not being used for any legal prosecution reason, and they will require a warrant for the results to be released and used in court, there's no violation of the 4th Amendment, and the consent is given when you sign the admission consent forms.

Not only could he or she have been poisoned or accidentally given medication or drugs which will show up, a lot of stuff is passed through breast milk, including THC. And breast milk concentrates THC, which can be responsable for the depression and altered mental status.


I won't argue that, my reply was to Dude in Austin's assertion that these false positives were showing up in newborns - hence his references to NICU.

AND these soaps are producing FALSE POSITIVES. How many innocent parents have been put through hell when CPS takes their kids? Can you imagine the kind of hell they face trying to regain custody?

Kudos to the people that figured this shiat out. No doubt it will save a lot of needless misery suffered by innocents.

LordOfThePings: Amos Quito: Again, they're NOT talking about testing newborns fresh out of the womb.

Mothers washing their baby with Aveeno, Baby Magic or other soaps while the child is still in utero is less common than you think.

I've heard some douchebags do that.


LOL!

NutWrench: Here's a rather long list (a couple hundred items, at least) of prescription and non-prescription drugs that will test false positive for narcotics.
(Marijuana appears 42 times.).

Man, anyone who supports drug testing - in any context - should have to memorize that and recite it before being allowed to continue holding that position. Call me when the damn tests work.

Dude...if you had to live in SC? are you kidding me?

I'll take 3.

NutWrench: Here's a rather long list (a couple hundred items, at least) of prescription and non-prescription drugs that will test false positive for narcotics.
(Marijuana appears 42 times.).


The War on Drugs was tested for logic, intelligence and practicality.

False positives all.

clowncar on fire: TheGreatGazoo: It isn't just kids. I went to the ER with a rapid heart rate and they didn't disclose testing me for drugs until my cardiologist mentioned it a few days later.

I figured they'd test for meth.

Would you prefer thay ran the full battery of tests without including one that statiscally may point to the use of meth use. You don't want someone to test for drugs don't put yourself in a position where testing become intrusive.

Not a user so tes away biatches!!

That sounds pretty short-sighted. I'd be curious what the false-positive rate for that test is (and what actions the medical staff would take on a positive test), and also how much the hypothetical me would be paying for that useless test.

So Duke sucks, but UNC inhales. Got it.

Vangor: Newborn screening for marijuana at hospitals, particularly among babies of women who are considered at high risk of drug use, is not uncommon: at U.N.C. Chapel Hill, 10% to 40% of newborns are tested.

10% to 40% of newborns? Nice, narrow numbers.

Umfufu: I say we pass on testing the babies, and just test those whose lifestyle is supplemented by the state.

I say we pass on testing everyone because I do not care about cannabis use and would rather not spend money combating a nonissue through enforcement or testing, not to mention I want to avoid infringing upon the privacy of people without a compelling interest. Simply receiving welfare, disability, unemployment, etc., is not a compelling interest.

How about just holding off on the drugs, tobacco, and alchohol until babby hatch- OK?

su007: "Even when the test is accurate, there is no evidence that smoking pot endangers children," he says, adding, "There is overwhelming evidence that needless foster care endangers children." Richard Wexler an his crazy logic.

Second-hand smoke is not dangerous if it is pot smoke.

Soda makes people fat, not a lack of self-control.

There are no jobs available (except for "undocumented workers") so I don't work and will collect unemployment for 99 weeks.

Bush is a war criminal for attacking Iraq and Afghanistan while Obama deserves a peace prize for attacking Libya, Yemen, Pakistan, Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan, etc.

Logic of the left

clowncar on fire: Vangor: Newborn screening for marijuana at hospitals, particularly among babies of women who are considered at high risk of drug use, is not uncommon: at U.N.C. Chapel Hill, 10% to 40% of newborns are tested.

10% to 40% of newborns? Nice, narrow numbers.

Umfufu: I say we pass on testing the babies, and just test those whose lifestyle is supplemented by the state.

I say we pass on testing everyone because I do not care about cannabis use and would rather not spend money combating a nonissue through enforcement or testing, not to mention I want to avoid infringing upon the privacy of people without a compelling interest. Simply receiving welfare, disability, unemployment, etc., is not a compelling interest.

How about just holding off on the drugs, tobacco, and alchohol until babby hatch- OK?

You completely missed his point. He is talking in general, not specifically to pregnant mothers. Since the rate of error on drug testing is so high, and since it violates some basic principles of freedom, the benefit does nothing to outweigh the liability.

dosboot: su007: "Even when the test is accurate, there is no evidence that smoking pot endangers children," he says, adding, "There is overwhelming evidence that needless foster care endangers children." Richard Wexler an his crazy logic.

Second-hand smoke is not dangerous if it is pot smoke.

Soda makes people fat, not a lack of self-control.

There are no jobs available (except for "undocumented workers") so I don't work and will collect unemployment for 99 weeks.

Bush is a war criminal for attacking Iraq and Afghanistan while Obama deserves a peace prize for attacking Libya, Yemen, Pakistan, Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan, etc.

Logic of the left

The logic of the right is to not factor in, include, realise, recognise nor debate ANY of the context of the times. They just FEEL REALLY HARD at issues and make conclusions based on that. Your post fails to take into account much. So much so that I'm shocked I'm even replying to you. You're probably afraid of science, reason and people smarter than you.

clowncar on fire: How about just holding off on the drugs, tobacco, and alchohol until babby hatch- OK?

Sure. I would be all for people doing this. I would not be all for the government enforcing this. Incentives through free dependency treatments in particular ones focused on pregnancy, free medical support for pregnant women, and more, I would be all for.

However, I do wonder why the discussion has centered on this idea of women smoking cannabis while pregnant when the article concerns soaps.

One of the reasons Hemp is still banned in the US is because hemp products can produce positive drug tests.

Which is ridiculous, but I wonder if any hemp oils might be in baby products.

Acharne: dosboot: su007: "Even when the test is accurate, there is no evidence that smoking pot endangers children," he says, adding, "There is overwhelming evidence that needless foster care endangers children." Richard Wexler an his crazy logic.

Second-hand smoke is not dangerous if it is pot smoke.

Soda makes people fat, not a lack of self-control.

There are no jobs available (except for "undocumented workers") so I don't work and will collect unemployment for 99 weeks.

Bush is a war criminal for attacking Iraq and Afghanistan while Obama deserves a peace prize for attacking Libya, Yemen, Pakistan, Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan, etc.

Logic of the left

The logic of the right is to not factor in, include, realise, recognise nor debate ANY of the context of the times. They just FEEL REALLY HARD at issues and make conclusions based on that. Your post fails to take into account much. So much so that I'm shocked I'm even replying to you. You're probably afraid of science, reason and people smarter than you.

I supplicate myself before your intelligence and insight. You think highly of yourself. Now go back to your mirror and admire all the wonderment that God created.

State aid should not be eliminated for marijuana users - or, indeed, users of any drug. However, it should be reduced in accordance with how much money an individual spends on drug purchases.

Buy $50 worth of Marijuana this month? Your total government handout is reduced by $50. Obviously you didn't need the $50 that month for necessary household supplies.

This would be impossible to enforce, so a positive test for any drug at the birth of the child should reduce the amount of state aid received by parent of the child by the average national monthly use/cost of the given product. IE, if the average meth user wastes $200/month using meth, your positive post-birth meth test reduces your state aid by $200. Individuals interested in increasing their state aid can pay for their own drug test which, if clean, will result in the reinstatement of full benefits.

No, it won't work. No, it won't happen. No, I don't care.

Done.

Vangor: clowncar on fire: How about just holding off on the drugs, tobacco, and alchohol until babby hatch- OK?

Sure. I would be all for people doing this. I would not be all for the government enforcing this. Incentives through free dependency treatments in particular ones focused on pregnancy, free medical support for pregnant women, and more, I would be all for.

However, I do wonder why the discussion has centered on this idea of women smoking cannabis while pregnant when the article concerns soaps.

Always consessions... how about laying off the drugs , tobacco, alchohol until babby hatch instead? Personal responsibility does not require government handouts. Can't afford to have a kid HOW ABOUT NOT HAVING ONE UNTIL YOU CAN AFFORD IT? Why should I cover for you? You got my back next time I come up short trying to get my kids into the 3D version of the Avengers? No? Then STFU!

clowncar on fire: Caps lock and random accusations.

Oh, forgive me; I was unaware you were a troll.

dosboot: Acharne: dosboot: su007: "Even when the test is accurate, there is no evidence that smoking pot endangers children," he says, adding, "There is overwhelming evidence that needless foster care endangers children." Richard Wexler an his crazy logic.

Second-hand smoke is not dangerous if it is pot smoke.

Soda makes people fat, not a lack of self-control.

There are no jobs available (except for "undocumented workers") so I don't work and will collect unemployment for 99 weeks.

Bush is a war criminal for attacking Iraq and Afghanistan while Obama deserves a peace prize for attacking Libya, Yemen, Pakistan, Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan, etc.

Logic of the left

The logic of the right is to not factor in, include, realise, recognise nor debate ANY of the context of the times. They just FEEL REALLY HARD at issues and make conclusions based on that. Your post fails to take into account much. So much so that I'm shocked I'm even replying to you. You're probably afraid of science, reason and people smarter than you.

I supplicate myself before your intelligence and insight. You think highly of yourself. Now go back to your mirror and admire all the wonderment that God created.

Thankfully I keep a mirror attached to my monitor. The LEFT side of the monitor. I keep a mirror on the right side too but I've drawn a goatee and horns on the mirror.

Seriously though, I don't think highly of myself. I think very, very lowly of right wing talking points presented without context. Them's the WORST.

another cultural observer: State aid should not be eliminated for marijuana users - or, indeed, users of any drug. However, it should be reduced in accordance with how much money an individual spends on drug purchases.

Buy $50 worth of Marijuana this month? Your total government handout is reduced by $50. Obviously you didn't need the $50 that month for necessary household supplies.

This would be impossible to enforce, so a positive test for any drug at the birth of the child should reduce the amount of state aid received by parent of the child by the average national monthly use/cost of the given product. IE, if the average meth user wastes $200/month using meth, your positive post-birth meth test reduces your state aid by $200. Individuals interested in increasing their state aid can pay for their own drug test which, if clean, will result in the reinstatement of full benefits.

No, it won't work. No, it won't happen. No, I don't care.

Done.

Your forgot a couple: No it's not a smart idea, no I don't have a real reason for wanting this. No I don't know what I'm talking about.

another cultural observer: Buy $50 worth of Marijuana this month? Your total government handout is reduced by $50. Obviously you didn't need the $50 that month for necessary household supplies.

You are very naive. Did you know some people buy small amounts of "drugs" in order to sell a little and keep a little, so as to make it cheaper? Your idea is very misinformed.

clowncar on fire: Always consessions... how about laying off the drugs , tobacco, alchohol until babby hatch instead? Personal responsibility does not require government handouts. Can't afford to have a kid HOW ABOUT NOT HAVING ONE UNTIL YOU CAN AFFORD IT? Why should I cover for you? You got my back next time I come up short trying to get my kids into the 3D version of the Avengers? No? Then STFU!

How about you quit being a judgmental ass? I help cover the cost of the city police that are protecting your douche-y ass from earned beatings.

newborns' marijuana screening tests

Wut?

From the article:

To remove children from their home at birth because of a positive marijuana test is immediately and inexorably harmful, says Richard Wexler, executive director of the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform. "Even when the test is accurate, there is no evidence that smoking pot endangers children," he says, adding, "There is overwhelming evidence that needless foster care endangers children."

Frederick: another cultural observer: Buy $50 worth of Marijuana this month? Your total government handout is reduced by $50. Obviously you didn't need the $50 that month for necessary household supplies.

You are very naive. Did you know some people buy small amounts of "drugs" in order to sell a little and keep a little, so as to make it cheaper? Your idea is very misinformed.

clowncar on fire: Always consessions... how about laying off the drugs , tobacco, alchohol until babby hatch instead? Personal responsibility does not require government handouts. Can't afford to have a kid HOW ABOUT NOT HAVING ONE UNTIL YOU CAN AFFORD IT? Why should I cover for you? You got my back next time I come up short trying to get my kids into the 3D version of the Avengers? No? Then STFU!

How about you quit being a judgmental ass? I help cover the cost of the city police that are protecting your douche-y ass from earned beatings.

I also cover the police covering your douchebaggy ass as well. And your point was again?

Wexler explains that the odds of abuse and neglect are higher in foster care than they would be at home for the babies. "These infants are being taken from homes where there is no evidence of abuse, and placed in a situation where the odds of abuse are at least 1 in 4," he says. "The odds of this kind of separation doing emotional damage are nearly 100%. Children risk enormous emotional trauma when they are torn from their mothers during a crucial period for infant-parent bonding."

One study of infants who were exposed to cocaine in the womb found that their physical growth and development increased when they remained with their biological mothers, compared with being removed from the home because of maternal drug use. "For the foster children, being taken from their mothers was more toxic than the cocaine," Wexler says.

Quaker: FTFA: Newborn screening for marijuana at hospitals, particularly among babies of women who are considered at high risk of drug use, is not uncommon...

Which is to say, poor people.

And, unfortunately, black people: a 2007 study found that babies born to black mothers were 50% more likely to be tested than white infants, even though rates of drug use and odds of positive results didn't vary by race.

FizixJunkee: Wexler explains that the odds of abuse and neglect are higher in foster care than they would be at home for the babies. "These infants are being taken from homes where there is no evidence of abuse, and placed in a situation where the odds of abuse are at least 1 in 4," he says. "The odds of this kind of separation doing emotional damage are nearly 100%. Children risk enormous emotional trauma when they are torn from their mothers during a crucial period for infant-parent bonding."

One study of infants who were exposed to cocaine in the womb found that their physical growth and development increased when they remained with their biological mothers, compared with being removed from the home because of maternal drug use. "For the foster children, being taken from their mothers was more toxic than the cocaine," Wexler says.

Huh? They take children out of at risk households in an attempt at finding a safer environment. My brother's foster kid came from a home where the crazy boyfriend attempted to burn the trailer housing 3 children hoped to skip child support by negating the existance of one of his kids. The kid that had watched his mom beaten to death by her boyfriend with a hammer was a bit too much for him to take on however.

cookiewookie: I know hospitals here in Oklahoma automatically test any woman who has not gotten pre-natal care or is a "drop-in" delivery (coming in to an emergency room in labor).


Going to the E.R. when you're in labor is cause for suspicion? Really?

So you're supposed to know, in advance, when your labor is going to start? How is that possible? Isn't there, like, a two week window during which labor typically happens? Are you supposed to show up at the hospital at week 38 of your pregnancy and hang out for a while until you eventually poop out the kid?

\G-d, I knew there was a reason I left Oklahoma

clowncar on fire: Pregnant? For once and for the next 9 months think of someone other than yourself and stay clean. Once you push that parasite out, you can give it away and become the trash people have come to expect you to be. Maybe by then, "responsibility' may become part of your vocabulary and raising your child will become more rewarding instead of a burden.

Or have an abortion. Heck, if you're a drug-addicted, newly-pregnant woman, I'll pay for the abortion myself. And I might even throw in some cash for subsequent birth control, too.

clowncar on fire: FizixJunkee: Wexler explains that the odds of abuse and neglect are higher in foster care than they would be at home for the babies. "These infants are being taken from homes where there is no evidence of abuse, and placed in a situation where the odds of abuse are at least 1 in 4," he says. "The odds of this kind of separation doing emotional damage are nearly 100%. Children risk enormous emotional trauma when they are torn from their mothers during a crucial period for infant-parent bonding."

One study of infants who were exposed to cocaine in the womb found that their physical growth and development increased when they remained with their biological mothers, compared with being removed from the home because of maternal drug use. "For the foster children, being taken from their mothers was more toxic than the cocaine," Wexler says.

Huh? They take children out of at risk households in an attempt at finding a safer environment. My brother's foster kid came from a home where the crazy boyfriend attempted to burn the trailer housing 3 children hoped to skip child support by negating the existance of one of his kids. The kid that had watched his mom beaten to death by her boyfriend with a hammer was a bit too much for him to take on however.

And you're unproven anecdote somehow undermines a scientific study, years of research, and the opinion of a man who's spent decades in the field? Is that what you're saying?

FizixJunkee: cookiewookie: I know hospitals here in Oklahoma automatically test any woman who has not gotten pre-natal care or is a "drop-in" delivery (coming in to an emergency room in labor).


Going to the E.R. when you're in labor is cause for suspicion? Really?

So you're supposed to know, in advance, when your labor is going to start? How is that possible? Isn't there, like, a two week window during which labor typically happens? Are you supposed to show up at the hospital at week 38 of your pregnancy and hang out for a while until you eventually poop out the kid?

\G-d, I knew there was a reason I left Oklahoma

"drop in delivery" is when there is no history of prenatal care until that last minute that you get an ER to accept you (by law) long enough to drop a kid. In many cases the mom checks out without a forwarding address. In avoiding prenatal care, they avoid drug testing. In disappearing after having a child there's no need to explain why your child is already expiriencing the DT's before his first drink.

Mr. Carpenter: clowncar on fire: FizixJunkee: Wexler explains that the odds of abuse and neglect are higher in foster care than they would be at home for the babies. "These infants are being taken from homes where there is no evidence of abuse, and placed in a situation where the odds of abuse are at least 1 in 4," he says. "The odds of this kind of separation doing emotional damage are nearly 100%. Children risk enormous emotional trauma when they are torn from their mothers during a crucial period for infant-parent bonding."

One study of infants who were exposed to cocaine in the womb found that their physical growth and development increased when they remained with their biological mothers, compared with being removed from the home because of maternal drug use. "For the foster children, being taken from their mothers was more toxic than the cocaine," Wexler says.

Huh? They take children out of at risk households in an attempt at finding a safer environment. My brother's foster kid came from a home where the crazy boyfriend attempted to burn the trailer housing 3 children hoped to skip child support by negating the existance of one of his kids. The kid that had watched his mom beaten to death by her boyfriend with a hammer was a bit too much for him to take on however.

And you're unproven anecdote somehow undermines a scientific study, years of research, and the opinion of a man who's spent decades in the field? Is that what you're saying?

You mean a man who does not have a degree in psychology or psychiatry or any medical field? You mean the Richard Wexler who is only a journalist? You might want to check on the person whose authority you are appealing to.

another cultural observer: State aid should not be eliminated for marijuana users - or, indeed, users of any drug. However, it should be reduced in accordance with how much money an individual spends on drug purchases.

Buy $50 worth of Marijuana this month? Your total government handout is reduced by $50. Obviously you didn't need the $50 that month for necessary household supplies.

This would be impossible to enforce, so a positive test for any drug at the birth of the child should reduce the amount of state aid received by parent of the child by the average national monthly use/cost of the given product. IE, if the average meth user wastes $200/month using meth, your positive post-birth meth test reduces your state aid by $200. Individuals interested in increasing their state aid can pay for their own drug test which, if clean, will result in the reinstatement of full benefits.

No, it won't work. No, it won't happen. No, I don't care.

Done.

If we're going to budget your handouts for you we may as well just pay your rent and power and send groceries to your house with a refrigerator magnet that says shut the fark up this is free.

Mr. Carpenter: clowncar on fire: FizixJunkee: Wexler explains that the odds of abuse and neglect are higher in foster care than they would be at home for the babies. "These infants are being taken from homes where there is no evidence of abuse, and placed in a situation where the odds of abuse are at least 1 in 4," he says. "The odds of this kind of separation doing emotional damage are nearly 100%. Children risk enormous emotional trauma when they are torn from their mothers during a crucial period for infant-parent bonding."

One study of infants who were exposed to cocaine in the womb found that their physical growth and development increased when they remained with their biological mothers, compared with being removed from the home because of maternal drug use. "For the foster children, being taken from their mothers was more toxic than the cocaine," Wexler says.

Huh? They take children out of at risk households in an attempt at finding a safer environment. My brother's foster kid came from a home where the crazy boyfriend attempted to burn the trailer housing 3 children hoped to skip child support by negating the existance of one of his kids. The kid that had watched his mom beaten to death by her boyfriend with a hammer was a bit too much for him to take on however.

And you're unproven anecdote somehow undermines a scientific study, years of research, and the opinion of a man who's spent decades in the field? Is that what you're saying?

You're vs your unproven anectadote? Why yes, it does. Care to explain why a biased study would be any more believable than an anectadote I couldn't go further into details over due to privacy issues should be taken as gospel?

In reality, foster children have been removed from at risk environments. Anectadote will tell us that sometimes these kids end up in puppy mills where the foster parents are more about the financial benefits of raising a foster child rather than helping the kid. In some cases monsters (molesters, abusers) get through the screening process and kis fall into the wrong hands.

My brother and his family has been taking on foster kids for quite a few years and is very familiar with the stories of their children's natural parents. Many of these kids are damaged, both emotionally and physically from their natural parents. Dispite the challenges, my brother's family have provided the best environment for the children as possible going so far as to adopt two brothers (one from the burning trailer) and his sibling who started life with an addiction to cocaine (thanks mom!). Are you really naive enough to believe that remaining with an abusive /negligent parent a better alternative to foster care????

FizixJunkee: Going to the E.R. when you're in labor is cause for suspicion? Really?

You know what an emergency room is, right? You've been to one? You either arrive at an ER in an ambulance and see a doctor immediately or you whine in the waiting room for 3 hours (if you're lucky) before you get to see a doctor.

You don't go to an ER to give birth. You'll shiat out the kid in triage (not really. that's a joke). You make arrangements with the hospital or your obgyn beforehand. Delivery dates can be estimated.

sprgrss: Mr. Carpenter: clowncar on fire: FizixJunkee: Wexler explains that the odds of abuse and neglect are higher in foster care than they would be at home for the babies. "These infants are being taken from homes where there is no evidence of abuse, and placed in a situation where the odds of abuse are at least 1 in 4," he says. "The odds of this kind of separation doing emotional damage are nearly 100%. Children risk enormous emotional trauma when they are torn from their mothers during a crucial period for infant-parent bonding."

One study of infants who were exposed to cocaine in the womb found that their physical growth and development increased when they remained with their biological mothers, compared with being removed from the home because of maternal drug use. "For the foster children, being taken from their mothers was more toxic than the cocaine," Wexler says.

Huh? They take children out of at risk households in an attempt at finding a safer environment. My brother's foster kid came from a home where the crazy boyfriend attempted to burn the trailer housing 3 children hoped to skip child support by negating the existance of one of his kids. The kid that had watched his mom beaten to death by her boyfriend with a hammer was a bit too much for him to take on however.

And you're unproven anecdote somehow undermines a scientific study, years of research, and the opinion of a man who's spent decades in the field? Is that what you're saying?

You mean a man who does not have a degree in psychology or psychiatry or any medical field? You mean the Richard Wexler who is only a journalist? You might want to check on the person whose authority you are appealing to.

You might want to ignore the vast majority of my post and focus on only one minor aspect so that your straw man looks better. Also, you did in no way argue against the point I made. Gj.

This is why China...

clowncar on fire: Mr. Carpenter: clowncar on fire: FizixJunkee: Wexler explains that the odds of abuse and neglect are higher in foster care than they would be at home for the babies. "These infants are being taken from homes where there is no evidence of abuse, and placed in a situation where the odds of abuse are at least 1 in 4," he says. "The odds of this kind of separation doing emotional damage are nearly 100%. Children risk enormous emotional trauma when they are torn from their mothers during a crucial period for infant-parent bonding."

One study of infants who were exposed to cocaine in the womb found that their physical growth and development increased when they remained with their biological mothers, compared with being removed from the home because of maternal drug use. "For the foster children, being taken from their mothers was more toxic than the cocaine," Wexler says.

Huh? They take children out of at risk households in an attempt at finding a safer environment. My brother's foster kid came from a home where the crazy boyfriend attempted to burn the trailer housing 3 children hoped to skip child support by negating the existance of one of his kids. The kid that had watched his mom beaten to death by her boyfriend with a hammer was a bit too much for him to take on however.

And you're unproven anecdote somehow undermines a scientific study, years of research, and the opinion of a man who's spent decades in the field? Is that what you're saying?

You're vs your unproven anectadote? Why yes, it does. Care to explain why a biased study would be any more believable than an anectadote I couldn't go further into details over due to privacy issues should be taken as gospel?

In reality, foster children have been removed from at risk environments. Anectadote will tell us that sometimes these kids end up in puppy mills where the foster parents are more about the financial benefits of raising a foster child rather than helping the kid. In some cases monsters (molester ...

So you do believe unprovable anecdote > scientific study/years of research ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooook. .. troll or retard, can't decide.

moothemagiccow: FizixJunkee: Going to the E.R. when you're in labor is cause for suspicion? Really?

You know what an emergency room is, right? You've been to one? You either arrive at an ER in an ambulance and see a doctor immediately or you whine in the waiting room for 3 hours (if you're lucky) before you get to see a doctor.

You don't go to an ER to give birth. You'll shiat out the kid in triage (not really. that's a joke). You make arrangements with the hospital or your obgyn beforehand. Delivery dates can be estimated.


When I was pregnant, I was told by my health care provider to go to the E.R. when labor was starting, which is, in fact, exactly what I did. I was triaged rather promptly and was sent up to L&D without any noticeable wait whatsoever (that is, once the triaging nurse was convinced I was truly in labor...helpful tip: if you tell the nurse your pain level is a 2 out of 10 on that ridiculous pain chart, she's not going to believe you're really in labor until someone shoves his hand up your hoo-ha and finds you're halfway dilated and water has already broken).

And delivery dates are often crude approximations. Like I said, you're often given a due date with a +/- one week error.

clowncar on fire: Mr. Carpenter: clowncar on fire: FizixJunkee: Wexler explains that the odds of abuse and neglect are higher in foster care than they would be at home for the babies. "These infants are being taken from homes where there is no evidence of abuse, and placed in a situation where the odds of abuse are at least 1 in 4," he says. "The odds of this kind of separation doing emotional damage are nearly 100%. Children risk enormous emotional trauma when they are torn from their mothers during a crucial period for infant-parent bonding."

One study of infants who were exposed to cocaine in the womb found that their physical growth and development increased when they remained with their biological mothers, compared with being removed from the home because of maternal drug use. "For the foster children, being taken from their mothers was more toxic than the cocaine," Wexler says.

Huh? They take children out of at risk households in an attempt at finding a safer environment. My brother's foster kid came from a home where the crazy boyfriend attempted to burn the trailer housing 3 children hoped to skip child support by negating the existance of one of his kids. The kid that had watched his mom beaten to death by her boyfriend with a hammer was a bit too much for him to take on however.

And you're unproven anecdote somehow undermines a scientific study, years of research, and the opinion of a man who's spent decades in the field? Is that what you're saying?

You're vs your unproven anectadote? Why yes, it does. Care to explain why a biased study would be any more believable than an anectadote I couldn't go further into details over due to privacy issues should be taken as gospel?

In reality, foster children have been removed from at risk environments. Anectadote will tell us that sometimes these kids end up in puppy mills where the foster parents are more about the financial benefits of raising a foster child rather than helping the kid. In some cases monsters (molester ...

Oh and there are seven spelling and grammatical errors in your post. But since it's 2am here I was going to give you the benefit of the doubt, thanks for pointing out my typo. When you don't have logic, at least you'll have something...

Sentence frag, anecdote, anecdote, run-on sentence, care, number AND tense agreement, tense

clowncar on fire: Frederick: another cultural observer: Buy $50 worth of Marijuana this month? Your total government handout is reduced by $50. Obviously you didn't need the $50 that month for necessary household supplies.

You are very naive. Did you know some people buy small amounts of "drugs" in order to sell a little and keep a little, so as to make it cheaper? Your idea is very misinformed.

clowncar on fire: Always consessions... how about laying off the drugs , tobacco, alchohol until babby hatch instead? Personal responsibility does not require government handouts. Can't afford to have a kid HOW ABOUT NOT HAVING ONE UNTIL YOU CAN AFFORD IT? Why should I cover for you? You got my back next time I come up short trying to get my kids into the 3D version of the Avengers? No? Then STFU!

How about you quit being a judgmental ass? I help cover the cost of the city police that are protecting your douche-y ass from earned beatings.

I also cover the police covering your douchebaggy ass as well. And your point was again?

My first point is that you are a judgmental ass for believing you have the authority and superiority to dictate to others what they may or may not do even if it doesnt effect you personally.

Except vicariously through your tax dollars which was my second point being; apparently you are overly concerned with "what you cover" for others seemingly without considering how the system also works for you.

Mr. Carpenter: clowncar on fire: Mr. Carpenter: clowncar on fire: FizixJunkee: Wexler explains that the odds of abuse and neglect are higher in foster care than they would be at home for the babies. "These infants are being taken from homes where there is no evidence of abuse, and placed in a situation where the odds of abuse are at least 1 in 4," he says. "The odds of this kind of separation doing emotional damage are nearly 100%. Children risk enormous emotional trauma when they are torn from their mothers during a crucial period for infant-parent bonding."

One study of infants who were exposed to cocaine in the womb found that their physical growth and development increased when they remained with their biological mothers, compared with being removed from the home because of maternal drug use. "For the foster children, being taken from their mothers was more toxic than the cocaine," Wexler says.

Huh? They take children out of at risk households in an attempt at finding a safer environment. My brother's foster kid came from a home where the crazy boyfriend attempted to burn the trailer housing 3 children hoped to skip child support by negating the existance of one of his kids. The kid that had watched his mom beaten to death by her boyfriend with a hammer was a bit too much for him to take on however.

And you're unproven anecdote somehow undermines a scientific study, years of research, and the opinion of a man who's spent decades in the field? Is that what you're saying?

You're vs your unproven anectadote? Why yes, it does. Care to explain why a biased study would be any more believable than an anectadote I couldn't go further into details over due to privacy issues should be taken as gospel?

In reality, foster children have been removed from at risk environments. Anectadote will tell us that sometimes these kids end up in puppy mills where the foster parents are more about the financial benefits of raising a foster child rather than helping the kid. In some cases ...

It's not years of scientific evidence and studies. It's a guy who has no background in medicine, taking studies out of context and spinning them to fit whatever policy views he wants. Your boy Wexler is about as respected as the homeless guy on the corner who shouts about aliens. The only reason why he ever gets quoted is because the media has this weird desire to show both sides of the issue even when the one side of the issue represents a completely marginal viewpoint.

moothemagiccow: You know what an emergency room is, right? You've been to one? You either arrive at an ER in an ambulance and see a doctor immediately or you whine in the waiting room for 3 hours (if you're lucky) before you get to see a doctor.

Not necessarily.

You have people like me who stand between you and that quick trip to the examination room.

If you're calling me for bullshiat, AND/OR you call me because you want to skip the waiting room and you are not critically ill, guess where you get to go?

FizixJunkee: moothemagiccow: FizixJunkee: Going to the E.R. when you're in labor is cause for suspicion? Really?

You know what an emergency room is, right? You've been to one? You either arrive at an ER in an ambulance and see a doctor immediately or you whine in the waiting room for 3 hours (if you're lucky) before you get to see a doctor.

You don't go to an ER to give birth. You'll shiat out the kid in triage (not really. that's a joke). You make arrangements with the hospital or your obgyn beforehand. Delivery dates can be estimated.


When I was pregnant, I was told by my health care provider to go to the E.R. when labor was starting, which is, in fact, exactly what I did. I was triaged rather promptly and was sent up to L&D without any noticeable wait whatsoever (that is, once the triaging nurse was convinced I was truly in labor...helpful tip: if you tell the nurse your pain level is a 2 out of 10 on that ridiculous pain chart, she's not going to believe you're really in labor until someone shoves his hand up your hoo-ha and finds you're halfway dilated and water has already broken).

And delivery dates are often crude approximations. Like I said, you're often given a due date with a +/- one week error.

Pretty much this. ERs don't want to do deliveries. The only way you're delivering in the ER is if they can't move you because you're about to splort one out.

they need to instain mother who kill their babby

Dude in Austin: We can all laugh, but try looking at a few million dollar newborn's NICU case records where mama was addicted to drugs and/or alcohol. Some of these poor kids are born extremely premature, drug addicted, have multiple birth defects, and end up with a trach, respirator, and maybe a gastro tube. The saddest part is seeing how the same kid may end up disabled for life.

Pregnancy and addiction just don't go together well.

We can all laugh at you.

Marijuana use has not been implicated in any negative neonatal effects. In fact, in one study done in Jamaica, the babies of women who used the drug regularly were healthier and had higher cognitive function than the babies of non-users.

I_Can't_Believe_it's_not_Boutros: So Duke sucks, but UNC inhales blows. Got it.

fixed.

knobmaker: We can all laugh at you.

Marijuana use has not been implicated in any negative neonatal effects. In fact, in one study done in Jamaica, the babies of women who used the drug regularly were healthier and had higher cognitive function than the babies of non-users.

Do you have a link to this study? I'd be interested in reading it.

Drug use, even of marijuana, is associated with socioeconomic problems which are demonstrated to place a child at higher risk of neglect or abuse. It shouldn't be the sole indicator, but rather raise a red flag when the kid pops positive because of the caregiver's use. The marijuana use, in this case, is not the disease, but a symptom of it.

knobmaker: Marijuana use has not been implicated in any negative neonatal effects.

And that's actually incorrect.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19 858757

RESULTS: Maternal cannabis use during pregnancy was associated with growth restriction in mid-and late pregnancy and with lower birth weight. This growth reduction was most pronounced for fetuses exposed to continued maternal cannabis use during pregnancy. Fetal weight in cannabis-exposed fetuses showed a growth reduction of -14.44 g/week (95% confidence interval -22.94 to -5.94, p = .001) and head circumference (-0.21 mm/week, 95% confidence interval -0.42 to 0.02, p = .07), compared with nonexposed fetuses. Maternal cannabis use during pregnancy resulted in more pronounced growth restriction than maternal tobacco use. Paternal cannabis use was not associated with fetal growth restriction.

CONCLUSIONS: Maternal cannabis use, even for a short period, may be associated with several adverse fetal growth trajectories.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18 452035

RESULTS: Perinatal THC treatment did not affect parameters of reproduction; however, at the dose of 5 mg kg(-1), it increased the number of ultrasounds emitted by rat pups removed from the nest, inhibited social interaction and play behavior in the adolescent offspring, and induced an anxiogenic-like profile in the adult offspring tested in the elevated plus-maze test.

CONCLUSION: These results suggest that the endocannabinoid system is involved in the control of emotionality since early developmental stages. Thus, even moderate doses of cannabinoid compounds, when administered during the perinatal period, can have profound consequences for brain maturation, leading to long-lasting neurodevelopmental alterations.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22 258135

RESULTS: Overall, 26.3% of women reported previous use of cannabis and 2.6% reported current use. Multivariate analysis, controlling for potential confounders, including tobacco smoking, alcohol consumption, and use of other illicit drugs, showed that cannabis use in pregnancy was associated with low birth weight (odds ratio (OR) = 1.7; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.3-2.2), preterm labor (OR = 1.5; 95% CI: 1.1-1.9), small for gestational age (OR = 2.2; 95% CI: 1.8-2.7), and admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (OR = 2.0; 95% CI: 1.7-2.4).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19 057385

RESULTS: In the periconceptional period, 5% of the 15,208 mothers reported any use of illicit drugs. We did not find associations between illicit drug use and most of the 20 eligible categories of congenital malformations. Periconceptional cannabis use seemed to be associated with an increased risk of anencephaly (adjusted odds ratio = 1.7; 95% confidence interval = 0.9-3.4), whereas cocaine use in the periconceptional period was associated with the risk of cleft palate (2.5; 1.1-5.4).

TL;DR - It's not as bad as cocaine or methamphetamine use, but it's not harmless.