Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Disclosure:

The statements in this forum have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration and are generated by non-professional writers. Any products described are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.

Website Disclosure:

This forum contains general information about diet, health and nutrition. The information is not advice and is not a substitute for advice from a healthcare professional.

Do hospitals drug test after giving birth?

Discussion in 'Apprentice Marijuana Consumption' started by Hennessey, Nov 13, 2010.

  1. i'm pretty sure my mom blazed while pregnant with me, and i'm okay.
     
  2. Yes, but the hospitals can't do shit about it. My mom works at a hospital and she sees moms that are meth users, coke users, stoner mommies, etc.
     


  3. :eek: I would guess it would be the same as eating a proportianate amount of human flesh and then smoking afterwards, although most of the fetus is probably not developed and slimy, so it might make you sick...;)
     
  4. lol at sending someone to rehab for marijuana.

    as the crackhead in Half Baked said "Marijuana is not a drug. I used to suck dick for coke. Now that's an addiction. You ever suck some dick for marijuana?"
     
  5. hahaha if OP is seriously reading this shit i hope he can laugh at how it turned from him wanting to simply know about rehab to pages of debate
     
  6. It will show up in the blood but they won't do anything about. My buddies wife had a baby the other day. As for everybody saying that smoking while pregnant is wrong. Mcdonalds probably does more damage to a fetus than cannabis does. Babies don't breath in oxygen. They are submerged in amniotic fluid so the smoke never gets to the baby. Like cigs, it's not the smoke that hurts them its the chemicals released by the smoke. Thc is not harmful so I don't see how it could hurt a baby any worse than a mother taking lowertabs and breast feeding.
     
  7. You definatly must be a little kid, cause most adults know that a baby resides in the uterus not the stomach.
     
  8. Hospitals give birth? To what, Ambulances?
     
  9. #49 nascarfan, Nov 14, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 14, 2010
    Yes I realize this, I was talking about the mother's lung function. The fetus doesn't breathe oxygen, but it does get it from it's mother; oxygen is absorbed into our blood after breathing, in pregnant women it makes it's way to the fetus in the mother's blood, through the ambilical cord. If the mother's lung function is decreased, then the fetus will by proxy get less oxygen too. And than can result in damage.

    Again, from what I understand of how the human body and pregnancy works (granted I'm no expert in the subject), the problem is smoking itself, not marijuana.
     
  10. Yeah true but she would have to hold in some big ass bong rips for a long time to really do any damage I would think.
     
  11. Eh, it's pretty hard to say when talking about fetuses. They're such fragile entities. And the lungs themselves are pretty fragile. Once all that carbon and plant matter is in there, it does take a while to get out. During that time the sacks that transfer gasses tend not to expand to full compacity (decreased lung function). Plus the hair-like part of the lungs tends to be paralized or can even be burned off making it even harder for our bodies to get rid of all that crap. And of course with oxygen deprivation comes decreased immune function. Oxygen really is the key to all.

    Now that said, I'm not aware of any studies that prove this, it's just kind of common sense to those that know a bit about how the lungs and pregnancy work. But honestly when it comes to your baby, it's really best not to take chances. So unnecessary, especially when we have the wonder that is pot brownies if the mother really must use marijuana :p

    And regarding all of that about decreased lung function. I'd be very worried about a pregnant woman who smoked for 10 years before the pregnancy but didn't touch one cigarette while pregnant for exactly the same reason.
     

  12. This would assume that the fetus is in fact its own person, which to my knowledge, Roe vs. Wade would disagree with..
     
  13. Well, if we're talking about a drug test AFTER birth, then the baby which was previously a fetus is indeed it's own person. Since the affects of smoking can not only potentially effect the baby after birth, but remain in the baby's system after birth, it's not as clear cut as what Roe vs. Wade has established.

    I'm not saying that your assumption that it's not child abuse is wrong or anything. I just don't determining child abuse of toking while pregnant is that easy to dismis.
     
  14. Is it actually child abuse? Like can you show me a law stating this?

    Also, so then is it only wrong to smoke the last month since the child would have the possibility of being born positive?
     
  15. Pretty damn sure that birthing a child with anything illegal or illegal for their age in their system is clear cut child abuse. Giving a 5 year old a joint or fifth of whiskey is most definitely child abuse. Doesn't change just because we're talking about a newborn.

    By asking me if it's wrong you're assuming that I believe it's wrong. Not necessarily the case. I'm just stating how it would most likely go down if the mother and/or newborn were to be tested and fail. Not saying it's right or anything. If you read my other posts, you'll see that I don't believe THC is necessarily harmful to a fetus, its the act of smoking itself that I think posses the risk.
     

  16. I am a logical person, if I dont see a law against it, it isnt illegal, lol. With the debate of when life starts, I dont think we can assume these types of thing. Of course giving a substance to a living child is child abuse, but, how can dependency at birth be determined? If a mother has a non-natural child birth, there is a good chance there are some opiates in the mothers system, so the new born baby would test positive for that, right? Personally I feel split on even 3rd trimester use, and can see 1st trimester use, vaporization, for nausea to be medicating and fine until proven harmful..

    Not trying to be a douche or anything so intrigued by the topic..
     
  17. Oh I don't think you're trying to be a douche, I agree that it's a huge gray area. To me, what the law clearly states doesn't necessarily apply in abnormal situations. For example, I doubt there's any law anywhere saying that you can't cut off the head of a chicken while runny down the street telling children that the boogey man will rip out their brains and stuff them down their throats at night....but logic tells me there would be police involvement none the less.
     
  18. it makes me sick how quick a lot of the people here are to judge.
     

Share This Page