No, no, we said marijuana consumption by pregnant women! You need to chill for about 21 years, mini-Cheech!

A recent article by Storm Crow sheds light on a study that demonstrates a dramatic decrease in infant mortality rates for babies born testing positive for cannabinoids:

A total of 2,964 babies were drug-tested at birth to see if they were positive for drugs – cocaine, opioids or cannabis were studied. 44% of the infants tested positive for all varieties of drugs, including the 3 being studied. During the first two years of their lives, 44 babies from the original group died. Since statistics are a drag to slog through, I’ll cut right to the chase – the deaths per thousand live births – the numbers tell the story.

“No drugs at birth” deaths……. 15.7 deaths per 1000 live births

“Cocaine positive” deaths…….17.7 deaths per 1000 live births

“Opiate positive” deaths…….18.4 deaths per 1000 live births

“Cannabis positive” deaths…. 8.9 deaths per 1000 live births [5]

The cocaine and opiate babies have a higher death rate than the “No drugs” babies – that was to be expected. But look at the “cannabis” babies! Having extra cannabinoids in their bodies at birth (and likely later, from 2nd-hand exposure, or breast milk) seems to have some sort of a protective effect. The “cannabis” infants have a mortality rate almost half of what the “No drugs” infants have!

The study raises many interesting questions.  As I read, these are some of the first questions that came to mind, along with my current research on the topics.  I would have waited to post this until I could find more concrete information, but unfortunately, prohibition interferes with sound science on these issues, so I am just going to share my own thoughts and research with the hopes that it encourages more public outcry for further scientific study.  Much of this is conjecture and guesses, but it is worth asking these questions and evaluating the information currently available and pursuing further research:

1.  What further verification of this study can I find?  Much as I like the info, I know I need to find a credible source for verification and so that others will believe the information.

A credible source was found to document the truth of the data presented by Storm Crow:

Pediatrics:  Official Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics, published July 1, 1997;

The above source only contained the summary of the study, and I wanted to see more of the data.  I have learned that statistics and percentages can be very misleading.  Before long, I found the complete study using student access to PSU , and found even more surprising numbers than the above quote by Storm Crow reveals.  The following table itemizes each category of test result; for instance, a positive test for cannabis could also include a positive test for opiates and/or cocaine, so this table further breaks out the categories into cannabis only, morphine (opiate) only, cocaine only and the “total” of all positive cannabis, morphine and cocaine tests (click links to view table and chart):

Infant Mortality Chart

The most interesting thing that stands out to me is that the drug-negative babies were technically MORE likely to die in the first two years of life.  This illustration helps shed light on why the study concludes that there is no significant difference between babies that test positive and those that test negative for maternal drug use, as there isn’t much of a difference between the 13.7 and 15.7 deaths per 1000 live births.

However, in this view of the information, the stark difference between the two cannabis categories and “morphine only” category as compared to the remaining categories is notable.  As a mother who is familiar with at least some of the drugs given at birth, I suspect that the “morphine only” category are those mothers that received some sort of drug during childbirth and/or pregnancy.  The presence of this drug only would most likely indicate proper drug use and not illicit drug use, since this drug is administered by a licensed physician – which could be why the mortality rate of these children is much lower than the other categories.

And the cannabis positive children are definitely in that same range with the morphine only infants.  However, when the two categories of cannabis-positive infants are divided into “cannabis only” and “cannabis positive” (indicating either opiates or cocaine were also present with the cannabis), the information is astonishing.  Of 338 infants born with cannabis in their systems at birth, only 3 total died in the first two years.  All three of those infants had either opiates or cocaine in their system as well, and not a single death was found in the two years after birth in the 157 infants that tested positive for ONLY cannabis!  These deaths include homicide, SIDS, illness, etc.  Not ONE death!

2.  Are infants born to cannabis-consuming mothers less likely to die in the first two years of life, or are the results of this study an anomaly?

I wish I could answer this question conclusively, but this information definitely indicates the need for further study!  I sought out more research on this subject, and could not find much.  I did find an article on the importance of endocannabinoids on pediatric development and disease, the critical role of the endogenous cannabinoids system on mouse pup suckling and growth, and a study on cannabis and breastfeeding that seems to use some good data to make some bad points.

3. Are pregnant mothers less likely to continue their use of marijuana when becoming pregnant, compared to other drugs?

I also noticed that a substantial difference is noted in the positive test results, compared to the usage rates suggested in a study by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.  According to their data for 2002-2009, marijuana has much higher usage rates than all other drugs (ie in 2008, 41% of the study used marijuana in their lifetime, and 10.3% had used it in the past year; contrast that with the total for all drug use (including marijuana) of 47% in their lifetime, and 14.2% in the past year.  Cocaine use was 14.7% in their lifetime and 2.1% in the last year and all other drugs, excluding marijuana, was 30.3% in their lifetime and 8.0% in the last year).  For comparison’s sake, I merged that data into the earlier table side by side with the comparable number (although it is worth noting that the SAMHSA data is both male and female, whereas the Meconium Drug Screen data is only pregnant females, so any gender variances would not be taken into account, as well as other confounding factors).  However, this data is still rather enlightening:

It is complete conjecture, but it appears that pregnant mothers are more likely to give up marijuana than cocaine.  The total positive and negative percentages of drug use, however, were quite comparable.  But cocaine was far more dominant in pregnant mothers than marijuana – unlike the overall usage statistics which seem to show the inverse (a much higher usage rate for marijuana than cocaine).

While this is just conjecture based on these data, it could be concluded that marijuana was not as addictive and mothers were likely to significantly reduce their use and/or quit smoking marijuana all together, as compared to cocaine.  I presume the higher percentage of cocaine positive tests in the pregnant mothers’ results as compared to the general population is probably linked to more risky behaviors resulting in pregnancy among cocaine-addicted women – resulting in a larger percentage of pregnant cocaine users than the general population of cocaine users – but again this is pure conjecture.

4. What is the overlap in concurrent drug use, ie how many cocaine-using mothers were also using opiates and/or cannabinoids?

The first table above gives two categories for each drug, ie cannabis positive and cannabis only.  The cannabis only number is included into the cannabis positive category.  For an easier interpretation of the data, I created another chart using the same mortality rate data, but with more information from the student access of the study.  Some of these numbers are calculated based on the percentages noted in the study, so the “exact” numbers given here may not be as precise as it appears (for instance, the total participants in the study was 2964, but these numbers add to 2961 – these are just rounding errors):

5.  For babies born to cannabis-using mothers, who did not use any other drugs, what is the mortality rate?

I was amazed that I was finally able to access this data, and even more astonished that my initial conjecture that there would be zero deaths among the cannabis only infants is correct.  Not a single death in the first two years of life for the babies that tested positive for cannabis.  Using the data for the drug-negative babies, it would be reasonable to see 3 deaths among this group.  It is possible that this is just coincidence, but it could also indicate a protective effect of cannabis, particularly when considering some of the other studies mentioned above.

6. Should cannabis be included in such a study to evaluate mortality rate in the first two years of life of “drug exposure?”  Or does cannabis skew the results?

Cannabis appears to seriously skew the results of the above study.  Clearly cannabis is starkly different than the other drug categories tested for, and while I wouldn’t throw cannabis out of the studies, I would certainly be looking at cannabis from a different perspective, inquiring about the potential BENEFITS for mothers.  Indeed, cannabis was used for centuries for morning sickness, cramping, and birthing pain – and with the above study in mind – it is definitely worth considering the potential benefits of cannabis in light of scientific advances and understanding.

Why I’m Standing Up Against Random Drug Testing at My High School

Allie Brody is a senior at Allentown High School in New Jersey and is one student that has had enough of being treated like a criminal.

I’ve written for my school newspaper, helped out with the production of musicals and even traveled abroad through a school club.

I was later inducted into the French Honor Society and the National Honor Society. Last year, I even co-founded the school’s first philosophy club.

But this year I am barred from participating in any of it. The irony is that my school has made me ineligible for any extracurricular activity for what they believe is my own self-interest. What did I do to deserve this punishment? I acted on my principles and stood up for fairness, privacy and dignity for me and my fellow students.

Student drug testing for extracurricular activity was pushed by the Bush administration as the panacea for high school drug use. Besides, what would convince more kids to stop doing drugs than to give them more time to use them. Allie Brody decided to take action.

Last year, when I found out my school board was considering a random student drug-testing policy, I immediately began organizing a student opposition group.

We worked to get the community involved: Students joined with parents and teachers, donning “Drug Testing Fails Our Youth” T-shirts as we filed into the school board meetings. We even brought a toxicologist to speak with the board about the unreliable nature of the drug-testing technology, the problem of non-professionals interpreting the test results, privacy and legal-liability issues and the general lack of research supporting student drug testing.

To us it seemed the school’s arguments in favor of testing were based more on emotional rhetoric than data. But, in the end, emotion carried the day, and random student drug testing went forward.

Allie didn’t simply accept the schools drug testing policy, and neither should you. Despite being terrible policy, it’s a total waste of taxpayers dollars. It’s an ineffective way to combat drug use and Allie does a great job pointing it out in the post.

In a policy statement, the AAP (American Academy of Pediatrics) cautions that student drug testing is unsupported by scientific research and carries inherent dangers. Drug-testing programs break down trust between students and administrators. They also carry the inherent danger of motivating some students to switch to drugs that will leave the system quickly, like alcohol, or drugs that not show up in the tests, such as inhalants and herbal concoctions.

I commend Allie Brody for both the principled stand on the drug testing issue and for the willingness to sacrifice for a closely held belief. We are lucky to have teens of Allie Brody’s character in America, and as a society we become stronger for it.

History is written by those who show up.  [And if I may add... Many of us have had the fantasy idea that if everyone just refused to take a pre-employment drug test, there would be no more pre-employment drug test, because there wouldn't be enough workforce. Alas, that is just a fantasy, because the reality of supporting families and mortgages comes into play.

But at a school... Imagine if every member of the football team or school band or drama club just outright refused to take the tests, what then? These are cases where the drug tester needs you much more than you need the drug tester. Imagine the headlines when John Hughes High School can't field a football team or a band or a play because kids finally had enough and stood up for privacy! They can't expel or suspend the kids for not going out for extracurriculars. The district will be paying the salary of a coach, a conductor, or a director with no students to teach. If everyone did it, there's no way to single out the "stoners" from the rest.

NORML does not at all support the use of marijuana by those under age eighteen except in medical circumstances as directed by a physician. But we do support the privacy rights of students not to be accused of being drug users for merely trying out for extracurriculars. C'mon, kids, show your elders a thing or two - just say no to school drug testing. --"R"R]

New, easy at-home drug test may help parents | KATU.com – Portland, Oregon | News
PORTLAND, Ore. – Parents wanting to keep their kids drug free have a new option: a first-of-its-kind drug test that only requires a little hair.

Hairconfirm claims to be 99.9 percent accurate and tests for a wide variety of illegal and prescription drugs.

With just a small bit of hair – taken with or without a kids’ knowledge – parents can find out whether their child is taking drugs, the company says.

“You can see the frequency of abuse so you can find out if the person is an occasional user versus a medium user or on the very high addictive level,” said Zeynep Ilgaz, CEO of Confirm BioSciences.

Parent Kelly Bonnin likes the idea of such a test, saying there is already testing at his work.

“We have random drug testing, and why shouldn’t our kids,” he said. “That’s the future. They are our future, and we need to take care of them.”

The test sells for between $65 and $90. It is not in stores in the Portland-area yet but is available online.

That line from the parent – “we have random drug testing and why shouldn’t our kids” – sent a chill down my spine.  Do you really want to treat your kids the way your boss treats you, as a “human resource”, to be tested, evaluated, and spied upon?

The American Academy of Pediatrics is against home drug testing of your kids, because they say that testing creates a climate of “resentment, distrust and suspicion” among students, parents, and school administrators.

Also, these tests aren’t catching all drugs.  Their “regular” product tests for marijuana, cocaine, opiates, amphetamines, meth, ecstasy, and PCP.  A new product adds to the list Vicodin, Lortab, Oxycontin, Percocet, and Dilaudid.  Furthermore, they add this disclaimer:

PLEASE NOTE: In some cases, when the donor has used marijuana, a hair drug test, including HairConfirm, may be unable to detect the THC metabolite due to the fact that the metabolite was unable to bind with the hair shaft. This can be caused by the type/quality of the marijuana smoked/ingested, or by what it has been mixed with, e.g. tobacco. As a result, the result for marijuana may be negative.

So, kids, don’t use that marijuana by itself, roll it up with tobacco in a blunt!

Also, did you notice the conspicuous absence of alcohol, GHB, ketamine, and inhalants in that list?  Hey, kids, don’t smoke that relatively safe marijuana, it’ll show up on your parent drug test.  Try something that your folks can’t detect!  Sure, those drugs, especially the inhalants, can kill you quite easily, but at least you won’t be smoking pot.