I’d be more worried about the baby after it’s born. What if mom gets the munchies for a “California Cheeseburger”?
even sven, your knee-jerk response is no better than those you are accusing. After years of working with CPS, let me tell you: CPS DOES NOT WANT YOUR KIDS. Really. They do not stay up at night working out ways to take your children away. The chances of them snatching a fetus and putting it into foster care is pretty fucking slim. It is far more likely that they’ll put a plan in place until the child is born (maybe, if mom and dad are behaving in especially worrisome ways, extending a few months afterward) that mom stop taking drugs while she’s pregnant. She follows through, CPS closes the case, and your super-duper fabulous hippies who are so much better than the average parent because they know so much about love can go back to drinking bong water for all the government cares.
Thousands of people get parenting plans through CPS every day. Not everyone gets their kids put in foster care. And you know what? A lot of people follow through on the plans and never hear another peep from CPS. Some situations actually improve, but y’all apparently don’t give a shit about that.
Additionally, your interpretation of the data is ridiculous as hell. They’re less likely to succeed and have higher rates of emotional/behavioral problems, and it’s because they aren’t loved? Bullshit. It’s because they’re coming from a genetic pool of mental illness and drug use- they were fucked from the get-go. I work with kids every day who are in the foster care system, and their extreme mental illness didn’t suddenly crop up when they went into treatment. And it doesn’t get better when they’re put into a situation where they’re loved and cared for and all their whims and desires are met.
If Mr2001 is concerned enough about his friend and her baby that he posted this OP, and he is concerned that the drug use is MORE THAN A RECREATIONAL TOKE ON A DOOBIE EVERY MONTH OR SO, then he has a choice: act, or don’t. Yes, culture all around the world participate in recreational drug use during pregnancy, but from the description here- based solely on what’s been provided to us- this does not sound like a case of infrequent use. I DO NOT advocate freaking out over infrequent drug use. I DO advocate getting concerned enough over a friend’s health to get involved when it seems that the drug use is excessive, or there is the possibility of poor-quality drugs being ingested. Only Mr2001 can answer that for this situation.
Think of it this way: if calling CPS gets a plan put into place where mom will stay off drugs for a few months, and as long as she follows through there will be no other horrific, baby-snatching consequences, then what’s the problem?
Side question: May I ask where someone who can “barely afford internet service” is getting the money for the drugs? Or are helpful buddies supplying it?
Why aren’t you concerned about her (likely) frequent caffeine use?
Ah, right, enculturation; Larry Mudd covered that.
While the drugs this woman is said to be using during pregnancy appear not as harmful as alcohol (for instance) it’s premature to excuse her behavior.
Marijuana, for one, is linked to problems in children of mothers who used it during pregnancy.
“…a small but growing body of evidence indicates subtle but apparently permanent effects on memory, information processing, and executive functions, in the offspring of women who used cannabis during pregnancy.”
As to peyote, there’s minimal stuff in the literature suggestive a potential for causing birth defects. I would take the cultural survey material about the Huichol Indians with a grain of salt. That kind of analysis is no substitute for controlled animal/human studies.
I’d be more concerned about decisions made during and after pregnancy by someone who habitually uses mind-altering and especially hallucinogenic drugs.
I don’t know if it’s entirely appropriate to report it as an abuse situation, but this prospective mom needs counseling.
Is the dog referred to known to be dangerously aggressive? If she’s having a dog “put down” simply because of fears it may harm the baby (with no objective evidence that this is likely to occur), that is reprehensible.
bobkitty, I have nothing but respect for the hard workers at CPS. It’s a hard and oftentimes thankless job and a lot of people end up getting demonized for doing the only right thing.
You know and I know that “taking the kids away” only happens in the most extreme of situations. But I think we also know that the US government does not take a well-reasoned stance on drug abuse, and there are things that US government employees must do when drugs are involved regardless of their own judgment. I wouldn’t wouldn’t trust an organization who views peyote like this to make life-changeing decisions for a friend of mine unless I was absolutely sure it was called for.
Also, more importantly, I object to the idea that once somebody gets pregnant their every move- from what they eat, what kind of soda they drink (is that caffeine!), what they do with their pets, what religious/cultural experiences they seek out- becomes a subject of public discussion that can be enforced with some very real and intense consequences (getting the government involved.) Yes, there are extreme cases when intervention is called for. But for the most part I think pregnant women should be afforded the same privacy, trust and autonomy that everyone else has.
I hate to think that if my birth control fails then suddenly my business, no matter how small and personal, becomes everybody else’s business and that nearly any choice could put my under the watch of the state. Few of us are doctors, and few of us have any real knowledge about the subject- just look at how many people swear a glass of wine or a cup of coffee will cause irreparable harm to a fetus. We’ve become completely superstitious about childbearing and have no problem enforcing our uninformed views on any woman who looks like their stomach is a bit lumpy. It’s not our business. We don’t even know these people. There mere mention of a pregnancy doesn’t suddenly make it our job to get all rightous.
I admit I haven’t asked my friend how much she takes at a time, but if The Sausage Creature’s report is true, are you sure that dose is really unusually high?
I don’t think I’ve ever seen her drink caffeinated soda or coffee. I don’t know if the tea she drinks is caffeinated.
She got the dog from someone else who gave it up because it bit, and it just bit her on the face and neck a couple weeks ago. She works with dogs, so I’ll take her word that this is the best course of action.
Marijuana: profits from selling it on the side (oh yes, did I mention that?). Peyote: I assume it’s provided for her by the friendly Indians.
Agreed. I do think, however, that I have an obligation as her friend to tell her when I think she’s acting irresponsibly.
Quite.
But Larry did not show a study in which combinations of drugs were fed to laboratory animals.
Furthermore:
Larry is correct in implying that, “The dose makes the poison”. Still a little more context is helpful. Since it is difficult to measure relative cognitive development in a hampster, scientists give large doses to the little rodents to test for more overt effects.
In the study, they found that litter sizes halved (approx) and “a dose-dependent increased delay in the ossification of the skull, sternum, and metatarsals.”
I dunno. The difference between a 200mg allegedly “typical” dose and the 500mg equivalent given to hampsters doesn’t seem so large to me (taking Larry’s claim as given).
The pitting seems well deserved and consistent with known facts.
Also, note that the study only tested 16 mg/kg and 32 mg/kg, not a lower “average” dose. We cannot conclude that an average dose is safe simply from the lack of information about it.
Well, sure. And by that logic, I hope you don’t put sweet and low into your coffee, because at ridiculously high volumes throughout the duration of your life, you might get cancer. As someone mentioned above, anything can be dangerous given a certain level of exposure to it.
I agree you should voice your concerns to your friend. But reporting her to the authorities as good egg and inkleberry suggest, is a ridiculous overreaction. We’ve had a doctor post here that he’d be more concerned with cigarrette smoking than marijuana or peyote. Would you call in the authorities if you caught her puffing on a marlboro?
I’m with even sven on this one.
Er, are you suggesting there’ve never been studies on artificial sweeteners in typical doses? Because that seems to be the case with mescaline during pregnancy.
Red herring.
We’re not talking about ratios of 1:1000000 or even 1:100. If I’m understanding Larry correctly, the ratio of the average dose to the tested dose is about 3:16, and 1:2 for a large dose. And there is no evidence that the expectant Mother is particularly careful about such measurements.
Also, I’d say that a halving of litter size is not a small effect.
Don’t get me wrong. I haven’t read the study in question and I’m not claiming that the effects of mescaline are firmly established. I’m just saying that cause for concern has been firmly established empirically. (Assuming I’m reading the claims correctly).
(Furthermore, I understand that the current consensus is that there is no link between saccharine and cancer).
Retract that. I misunderstood Larry.
My current understanding:
200mg - ave dose (human) (3mg/kg)
500mg - high dose (human) (8mg/kg)
1000mg - equivalent dose for human that was tested on the hampsters. (16mg/kg)
2000mg - equivalent dose for human that was tested on the hampsters. (32mg/kg)
Ok, while everyone else squeaks & waves their hands about over whether or not peyote is problematical for a fetus, I’d like to ask: Why aren’t you helping that dog?
Well, all I could tell her to do is drop the dog off at the humane society, but apparently she has to go through them anyway if she wants it euthanized. She has asked people she knows if they want the dog, but they don’t. I sure don’t want a dog that bites. If you have any suggestions, I’ll see what I can do.
For a little perspective, 1000mg is considered to be the absolute maximum dose for mescaline – the line that a big bear of a guy who’s a frequent user would be careful never to cross, because it’s dangerous. (I note that this page puts the typical dose at 300mg, not 200mg.)
So the hamster test is (as far as we can make conclusions based on animal studies,) looking at the effects of a dose considered to be getting into dangerous territory for anyone, or twice that, at very early on in gestation, when fetal development is most easily affected.
Let’s compare this with alcohol, which everybody knows can be dangerous to use during pregnancy. What’s a “maximum safe dose” of alcohol? A case of beer? (Do people get concerned about dying and stuff when they approach that level of stupid drunkenness? I would, so let’s use that even though it’s probably a bit low. :D)
Anyway, suppose studies show that consuming twelve or twenty-four beers creates a risk of birth defects. Does this mean that the responsible consumption of alcohol poses a risk? Say, a six-pack, now and again? Personally, seeing a pregnant woman knock back a sixer every Friday night would make me feel squicky – that fits my personal definition of immoderate and unwise drinking. And yet, it’s safe to do that, and it’s none of my fecking business if she wants to.
You can’t make inferences about the effects of reasonable use based on those of heavy use.
Do get me wrong, if your friend is going out there twice a week with the intention of taking heroic doses, taking nitrous hits, and loading a bong every twenty minutes, there’s definitely something to look askance at there. I’m just saying that there’s nothing much to get worked up about in the simple fact that she’s using peyote, as far as health is concerned.
Personally, I’d be much more concerned that she’s dealing. I’ve seen two friends who supported themselves as “gardeners” reorganize their lives when kids appeared on the horizon – which is what you expect. You don’t want the chemicals around when you have an infant, and there’s an increased risk of fire or home invasion, which is not something you want to involve a kid in. What seems like a managable risk when it’s just you is one thing. Up here, a first offense is liable to garner a fine or a period of probation. No biggee. “You’re on probation for a year, and your kids are in foster care until we’re sure the household is safe for them,” is another thing altogether. Time for someone to get a straight job, man.
I know dealing dime-bags probably isn’t as hazardous, but I wouldn’t count on the authorities to be relaxed about it, especially in the land of the War on Drugs.
Please be careful Larry: your link says nothing of the kind. In fact, it says the opposite.
From the link:
“… until more is known for certain, pregnant women might well be advised to choose the safest option, that of abstaining during pregnancy.”
More to the point:
The link shows no observable effect among those imbibing 8 drinks a week. It also claims, “The evidence is clear that there is no apparent risk to a child when the pregnant woman consumes no more than one drink per day.”
And still more to the point (emphasis added):
Negative effects appear to be related to relatively higher levels of consumption per occasion, and hence, to higher blood alcohol content levels. Negative effects appear to be related to relatively higher levels of consumption per occasion, and hence, to higher blood alcohol content levels. Thus, it appears to be very important never to consume more than one drink in any one day while pregnant.
Now that we have clarified that, let’s move into more controversial territory.
Yes you can. Indeed, toxicologists do this all the time, in the absence of better studies. You work with what you have.
Typically a linear relationship is assumed. Of course the underlying dose-response may be nonlinear in either a more or less forgiving manner.
Good advice, however it’s safe to assume that a number of of those 400,000 women did just that with no ill effect-- since moderate drinkers typically do not drink every day. I don’t think any reasonable person would recommend that a pregnant woman drink a six pack, and it’s clearly pushing the limit, there.
“Safe to do that,” is not the right phrase – but given that people often tend to drink on one or two days out of the week, we can assume that certain of the women who reported drinking six beers in one week did so over the course of one day. Probably some women drank two beers each and every day, with no problems. Still a good idea to advise extra moderation – especially since alcohol is a drug that loosens inhibitions, so after two drinks, three seems like a good idea, after which you may feel more like a fourth, etc.
You can’t assume “half the amount, half the risk” though. For example, vitamin A has been shown to cause birth defects in amounts of 200% of the RDA. That doesn’t mean that a pregnant woman who gets 100% of the RDA of vitamin A has half the risk of a women who gets twice as much as she does.
Just to emphasize:
According to the cite, they couldn’t find an observable effect when consumption was under 8.5 drinks per week.
I contend that precious few pregnant women imbibe 4 drinks in a single day while limiting their weekly consumption to less than 8.5 alcoholic beverages. Typically, those who drink in moderation lower their alcohol consumption when pregnant.
Furthermore, I’m getting nervous about dispensing unconventional medical advice on the basis of this single secondary source.
In the absence of better data, that is exactly the sort of relationship applied by a linear extrapolation. This is reasonable: the true effect could be “half the amount, 10% of the risk” or “half the amount, 90% of the risk”.
Admittedly, absent a literature review, it would be inappropriate to posit such a dose-response relationship on the basis of a single secondary reference to a single study. So I’ll stop short of doing so. Or rather, I’ll characterize it as a reasonable working hypothesis.