Your views on drug use during pregnancy

[Paracelsus]

I thought this would make for an interesting debate.

What are your views on recreational drug use during pregnancy?


Some food for thought:

Should mothers who endanger their unborn child(ren) through drug use be punished by law? If so, how?

How is it to be determined what drugs are acceptable (health-wise) to use during pregnancy and which ones not? This is easy with medicinal use of drugs (there are clearly defined Pregnancy Categories of drugs), but recreational use is a more complex issue.

If a woman has the right to abort a fetus, should she have the (moral/legal) right to harm it non-fatally or even fatally through drug use?

Should women abusing alcohol during pregnancy be punished? Although we all know about fetal alcohol syndrome, it is perfectly legal for pregnant women of legal drinking age to drink as much as they want, as often as they want.

An excellent in-depth paper on the topic for further reading: http://www.drugs-forum.com/forum/loc...4048&catid=105

Reputation Comments on this post:

Really good idea for a debate.

[rxbandit]

I have some friends who's mothers abused LSD whilst they were in the womb and they are quite alright, however the few I've met who's parents abused alcohol, crack cocaine or any of the other hard drugs are WAY messed up.

If its detrimental to your body, I likely would not risk it. For some it may seem hard to abstain but think of how much harder it would be to take care of a deformed/mentally ill child...

Reputation Comments on this post:

gud post

[chrisn]

Doesn't LSD have the possible of causing uterine contractions, making it extremely risky for the child during pregnancy?

Reputation Comments on this post:

god q

[rxbandit]

quite possible, anecdotal evidence is all i have, so caution is wise as I honestly have no hard evidence to base this off of.

[Paracelsus]

chrisn: you are right, LSD & related compounds cause uterine contractions, but this is most likely not be significant in the used doses (in the case of LSD).

Let's keep it on topic and focus on moral & legal issues.

[rxbandit]

I think it is morally wrong to bring an unwanted or troubled child into the world period. The child not only suffers but so does society as a whole. I actually believe poisoning a child to disrepair is far worse then abortion. I think it is important to take steps to help society as a whole and bringing compromised children into the world will do nothing positive.

And their should be some legal reprecussions, its in essence child abuse. At least it should be considered that especially by the right to lifers(who I do not particularly agree with).

[Paracelsus]

This brings up some serious questions. I agree that aborting a child is better than giving birth to a mentally retarded or otherwise disabled kid. If there is evidence of serious harm to the fetus due to drugs or any other reason, should an abortion be mandated?

Reputation Comments on this post:

gooood thread

[rxbandit]

I think so, but I know that it would offend alot of people who have these disabilitys or have children relatives or loved ones with these disabilities. It is a politically unthinkable move but in a Brave New World I think yes. But there are bound for ethical and abuse issues to come up with that too. It's a sticky problem to solve, especially when you bring emotions into it, which is quite a part of the birth process.

I still think its messed up that their are plenty of healthy children up for adoption and parents insist on having their own. would be beneficial to scoop up all the adoptable children before trying for a child in an unhealthy situation but i suppose most children who are subject to maternal substance abuse are unintended children.

an interesting topic para. curious what others have to say.

[Paracelsus]

Yes, very curious.

[AquafinaOrbit]

Personally, I do not believe using drugs while pregnant is ok. Simply for the fact that you are basically forcing another human to do something without their consent.

As for abortion, I believe painlessly killing a child in a controlled environment is a much better option then bringing a kid the parents do not want or cannot properly support/careful. My mother has been in a wheelchair for 7 years now due to a car accident and I know from my experience with the disability, bringing someone into this world already in that state is rather cruel. (I believe mental damage from drug use could be even worse if detected)

Reputation Comments on this post:

congrats, give you a few points for good posts

[mouthwater]

Originally Posted by AquafinaOrbit

Simply for the fact that you are basically forcing another human to do something without their consent.

When does sperm+egg become human, though?

[moda00]

There are also the issues of whether a mother unknowingly consumes something, legal or illegal, that could harm her child before she knows she is pregnant. It usually takes around a month to know; for those women with irregular periods or who get preggers while taking the pill consistently to prevent monthly cycles, it could be two or three, possibly longer if one is significantly overweight. Or what about use during pregnancy when the mother intends to have an abortion at some point- ie. drug use in the period between conception and abortion? It would be difficult to enforce something like this in such circumstances, as one could not prove intent- ie. the mother could claim she was planning to abort, but not really intend to, or she could change her mind after doing the damage and be in quite a sticky situation..

I think this is a moral issue, at least for me personally. I would not feel okay about taking anything that could harm a child I planned to bring into this world, but like I said before, if one didn't know or became pregnant unintentionally..? On the other hand, swim has been through addiction, and there is a difference between knowingly taking something that could harm your child, and being so fucked up mentally and physically that you can't function without a substance. I think most mothers who knowingly ingest substances that are proven harmful are likely either ignorant/uneducated about the implications, or are so addicted to a substance that they are unable to think rationally about it. Most women who are planning to bear a child would not intentionally harm that child, in my opinion- like I said, there are factors like addiction, or postpartum depression, or other serious mental illness, that can affect that, but in most cases I think strong evidence supporting the facts and public awareness of the facts would prevent a majority of preventable cases. In the case of addiction, the issue should be addressed if and when possible, but whatever the theory behind it, I don't think- in reality- the legal/penal system could effectively approach this problem. There could be some sort of system of harm reduction, or maybe even mandated drug treatment/detox/maintenance, but passing laws and/or jailing women will not change the issue at the root of the debate, and mandated abortions are a slippery slope.

Obviously with personal freedom comes the freedom to make destructive choices, and whether that choice is actually destructive (or perceived to be destructive) only to oneself, or to another, should be the basis of most laws imho- for example, legal regulation of marriage between different races, or mandating religious practice, or interfering with the personal choice to experiment with altered consciousness, are examples of ways the law has, does, or could interfere with personal freedom- and I don't think that should be the nature of the law. But the pregnancy issue does bring up the important debate of when, as mouthwater posted, do sperm/egg actually become a human life? There will likely never be consensus on this, or a perfect resolution to the problem. That is up to the individual.. as for abortion under other circumstances, I do believe in many cases it is more harmful to bring an unwanted child into the world than to abort a pregnancy, so long as the abortion is done safely and painlessly for both mother and fetus. I don't claim to have it down to a date or a trimester, but in general I do think that once a pregnancy/fetus is to the point of surviving outside the womb, and capable of feeling pain, that it is at that point a human, and I admit I am somewhat disturbed by the concept of "partial birth" or late 3rd trimester abortions. But that has nothing to do with the morality of abortion itself- it simply needs to be done within a reasonable time frame.

I think possibly effective ways to approach the issue of drug use during pregnancy are as follows: Education- gathering accurate data on the effects of different substances in different doses, etc. (rather than just speculating that any substance will harm a fetus end of story, which is ridiculous, because their legal status is clearly not an indicator of most substances potential for harm in adult humans- example being that marijuana is schedule 1, the "worst" class in the U.S., but drugs like cocaine, morphine, and pcp, which are all known to have either addiction/overdose potential, and/or toxic effects on the user, are schedule II- clearly the schedules or laws are not based on actual evidence of harmfulness.. and of course we have likely all witnessed the damage wrought by alcohol, which is conspicuously missing..) That way, people would know the consequences of their actions- not just "drugs are bad," but actually know what a relatively safe dose of maintenance opioids is during a pregnancy, or the effects of cocaine on fetal development, etc. Things that could actually be implemented and influence peoples actions. Also, for those who are addicted and unable to stop using on their own free will, they could prioritize state/county funded drug treatment and/or maintenance for pregnant women to ensure that this was easily accessible. And finally, there is so much medical advancement occurring in the field of pregnancy and assisted reproduction- I'm guessing there are fairly accurate ways to gauge possible physical or mental disabilities during pregnancy, so while forced abortion is a line I don't think any government should cross, they could make tools available to moms who either unknowingly drank/used while in early pregnancy, or who continued to use due to addiction or other factors- thus giving them specific information on their baby's health status and the possible consequences if carried to term- then the mother could make an informed decision about abortion, rather than the sweeping generalizations and uncertainties that likely surround such a situation.

Interesting topic, Paracelsus. Am interested to hear from others..

EDIT: Also--

Originally Posted by rxbandit

I still think its messed up that their are plenty of healthy children up for adoption and parents insist on having their own. would be beneficial to scoop up all the adoptable children before trying for a child in an unhealthy situation

I agree that the concept is disturbing- creating more children and burdening the planet's resources when there are so many healthy children who lack a loving and stable home. But I also think that extensive paperwork and legal processes interfere. I for one would gladly adopt a child. But it tends to be a tedious process, taking much time and money, from what I have heard and read. Some countries will not allow singles or gay/bi couples to adopt; even if the potential adoptive parents are a married hetero couple, they still do an extensive evaluation. So, someone who had a past addiction could be disqualified and discriminated against, or I've read of extreme difficulty with vegetarian/vegan families adopting unless they make clear they plan to raise the baby on an omnivorous diet. I agree that it is important to protect children and make sure they aren't being harmed or exploited- but I would assume most who would seek to adopt another's child and raise it as their own are a fairly progressive and kind-hearted sort, and I'm guessing that in general placement in a stable home where they are wanted and raised by a person or couple who care about them tends to be a better situation overall than foster care, which is even harder to monitor and more stressful I'm sure, or orphanages in many countries. I read a really sad story/blog about a vegan couple who adopted a child with documented disabilities and fetal alcohol syndrome, and long story short, they were accused of neglect due to the child's low body weight etc. (which had been documented prior to adoption due to other medical problems) and vilified, and eventually lost their daughter. I would love to adopt, but I think that the inaccessibility of the system to most average people- the financial constraints etc.- and the concept of someone else evaluating you as a person and passing moral judgments on one's choices- choice of partner, or choice to be single, or choice of diet, or income- or one's past.. medical conditions, addiction history, involvement with certain social or political movements, etc. I would be devastated to go through all that and be deemed an unfit parent, or to adopt and then lose a child over something like that.

Reputation Comments on this post:

	Great post, interesting signature.
	saucy
	interesting points
	WOW! THis is the kind of post I like to see!

[Powder_Reality]

I believe that responsible adults should be allowed to put any psychoactive substance into their body if they want to because it is not hurting anybody else but themselves (if it actually is causing any physical/psychological harm to them). It is a personal choice and should be respected (whether someone chooses to use drugs or not).

However, using drugs while pregnant is a different thing entirely. Using drugs while pregnant does not only effect the mother; there's also a chance that harm could be brought onto the child. Of course, not all drugs do cause harm to the fetus and more research should probably be done on this subject. We already know that drugs such as cocaine, alcohol and heroin should be avoided while pregnant, but there are some psychoactive drugs that probably do not cause any harm to the fetus at all (although I'm not educated enough on the subject to start listing off any).

This is a difficult issue for me to choose sides with. I believe strongly in personal freedom, and have a problem with any law that punishes people for doing something that causes no harm to anyone but themselves (if any harm does occur). As a result, I also strongly believe in a woman's right to choose abortion for unwanted/unplanned pregnancies. It's far worse to bring an unwanted child into an unloving envirnoment than it is to simply terminate the fetus. However, after an abortion is performed, the fetus is gone and the potential human life was never actually brought into the world. With (harmful) drug use, the child is still brought into the world even after being hurt from said drug use (drug use that obviously wasn't their choice). I would have to agree with RX Bandit that this would essentially be child abuse.

So as you can see, it's very hard for someone who believes strongly in personal freedom to definitively choose a side in this type of debate. And the possibilty of criminal charges for such abuse is also another hard topic to decide on. There would probably have to be many different parameters for this type of law (such as the type/amount of drug consumed, whether or not the child actually was harmed as a result of the drug use, etc).

I'm undecided on the criminal charges aspect of it, but I can definately see why there should a strong consideration for such legal punishment. But in regards to the main topic, I'm going to have to take my place on the against side. I don't think it's right to ingest psychoactive substances that could harm the fetus while pregnant, based on the reasoning that it's causing direct harm to someone else other than you.

Reputation Comments on this post:

	good post, thank you for sharing on this controversial but important issue..
	also well stated points
	food for thought

[mouthwater]

Originally Posted by moda00

Obviously with personal freedom comes the freedom to make destructive choices, and whether that choice is actually destructive (or perceived to be destructive) only to oneself, or to another, should be the basis of most laws imho- for example, legal regulation of marriage between different races, or mandating religious practice, or interfering with the personal choice to experiment with altered consciousness, are examples of ways the law has, does, or could interfere with personal freedom- and I don't think that should be the nature of the law.

I think 'social degeneration' is the basis for one of the main counter-arguments when discussing these sort of situations (marriage/religious practices) through the public/private spheres. Allowing marriage between different races (and why not sexes, or between family members?), allowing others to practice their religion (and when does a religion become a cult?), and letting others experiment with consciousness (even states that are harmful, self-destructive, and will have negative impacts on one's personal and public-- such as in the workplace--lives? Not to mention, how do we keep others safe from intoxicated drivers when they have more reign over their consciousness?) are all, some better than others, situations that cause, arguably, noticeable social degeneration when allowed. I agree with your position, that these things shouldn't be regulated to the extent they are by federal (and in many cases state) laws, but humans offsite often prescribe to religious ideologies that insist preservation of the status quo.

But the pregnancy issue does bring up the important debate of when, as mouthwater posted, do sperm/egg actually become a human life? There will likely never be consensus on this, or a perfect resolution to the problem.

I think one of the more notable landmarks in human development is when sexual organs are distinguishable (about three months in the oven, no?). Since, I believe, we can break down basic human life as either XX or XY--among other ways, of course-- we can conclude that once sexual organs become identifiable the fetus is significantly human-esque; however, I think it's a difficult argument to propose that embryos are "human."

[mungo101]

Hope no one thinks im some kind of 'social degenerate' but during all of my pregnancys i took a daily cocktail of 15g Agent Orange and 24 Thalidomide pills with no obvious effects to my 43 chidren. I have released a series of books about my progeny with names such as Mr tickle, Mr Strong, Mr Greedy etc. for any one thats interested.

Reputation Comments on this post:

	why didn't you mention your daughters?
	That was one of the most interesting posts I have read on the internet.
	crap
	lol

[mouthwater]

Originally Posted by mungo101

Hope no one thinks im some kind of 'social degenerate' but during all of my pregnancys i took a daily cocktail of 15g Agent Orange and 24 Thalidomide pills with no obvious effects to my 43 chidren. I have released a series of books about my progeny with names such as Mr tickle, Mr Strong, Mr Greedy etc. for any one thats interested.

So many angles, so much depth; so much ingenuity, and spontaneity. Cheers, mate! Great post.

[Alfa]

Originally Posted by mungo101

Hope no one thinks im some kind of 'social degenerate' but during all of my pregnancys i took a daily cocktail of 15g Agent Orange and 24 Thalidomide pills with no obvious effects to my 43 chidren. I have released a series of books about my progeny with names such as Mr tickle, Mr Strong, Mr Greedy etc. for any one thats interested.

Haha, well lets hope that you are not pregnant of Mr troll ATM, cause that shortens the life span of that child.

[Dark_Man_Of_Peace]

In my opinion women should not take anything well pregnant unless OKed by a licensed medical professional. I know a few people who's mothers abused numerous drugs while pregnant and they are F**KED up.

[moda00]

Originally Posted by mouthwater

I think 'social degeneration' is the basis for one of the main counter-arguments when discussing these sort of situations (marriage/religious practices) through the public/private spheres. Allowing marriage between different races (and why not sexes, or between family members?), allowing others to practice their religion (and when does a religion become a cult?), and letting others experiment with consciousness (even states that are harmful, self-destructive, and will have negative impacts on one's personal and public-- such as in the workplace--lives? Not to mention, how do we keep others safe from intoxicated drivers when they have more reign over their consciousness?) are all, some better than others, situations that cause, arguably, noticeable social degeneration when allowed. I agree with your position, that these things shouldn't be regulated to the extent they are by federal (and in many cases state) laws, but humans offsite often prescribe to religious ideologies that insist preservation of the status quo.

This is a good point.. and of course there are decisions that can fall on either side of that line- ie. to be intoxicated with alcohol on occasion is fine, but to give it to a child or drive under the influence while significantly impaired from consuming too much is illegal. That in my mind makes sense. I guess what I meant was that the law should clearly differentiate activities that are a matter of personal freedom vs. those which are a risk to another person specifically, or the public or society as a whole. I didn't mean to imply that laws should completely leave alone those or other certain areas like substances, public safety, family issues, religion, etc. Rather that they (the government here in my country, elected and appointed to represent the people and protect our freedoms) must find an acceptable level at which to distinguish personal freedom from potential problem, and allow room for others' beliefs, even if those possibilities may disagree with their own religious or moral system of beliefs. It is just as wrong for the government to deny us our basic rights to pursue "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as it is for an individual to take away someone else's rights- It is such a broad topic, but basically it seems that the majority of laws and penalties are for actual crimes against someone or something- this interfering with their rights. Rape, physical or emotional battery, murder, robbery, extortion, etc. are all commonly recognized and accepted as criminal and are clearly so because they involve one human being interfering with another person, group, or entity's rights. That said, there must be a line drawn as to who and is not entitled to these rights and how they are defined- for example, if a Corporation (I think I saw a documentary by that name some time ago regarding this issue?) as an "entity" is treated the same as a single person, who by definition have significantly less resources at their disposal, it does not create an even playing field. Ideally, that is what the laws would try to enforce and uphold, but shit, easier said than done And since law enforcement are apparently the only ones legally and socially allowed to break the law, it is ironic that they are also the ones who are put in charge of pursuing individuals for breaking laws and disrupting other individuals or society-- and then ensure that his freedoms are restricted or limited for a long time to come. It is a vicious cycle, and many people don't know their rights... (Note to all: Learn them now, before you are in a situation when swiy might need to use them- hopefully that never happens though..)

If a law were drafted regarding harming a fetus/child abuse/whatever it would be labeled, during a pregnancy, I would certainly support the concept, but would be extremely wary of adding yet another target to the list of drug war prisoners.

Note how those intent to break the law are quite adept at doing so, and those breaking the law because of an already existing habit/addiction are unlikely to be affected by the passing of such a law. In addition, innocents could get "caught in the crossfire" as detailed above. And putting a mom or soon-to-be mom in a jail/prison environment is not likely to benefit anyone, and in fact could do much more harm- the money would be better spent on treatment and education. As with alcohol and tobacco, the effects are know and info spreads fast in today's world. However, there is no law regarding the well-known and documented link between alcohol consumption during pregnancy and FAS and other disabilities.

And if there is to be a law, swim thinks it should only be implemented in a way that will reduce harm to everyone involved, and ensure that thorough research is done on each and every substance included in its bounds. For example, is it safer for an opioid dependent mother to detox/withdraw, or to be placed on a maintenance drug during pregnancy, and at what dosages? Does use of LSD or other plant-based hallucinations effect the uterine environment in which the baby is growing, or increase risks for miscarriage? Do children whose parents smoked weed regularly have differing intelligence from a control group? What about tobacco? Armed with this info, everyone could make informed choices, and the legal system could approach it something like the drunk driving laws- set a standard and measurable figure, while allowing for other methods if needed, such as field sobriety testing or a breathalyser. Of course it would take time and some significant funding and cooperation to complete the studies- since they would likely be case histories and surveys, along with medical/biological information about the parents and the baby at time of birth and/or shortly thereafter for an additional monitoring period to see whether certain defects may delay in manifesting themselves, or whether certain abnormalities resolve themselves without significant difference in functioning. Of course, swim knows that many of her ideas and thoughts would involve a broader change in the legal system and the public attitude over time, and that one could not make an entirely accurate or informed document at this point in time.. However, the intent of the law should be carefully considered if it is to be implemented, and subsequently monitored to ensure that it was being enforced in a way that was effective.

Again, as stated above, my own thoughts are that it would be wrong/immoral for me- regardless of legal status. But again, as swim pointed out, if swim had accidentally gotten pregnant during the isolated periods of her heavy multi-drug use and addiction, she likely would have kept right on using.. I like to think she wouldn't have, but with that frame of mind and body, I'm reasonably sure she would, and am not proud of this.

With regard to social degradation- one most be aware of these implications, but at the same time one must know that the concept of morality and socially acceptable behavior is largely dependent on time frame, cultural atmosphere, etc. These things do change over time- for example, the mixing of races/religion issue- The concept of interracial marriage, and the ban on it, were not based in factual evidence but in discrimination. Similarly, I'd bet that most who know of the history of marijuana and its legal status in the U.S., as well as social perceptions in several countries and cultures, were mainly related to racist lies and irrelevant propaganda- it influences "wholesome white women" to seek relationships with "negros.." WTF.. One, how in the world could marijuana, or any drug, do that specifically? And two- a bit of a stretch- if it in fact marijuana did facilitate interracial mixing as its primary drug effect, would this be reason for the government to get involved? Also notable that comments made about Jazz music and its musicians at that time, by Anslinger and others, are eerily similar to what we hear nowadays, only about a new genre- hip/hop and rap. Mainly associated with people of African descent, another racist attempt at fear-mongering- but also has great mcs, djs, other performers and fans from all races and cultures and countries. In addition, aside from the racial component, data, or lack thereof, was misconstrued, and blatantly false statements made about the plant- that it was responsible for deaths, directly and indirectly- one particularly gruesome case he presented was that of a teen boy who was naturally quiet and smart and well-mannered, but when he was exposed to marijuana, he used an axe to murder his entire family (I recall having read this and similar things before- perhaps in Reefer Madness? but a quick search turned up a brief bio on Anslinger on Wikipedia, so while not an exact quote, it illustrates the sensationalist nature of the claims made about the plant.) We can study the history of such things, and its definitely worth learning about, but overall my impression is that the actual laws, at least here in my country, and the way they are interpreted and enforced, could not be used as an effective force for positive change at this time. With regard to drug use/addiction and pregnancy, and in general- unless those in charge of such things were willing to re-examine the issue, which she feels they are not going to do, they will implement a law supposedly created to protect babies from abuse, and society from degradation- all noble causes. But the likelihood of their effects, though cynical, swim feel will be very low unless they combine law and punishment with a sense of compassion, increased funding for harm reduction resources like treatment, and increased knowledge on the subject via accurate and up to date research, to become widely available online.

While swim agrees completely with your point that it is generally wrong to harm a fetus and then bring him/her into the world to live with that harm, and that in an ideal world, a law would help.. but again, swim thinks that those who honestly don't know the risks would be better educated than jailed, and that the remaining population among whom this is likely to be a problem, will be the addicts or those with dual diagnoses. Since these individuals are already thought of as criminals and pushed out of society; since many of them have likely tried to quit or cut down without success- signaling a need for treatment of some kind- whether a therapist to help sort things out, or treatment with opioid maintenance, inpatient/half-way house, or medical intervention to minimize harm to both mom and baby, increased medical supervision to prevent consequences, availability of tests to ensure the baby's health status, and possibly hospital detox services if this is not found to be too stressful on mom or baby.

Oh and one more thing swim was reminded of when reading your post, she recently read a study about drug use, specifically alcohol at legal age, and cocaine in adulthood- and the importance of social connectivity and community towards minimizing harm. They found social life and settings of use are better predictors of a user's overall health and functionality than simply the patterns/amount of use, which we would usually classify as heavy/daily use = addiction, and the most harmful approach to using.. She'll try to find it and edit in the link, I think someone may have added it to archive here on DF..

Reputation Comments on this post:

Great point and response

[Paracelsus]

Is it this one?

An excellent in-depth paper on the topic for further reading: http://www.drugs-forum.com/forum/l...4048&catid=105

[moda00]

Originally Posted by Paracelsus

Is it this one?

Hmm no it's not the one I am thinking of but is very relevant and worth reading, thanks for posting that!! I'll try to dig the other one up, not directly related to pregnancy but very relevant to social perceptions and harm reduction as discussed some..

[zera]

Originally Posted by rxbandit

the few I've met who's parents abused alcohol, crack cocaine or any of the other hard drugs are WAY messed up.

The crack baby epidemic of the 80s is pretty much a myth. The low birth weights were almost assuredly associated with the mothers' extreme poverty and poor nutrition. Almost all of the babies responded positively when put on a high calorie/vitamin diet.

[Paracelsus]

Indeed, but he didn't talk about the "crack baby epidemic."

[mouthwater]

Originally Posted by zera

The crack baby epidemic of the 80s is pretty much a myth. The low birth weights were almost assuredly associated with the mothers' extreme poverty and poor nutrition. Almost all of the babies responded positively when put on a high calorie/vitamin diet.

Interesting. Citations please.

[ransacklw]

Okay 2 examples of drug use on pregnancy-
1. Swim's mother was 5 months pregnant before she found she was pregnant, She was on all kinds of Medications "drugs" like Stelazine?, Lithium, Phenobarbital for epilepsy and strokes.
2. Swim's girlfriend's mother was doing speed through the pregnancy,

* Swim's opinion NO drugs are not okay when pregnant if you do take the risk of doing them you MIGHT get lucky and have a child who is okay. but more times then others the kid ends up being messed up in a few way such as moods, mentality, and emotions...

***** If Doctors say you should not drink caffeine when your pregnant why the hell would it be okay to do drugs of any kind...?