Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Prenatal cannabis exposure associated with mental disorders in children

nih.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 384 posts

Re: Prenatal cannabis exposure associated with mental disorders in children

#371

Post by vintermann »

meowfly wrote: post #345
vintermann wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The loss of inhibition is culturally learned, not biochemical. You can relax and let loose because society judges you less harshly when drunk (and, if you have internalized it, you judge yourself less harshly too). In some cultures it's not present at all, and even in some you may visit it's much weaker. Be aware of this if you get drunk as a tourist.

This doesn't make sense to me. Alcohol binds to the GABA receptor mimicking GABA, hence providing a calming feeling. It allows people to feel less anxious in situations they might normally feel awkward. That is definitely not cultural. Drinking regularly may desensitize your GABA receptors and hence cause a person to end up with more anxiety as a result of drinking. I rarely drink because I found it was exasperating…

That binding to GABA receptors "gives a calming feeling" is at best vaguely accurate. And even if it was accurate, there is in any case a mile from that to reducing social anxiety. Other "downer" drugs don't make people more outgoing, despite binding to GABA receptors, because we don't ascribe those qualities to them.

Even emotional states such as happy, calm, afraid etc. are higher level phenomena that don't map nicely onto hormones and neurotransmitters. The same low-level signal may even be interpreted in different ways depending on circumstance. There's a classic experiment with niacin demonstrating this, but like so many old behaviour experiments, it's ignored in favour of more "white coat" neuroscience these days.

Re: Prenatal cannabis exposure associated with mental disorders in children

#372

Post by pyuser583 »

eurasiantiger wrote: post #270
pyuser583 wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally know someone who began having psychotic episodes after using cannibis. Episodes stopped when stopped using. We need to treat pot like we treat alcohol or tobacco. It’s dangerous. People shouldn’t be using it.

The plural of anecdote is not data. What if their psychosis was triggered by decades of drug war propaganda?

I only presented one anectdote, so why does the plural matter?

Re: Prenatal cannabis exposure associated with mental disorders in children

#373

Post by daniel-cussen »

DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #55
hollywood_court wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agreed with all of that except for fat. You need fat. You don’t need any of the others.

I need alcohol to be sociable.

Drink, drink!

So I in fact need alcohol chemically, like psychiatrically, under limited conditions. Limited. I payed for and received medical advice, that when I went out and partied, make sure to take my medication with me and take it then too, alcohol is too risky for and deficit too much downside. It's synergistic sometimes.

Re: Prenatal cannabis exposure associated with mental disorders in children

#374

Post by asveikau »

Maursault wrote: post #366
asveikau wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Psychotic episodes with bipolar are not rare.

It is estimated only about 5-10% of everyone in the world will ever experience a psychotic episode in their lifetime. If 4% are bipolar, then only 0.2%-0.4% of those will ever experience a psychotic episode, making it quite rare. Among bipolar patients, the real danger is depression, as they will all experience that. But if they do experience a psychotic episode, it is usually the first indicator of BPD, leading to d…

> It is estimated only about 5-10% of everyone in the world will ever experience a psychotic episode in their lifetime

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.

Re: Prenatal cannabis exposure associated with mental disorders in children

#375

Post by hellohowareu »

Maursault wrote: post #362
hellohowareu wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saying something is real, does not make that thing real. 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, r…

The issue is no one has any place scrutinizing or judging another because it is hypocritical. That is the wisdom behind Matthew's 7th chapter. If you are perfect and make no mistakes, only then you can judge without hypocrisy. People do what they want, and they live with and are responsible for their decisions. Scrutiny from the peanut gallery doesn't enter into it. Mind yourself, and no one else, but if your compuls…

"The issue is no one has any place scrutinizing or judging another because it is hypocritical."

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.

Re: Prenatal cannabis exposure associated with mental disorders in children

#376

Post by ok_dad »

PointlessLogin wrote: post #313
ok_dad wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cannibis can be in your system for weeks or months, so take the authority reports that the accident was caused by cannabis intoxication with a grain of salt, and assume that absent other evidence it might be that the user in this case wasn’t high at the time. I’m not saying this to say no accidents has been caused by cannibis, but that there’s currently no way to tell current level of cannabis intoxication. Authoriti…

> Cannibis can be in your system for weeks or months No. You are confusing the tests for cannabis metabolites (that can tell if you smoked weeks ago) to tests for THC, the substance that gets you stoned and leaves the bloodstream as you sober up. A driving impairment test will test for THC, not metabolites. Nobody cares if you smoked last week, only if you are under the influence when driving. In the UK, having 2ug /…

> 2ug / litre of THC in the blood is a drug-driving offence

So I can have up to 8ug of THC in my blood? If I took 0.1mg (100ug) of THC (and would be very NOT high in this case, as it is 1/100th of a "normal" dose) I would probably be over the limit in that case, so sure they may be able to test for THC in the blood, but the limit is so laughably low as to effectively ban cannabis users from driving.

Re: Prenatal cannabis exposure associated with mental disorders in children

#377

Post by boxmonster »

triyambakam wrote: post #191
michaelwww wrote: post #11

I read this right after I got back from the marijuana store where a pregnant woman was buying weed. It made me uncomfortable. It just seems risky to me to take intoxicants while the babies brain is forming.

Well, here's some anecdata: it kept my wife from dying from hyperemesis gravidarum (non-stop vomiting during pregnancy to the point of rupturing eye vessels, vomiting blood, dehydration, ketosis etc.) The other medications the hospital offered didn't work, and even those came with their own fetal risks. So it was either abort the baby, try cannabis, or probably die. Our child is now older and performs well cognitivel…

> speaks three languages fluently.

Maybe women should smoke more pot while pregnant. But seriously, glad everyone is ok

Re: Prenatal cannabis exposure associated with mental disorders in children

#378

Post by gilded-lilly »

mburee wrote: post #291
gilded-lilly wrote: post #289

One of my pet peeves is the oft repeated slogan “it’s not addictive”. And by definition, that’s true. But neither is Methamphetamine. But people still throw it around like it’s some kind of scientific blessing that you can’t form a dependency. Also, I think the true cost of marijuana is the opportunity cost - it’s not just what it does to you, it’s what it takes from you - your motivation, potential etc. And it’s rea…

On the other hand coffee is addictive, but I have yet so see someone go down the drain mentally for drinking coffee all the time. Sure, not a lot of pot users do, but there's the minority that seems to spend 80% of their free time smoking.

I’ve noticed this too. I think “habit forming” might be a better phrase - coupled with potential impacts to life, divided into positive and negative impacts (positive such as tooth decay, impacts on physical and mental health; negative such as lack of motivation, reduced general ambition, lack of initiative for non drug related activities, reduced concentration, altered perspective and so on) might be a better framework.

Cannabis might not be as obviously life ruining as hard drugs such as alcohol, meth and heroin - but it’s no less debilitating for society to have people re-orient themselves away from traditional goal-seeking behavior (such as finding a job or starting a family).

Re: Prenatal cannabis exposure associated with mental disorders in children

#379

Post by PointlessLogin »

ok_dad wrote: post #376
PointlessLogin wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Cannibis can be in your system for weeks or months No. You are confusing the tests for cannabis metabolites (that can tell if you smoked weeks ago) to tests for THC, the substance that gets you stoned and leaves the bloodstream as you sober up. A driving impairment test will test for THC, not metabolites. Nobody cares if you smoked last week, only if you are under the influence when driving. In the UK, having 2ug /…

> 2ug / litre of THC in the blood is a drug-driving offence So I can have up to 8ug of THC in my blood? If I took 0.1mg (100ug) of THC (and would be very NOT high in this case, as it is 1/100th of a "normal" dose) I would probably be over the limit in that case, so sure they may be able to test for THC in the blood, but the limit is so laughably low as to effectively ban cannabis users from driving.

Read the bloody link I provided!

Re: Prenatal cannabis exposure associated with mental disorders in children

#380

Post by Godel_unicode »

newswasboring wrote: post #274
kortilla wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trans fats are banned in the US: https://www.fda.gov/food/food-additives-petitions/trans-fat

I don't live in US. HN is a international community, please be mindful of that.

No.
Post reply on HN