I was unable to get the link to this article to work, so my apologies for not being able to review it. However, there are other studies that have shown contradictory results. Here's one: Prenatal Marijuana Exposure and Neonatal Outcomes in Jamaica: An Ethnographic Study, Melanie C. Dreher, PhD et al. (Dreher is the Dean of Nursing at Ruch University.) Main results: Exposed (to mj) and nonexposed neonates were compared at 3 days and 1 month old, using the Brazelton Neonatal Assessment Scale, including supplementary items to capture possible subtle effects. There were no significant differences between exposed and nonexposed neonates on day 3. At 1 month, the exposed neonates showed better physiological stability and required less examiner facilitation to reach organized states. The neonates of heavy-marijuana-using mothers had better scores on autonomic stability, quality of alertness, irritability, and self-regulation and were judged to be more rewarding for caregivers. Conclusions: The absence of any differences between the exposed and nonexposed groups in the early neonatal period suggest that the better scores of exposed neonates at 1 month are traceable to the cultural positioning and social and economic characteristics of mothers using marijuana that select for the use of marijuana but also promote neonatal development. Pediatrics 1994;93:254-260

Really??? It is appalling that anyone would want to put their unborn child at even the possibility of risk. Again I will say that marijuana is not the cure all drug and it is not a drug without consequences. There is no drug out there that does not have massive economic and social impact, including the 2 legalized drugs alcohol and tobacco. So why are people so hell bent on making marijuana sound so tame?

The link to the original research was checked this morning and working properly, FYI.

Dear Mr. Ellis: I greatly appreciate that you stick to the topic at hand and provide REAL data for support your viewpoints. It is so refreshing to actually have a scholarly discussion here. I am always enlightened when I read your entries. dk

Thanks, it is working now.

i can't believe someone wasted money on this study! in a world where you can't even eat sour cream or cold cuts when you're pregnant why would it seem like marijuana would be ok??? with or without research why would you take the chance??? If you can't go 8 or nine months without marijuana maybe you should think about treatment. And what about after the baby is born? are you going to smoke then too? good idea... and what a good example!

Hey Bernie...I don't care whether weed becomes legal or not. I have no problem with that. I will continue to treat the 8% of users (per NORML) who develop problematic use. I do, however, have a problem with people who misrepresent science to people who may not know how to evaluate the results of a study. Pandering to those who would reject any science that might show data that contradicts their beliefs is pretty FU, don't you think? The JAACAP study has an N of 7000. It's measuring a concrete, easy to measure quantity (head circumference and birth weight)and it is 15 years more recent than the study you cite. "Self-regulation" and "quality of alertness"...Come on, man!

Melanie Dreher is scheduled to be at the fully accredited Sixth National Clinical Conference on Cannabis Therapeutics, to be held on April 15 - 17, 2010 at the Crowne Plaza Hotel in Warwick, RI. You can ask her yourself how her funding was cut off for her Jamaican study when the results were considered too favorable for Prenatal Marijuana Exposure and Neonatal Outcomes. Talk about misrepresenting science, the federal government has been doing that continuously when it comes to marijuana. NIDA even admits it does "not fund research focused on the potential beneficial medical effects of marijuana.”

An N of 7000 but "most of the mj users in the study also smoked nicotine". . .

Um... if you actually read the article, you see the word "MAY" used quite profusely... hence, there is no actual data... I mean marijuana "MAY" cause your child to have 47 hands and be able to fly to the magical world of narnia... The truth of the matter is, and has been researched as, there are no negative effects that have ever been found and supported by any of the billions of studys that have been done... keep limiting the truth guys, and in a few years when its legal... take your "MAY"s and choke on em... to the writer: perhaps actually do some journalism and research next time?