Expectant moms and new moms are prescribed opioids such as hydrocodone and oxycodone regularly for symptom control despite pre-clinical evidence that this class of medications could have an adverse effect on developing fetuses and newborn babies.
This pactice is viewed as perfectly acceptable by the medical community as well as by the Justice system, but when a new mom carefully weighs her options and decides that cannabis is a safer choice for symptom control, she and her newborn child face the potential risk of being separated at birth...
Have we lost all capacity for rational thought? Have we become a Society where critical thinking has gone out the window being replaced by staunch adherence to an outdated dogma driven by prohibitionist propaganda, lacking valid scientific basis and rooted instead in "arbitrary distinctions drawn by our drug laws"?
I know the opinion of many may be, "no harm, no foul", after all in this case the decision was overturned and the family was re-unified. However, my "Social Work" mind wanders to the systemic trauma being needlessly inflicted on families. While I can only imagine the relief and joy that comes with an overturned decision, what about all the torturous moments leading up to the decision? What about the precious "mother/child" bonding moments lost, moments essentially critical to the development of a healthy child... all lost.
"No harm, no foul"? I think not, especially not when one understands the epigenetic nature of trauma and the lasting effects that traumas have on the human psyche, body and future existence.
Let us be outspoken advocates, promoting practices that nurtures families not traumatizes them.
It is our moral responsibility to each other, as humans, to stop the harm!
#EducateNormalizeLegalize #ItnentionsMatter #StopTheHarm
"The Food and Drug Administration puts opioids such as hydrocodone and oxycodone in Category C, meaning “animal reproduction studies have shown an adverse effect on the fetus and there are no adequate and well-controlled studies in humans,” although “potential benefits may warrant use of the drug in pregnant women despite potential risks.”
"Despite that experience, Hilow’s prejudice against cannabis consumers was strong enough to override the recommendations of county officials who said separating Nova from her parents was not in the child’s best interest. “There is no need to remove this child from her parents in order to protect her,” an assistant county prosecutor wrote in an October 23 motion. “At this time, removal would only serve to disrupt the bond the child would develop with her parents during this important period in her life…Rather than protecting the child, removal may be more harmful to her both in the present and in the future.”
"Hilow, the magistrate who ordered Nova's removal from her parents' custody, was not interested in weighing the risks and benefits of medical marijuana. All she knew was that marijuana was illegal, meaning that marijuana is illegal, meaning that someone consumes it is ipso facto an unfit parent."
"No mother, regardless of where she gets her health coverage, should be branded unfit simply because she used marijuana (or any other illegal drug) during pregnancy. Since drinkers and smokers do not lose custody of their newborn babies because they failed to abstain during pregnancy, it is plainly illogical to treat cannabis consumers that way, especially when they have compelling medical reasons to use marijuana. Such disparate treatment has nothing to do with the hazards posed by such behavior; it is due entirely to the arbitrary distinctions drawn by our drug laws. The fact that Hilow’s cruel order was overturned in a state where marijuana remains illegal for all uses suggests that her brand of pharmacological bigotry is losing its power."
"Hilow, the magistrate who ordered Nova's removal from her parents' custody, was not interested in weighing the risks and benefits of medical marijuana. All she knew was that marijuana was illegal, meaning that marijuana is illegal, meaning that someone consumes it is ipso facto an unfit parent."
"No mother, regardless of where she gets her health coverage, should be branded unfit simply because she used marijuana (or any other illegal drug) during pregnancy. Since drinkers and smokers do not lose custody of their newborn babies because they failed to abstain during pregnancy, it is plainly illogical to treat cannabis consumers that way, especially when they have compelling medical reasons to use marijuana. Such disparate treatment has nothing to do with the hazards posed by such behavior; it is due entirely to the arbitrary distinctions drawn by our drug laws. The fact that Hilow’s cruel order was overturned in a state where marijuana remains illegal for all uses suggests that her brand of pharmacological bigotry is losing its power."
