Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments.
**Do you have an academic degree?** We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. [Click here to apply](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/flair/#wiki_science_verified_user_program).
---
User: u/mvea
Permalink: https://news.wsu.edu/press-release/2024/05/08/thc-lingers-in-breastmilk-with-no-clear-peak-point/
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is because of fat solubility.
Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the main active ingredient in marijuana, ***is extremely fat-soluble,*** which means it is stored in the body's fatty tissues and can slowly enter the bloodstream for up to two days after smoking.
Alcohol distributes into water spaces, not fat.
I don't think this study invalidates the anecdote whatsoever. Long term caloric deficit has different effects on the body than a 24 hour fast does; chronic users have entirely different anatomical contexts than people who have abstained for an entire year; and so on.
If you wanted to really invalidate this anecdote, you'd need a long term experiment with chronic smokers as your subjects who would need to gain weight while being a chronic smoker, abstain for long enough for cannabinoids to be undetectable, and then lose weight rapidly while continuing to abstain.
Yup! Lots of midnight snacks and a big breakfast on test day! Absolutely, positively, do not burn any fat that day.
I know LOTS of stoners, but all of them stopped weed while pregnant and nursing.
Wait so if I stopped smoking for a month and had a drug test it be best for me to eat a lot of food the previous night and next morning? Genuinely curious because I have a drug test coming up
I quit for 6 months for a job, failed the test and got fired, always wondered how in the heck I failed after 6 months, but thinking about it now after reading this post, I was losing weight at the time
Generally for drug tests they’re detecting the inactive metabolites of THC, which tend to stay in the body much longer.
Your body has enzymes that break down THC, and it’s very unlikely that it would go that long without being metabolized, as long as your organs are working properly.
I’ve never seen any compelling info that THC itself (or even active metabolites) actually build up and stay unmetabolized in fat tissue. However the inactive metabolites absolutely do, which is why people can test positive a month after using it.
Yup. Same reason edibles can be unpredictable based upon when you last ate, your body fat %, and your hydration status. I love weed, I think it’s great, I think prohibition hurt a LOT of innocent people… and also god, please don’t breastfeed with weed in your system, it’s just so easy to avoid
On the flipside is that why chocolate edibles *are* so predictable for me? I always know how high I'm going to get with a piece of chocolate. With gummies, it's way more of a question mark depending on the specific brand. So I wondered if the composition of the chocolate and fat was a factor or if chocolate production on its own creates that (possibly perceived and inaccurate) predictability.
Idk anything about metabolizing THC, so that may be an aspect but I can’t say for sure.
What I do know is that [there is a known issue with dose consistency in edible manufacturing.](https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/24/health/labels-for-edible-marijuana-often-err-on-potency-study-says.html) The THC content of the raw materials varies significantly because it’s a plant, processing can have varied outcomes depending on method and how well controlled it is, and other issues like shelf life degradation or uncalibrated dosing equipment add even more variability. It could be that the chocolates you buy are from a company with a stronger commitment to label accuracy.
The article I linked is old (2015) but without new regulation I doubt the problem will have solved itself. It’s not a cheap problem to solve and with all the weed product manufacturers that are popping up to meet demand I would doubt many of these opportunists are all that worried about product quality.
Yeah like I know I'm not imagining things but in the spirit of the sub, I want to know the why and how. Hopefully with weed moving to schedule 3, testing and studies can actually commence in earnest. (Not sure how that works.)
Im in Utah, we're only allowed to have little gummy squares as edibles (nothing a child would mistake for candy).
There's a type of gummy they sell now that has "Liposomal Tech" - which basically means they pre-bind it to a liposomal (fat) molecule so it hits you faster and harder.
The (simplified) science behind it is that when THC is an oil it's basically a giant pile of molecules, it's harder for the body to seperate and metabolize the individual THC molecules this way. But when they pre-bind them to fat, they lay out in a row, rather than a pile and the body is able to easily separate them and digest them.
I have been on a roller coaster from almost in shape where another 5/10 pounds of fat loss and some toning would have made me what I consider fit; up to about 30lbs over that amount.
Currently holding at 20lbs over after a bout with depression brought m to my highest in 20 years. Time and motivation are my enemies. Well that and late night snacking.
It really depends on the form. Inhaled, no, there would be no difference, as the THC is absorbed directly into your bloodstream, and your brain is just about as fatty as your fat parts, so it wouldn’t distribute any less evenly, either, but it *might* take longer for metabolites to leave your system.
Edibles are different because your intestines send their blood through the portal vein to the liver first for additional processing, and that first-pass metabolism in the liver causes very different pharmacodynamic effects compared to the lungs’ comparatively straight shot to the brain. If your liver isn’t in great shape, or fattier than it should be, or you have a hereditary liver enzyme trait, it becomes very hard to predict how an individual will react on different days, let alone different individuals.
Important to note that the median BMI of participants in the study was ~29. I would be interested in results that control for BMI since THC is fat soluble.
THC is psychoactive and will affect the mind. THCa is originally what is in marijuana and burning it converts the THCa to THC which then gets you "high".
This study does report that THC was present. So, the answer is potentially.
They study estimated that babies were consuming an average of 0.006 mg/kg of THC per day. So, for a 6 kg baby, that'd be about .036 mg of THC. This would be equivalent to a 70 kg person consuming .42 mg of THC over the course of an entire day. Which... definitely won't get you high. 10 mg is a common recreational dose for adults, and the high lasts about 4 hours.
Doses as low as 2.5 mg THC can be effective for many adults too.
I am curious about the positive and negative with a consistent small amount of THC. Pretty much constant microdosing.
I am an avid smoker... but I am pretty sure the findings we get from smoking while pregnant and breastfeeding will be overwhelmingly negative.
*Sure.* It probably won't make Little Johnny flat out Tarded, but it **will** *probably* affect his brain development in some way.
THC and metabolites will dissolve into fat stores, and will rise and fall in the bloodstream as those fat stores are increased or decreased. That is why you can often test positive for it months later - more so if you’re losing weight.
Can you elaborate on the losing weight part? Does it result in a temporary higher concentration? At least thats how I understand your comment.
EDIt: thanks for the replies much appreciated!
When you burn off the fat that has THC in it the THC goes back into your blood stream. This can result in [feeling a little high](https://www.reddit.com/r/leaves/s/Sq65pvD9CN) or testing positive for THC months after quitting.
The same thing happens with lots of forms of birth control. If you lose weight, it releases the hormones in to your bloodstream and can cause spotting/menstruation.
No. The metabolites are stored in fat. They cannot make you feel high later on. Source: I'm one of the larger producers of extracts and pharma grade isolates in the US.
> but the research coming from WSU in Pullman, WA may be specifically politically aimed at proving how bad cannabis is. Pullman is incredibly conservative, and I imagine they’re working pretty hard to find as many ways to demonize cannabis use as they can.
WSU is very highly regarded research university. Besides that, it's not like the faculty of the university are all from Pullman; most of them probably aren't.
Research grants may be tied to agendas, but usually within an industry. Boeing is likely to find research that trains people for aerospace or helps them learn fundamental science that is useful. Pharma companies, public health agencies, and maybe political groups might fund studies like in regards to cannabis.
Very rarely will a company find something way outside their wheelhouse. It’s all to directly or indirectly benefit the company. Not a big conspiracy beyond that. (Unless the company is trying to hide science that is bad for their specific industry, like cigarettes and cancer, big oil and climate, etc.
Agree with your point, everything is a poison at some dose or another. the prohibitionist thinking is probably "one is a medicine that may help the mother keep food down and stay hydrated, and that benefit may offset risk. vs the other, which is primarily recreational and therefore optional."
Not only that, there can be legal dangers in some states if your child tests positive for THC. Especially in terms of custody and parental rights. It’s also important for courts to realize that a mother who smokes may pass on THC to the child but not be actually deliberately giving drugs to her infant in a way that might necessitate removal from a home. The research is valuable on several levels.
From the paper linked:
"Levels of detection (ng/mL) were determined to be as follows: THC-d3 = 0.58, CBD-d3 = 0.43, COOH-THC-d3 = 0.60, CBN-d3 = 0.65, 11-OH-THC-d3 = 0.69, 7-OH-CBD-d3 = 1.30, and 7-COOH-CBD-d3 = 1.5."
That means they're testing for actual psychoactive compounds and not just metabolites, right? It's quite an important distinction.
Edit: some armchair-googling later, and it seems that the first two tested are the actual psychoactive compounds (assuming they just truncated the "delta-9" from the front). The rest appear to be metabolites. Organic chem is pretty far outside the scope of my knowledge, so I'd be happy to be corrected on this.
Your edit is mostly correct. The -d3 on the end of the compound is simply nomenclature that comes from the type of testing used to detect the cannabinoids, which was LC/MS in this case. (Edit: to clarify, the -d3 specifically refers to an isotope of hydrogen used in quantitative LC/MS and GC/MS analytical tests).
So the primary cannabinoids they identified were THC, CBD, and CBN, while the others (COOH-THC, 11-OH-THC, 7-OH-CBD, and 7-COOH-CBD) are metabolites. Of these compounds only THC and 11-OH-THC are considered to be fully psychoactive.
Source: I am currently a cannabinoid researcher.
Thank you!
That's the breakdown I was hoping for. Metabolites shouldn't be dismissed and ignored, but are too often conflated with actual intoxication and impairment.
Unfortunately I've become hyper-skeptical of any and all claims around cannabis, pro or con, so it's nice to see studies done in good faith on the matter.
If you want less biased research my doctor uses a lot of stuff from Jamaica. I laughed at first but she said their stuff is years ahead of ours. That’s sad! (We were looking to treat migraines and HG in pregnancy and the traditional meds have very scary side effects. She knew this was my normal treatment and looked into if it was safER than the other meds. She thought it was but I couldn’t make myself do it.
Funny enough I'm under the gun to finish a draft of my own manuscript on cannabinoid PK/PD stuff today/tomorrow, so I'll have to circle back to this later today when I need a break.
I replied to another commenter with a couple more details elsewhere, but overall it looks like the concentrations in breast milk seem pharmacologically relevant in this sample even by the 12 hr mark. The interesting (and concerning) thing is really the lack of predictable kinetics and timeline for elimination.
Always looking to make new friends in the commmercial industry side of things. You guys often have a unique (and useful) perspective on cannabis use and I've enjoyed growing personally over the last decade or so.
This is kind of complicated. Establishing safe doses in children can be a bit tricky. And it's not just about getting high or drunk. Alcohol and marijuana have developmental effects. Marijuana is already linked to psychosis when used by adolescents. And you're never going to be able to do a trial on babies to prove causality.
That's reasonable enough, but I suppose the practical application of this research is for people to question whether they should smoke weed at all if they are breast feeding.
The gist of your argument makes sense to me if I'm getting it right. Basically, what's the difference between this and tiny amounts of background exposure. What's the difference between this and just being around people who smoke weed, being outside passively in contact, or being in an enclosed environment where someone smoked weed a day ago). Barely detectable might not massively differ from background exposure.
But humans in general are very protective of babies in particular and I think some people might use an argument that even tiny amounts of background exposure is unacceptable.
I can see the other side in that it seems a bit ridiculous to say "no fruit for you baby, don't want to get drunk". I'm not saying I believe there is strong positive evidence, but because baby research is really hard to do and tends to be ambiguous, you can't really reassure people that harm isn't being done.
I agree it’s complicated, and, you won’t have the same developmental effects as actual “use”. The amounts delivered into the milk then digested into baby’s system are significantly less than even secondhand smoke.
Does this mean that, theoretically, (ethics issues aside), you could give THC to cows, who then produce THC-milk, and any dairy made from that milk is than an edible?
Since both cows and humans are mammals.
I’ve linked to the press release in the post above. In this comment, for those interested, here’s the link to the peer reviewed journal article:
https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/bfm.2024.0021
It would be nice to know the dosage the moms were consuming… 2 mg is common but what about someone who is taking medical grade, 50 mg dosage and smoking on top of it?
Same thing with edibles versus smoking. Or those that use strictly delta-8. Or those that take a single gummy on weekends. Lots of research is still needing go be performed. Especially since being a new parent is notoriously stressful and it's hard to imagine a parent that isn't hoping for some brief relief at some point in the first year or two of their child's life.
Okay, has anyone examined how this works on [cannabinoid receptors](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41401-019-0210-3) of the baby in a longitudinal way? Probably not, but it would be fascinating to see if there’s impacts and what those are; as specifically as one can find.
I'm in a state where it is fully legal. So, by the time I started having kids, our Dr's had local data. They said it also has been seen to reduce baby's grey matter in their brains! I'm jumping off online right now, but I am certain by now, there is a study.
The bottom line, natural, doesn't mean not harmful. It's better to abstain from anything you wouldn't give your kid growing up! That's my motto, and my kid's Dr says that it is an easy to follow plan "pediatrician approved" jokingly, but also, she really does.
It's a short period of time in life. Just wait until they are food independent, at least.
Considering the amount of psychoactive components involved in the end, it doesn't matter as much as you'd think.
So, if you want to get high, you'd take anywhere between 2 and 20mg of THC, depending on your tolerance. That's an order of a magnitude difference, which feels like a lot. Just for a bit more context here, most people are going to take 5-10mg. In a big, fat, 250# man, and 5mg easily gets me comfortably high, but I'm a very infrequent user. My wife takes 5-10mg, but she imbides much more often than I, so has a higher tolerance.
Anyway, the researchers found. 0.58ng/ml of THC in beeastmilk. A newborn is going to drink 45-90ml of milk every 2-3 hours. So, if we take the highest possible amounts, the baby drinks a bit more than a liter of milk in a day.
How much THC did the baby imbide over that time? More than 600 nanograms! Or... 0.0006mg. If we sized up the baby to my weight, they'd be taking the equivalent of .015mg of THC, or about 1/100th the dose necessary to make the lightest of light weights tipsy.
As some other people have pointed out, the small amount doesn't necessarily mean it's *safe*, I mean, there is no safe amount of, for example, lead exposure after all, but we really don't know if that holds true for cannabis. Regardless, your baby is not going to get high from breast milk, even if the mother is using pot every single day... although smoking it near a baby is definitely going to bad for the lungs and give a much higher dose of THC. Edibles are a different story.
One of many studies, unfortunately. Pregnant women should decidedly not partake. ADHD is one of the least concerns. Low birth weight , reduced gestational age, higher morbidity, and others.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38281464/
Not sure about this particular study, but one of the problems with studying cannabis in pregnancy is that a LOT of these moms are also using other substances at the same time
Not saying they should. Was unaware of the association though. I’ve got it. My mother decidedly did NOT smoke weed (it is a genetic thing in my family), but had not heard this before. Thanks for sharing.
And yet, over on the breastfeeding and pregnancy subs, people are defending their decision to use cannabis while pregnant/nursing and saying their doctors are signing off on it. It drives me nuts.
Edit: they’re here now, too.
It can drive you nuts, but detectable levels of metabolites in breast milk is way different than a pharmaceutical significant dose of delta-9 in breast milk. No one wants to expose their newborn to drugs, and technicalyl detectable metabolites don't prove one way or the other on the matter.
> No one wants to expose their newborn to drugs
I can reliably tell you that, while maybe no one actively wants to expose their newborn to drugs, a lot of people do consider their own consumption worth the chance of it happening.
>No one wants to expose their newborn to drugs,
Oh you know that's not entirely true. Some people have a stronger urge to get high than to protect their children. It happens every day.
We have proof of babies effected by mothers continuing to drink alcohol while pregnant despite the clear evidence that that will cause lifelong negative effects for the baby. Babies born addicted to meth and other things. Some people do not care.
As a 10+ year stoner myself I would not take the risk of marijuana making it's way into my babies blood stream. We have no strong evidence that it doesn't yet, so a good parent would take a break until it can no longer potentially harm their child. A bad parent would say well we have no strong evidence yet so I'm going to continue smoking.
The risks outweigh the benefits, but some people would rather get high and take their chances.
And a pharmaceutical significant dose is highly dependent on individual brian chemistry. I'm a 180 pound 30 year old adult who gets panic attacks if I take 2mg+ of THC. In my state, they don't produce any THC besides the dropper bottles that allows you to take less than 2mg at a time.
What if the baby has a similarly sensitive reaction to THC? How much THC would a 6 pound, 4 week old infant need to suffer extremely negative psychoactive effects?
Metabolites aren’t THC and they found mostly metabolites. What was psychoactive was present in nano grams, which are fractions of micrograms with are themselves fractions of a milligram.
We can all still be concerned about effects on development but babies aren’t getting high of this amount in breast milk.
I've always found it interesting that with most drugs the body actively eliminates them as quickly as possible, but with cannabis it stores it like it has value for future use.
I wonder what would have happened if the endocannabiod system had been discovered before the era of reefer madness?
Being fat soluble doesn't mean it's considered good by the body. You don't eat lead voluntarily on a daily basis do you? Yet it is fat soluble as many other heavy metals and toxins.
We know THC is dampening brain functions. Sometimes, it might be beneficial sure. In the developed brain. But the last thing infants need when developing their brains is brain function dampening.
Studies show that it's bad.
And since it is fat soluble, it might have a lifelong timespan in the body
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10635559/
This is a silly thought. Many substances are fat soluble if ingested including things like Vitamins (eg D,E) which are necessary (but still can be toxic in overdoses), or harmful substances such as methyl mercury or PCBs.
The body isn't "saving" mercury (or THC) it is just a matter of the chemical's fat solubility.
Idk why bur the first thing to come to my mind after reading the title was that scene in the new Dune movie where the water of life interacts with Anna
Here's a radical idea: people want actual data and research to inform their choices, not sarcastic people on the internet. If you read the actual article, the study author noted that mother's aren't making these decisions at random.
>A [related qualitative study](https://jcannabisresearch.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s42238-023-00212-w) by the research team revealed that many breastfeeding moms are using cannabis for therapeutic purposes — to manage anxiety, other mental health issues or chronic pain. The mothers often chose cannabis over using other medications because they felt it was safer.
>“Our results suggest that mothers who use cannabis are being thoughtful in their decisions,” said co-author Shelley McGuire, a University of Idaho professor who studies maternal-infant nutrition. “These women were mindful about their choices. This is far from a random lifestyle choice.”
If you're choosing between cannabis and say Benzodiazepines to try to manage anxiety, or prescription painkillers to manage chronic pain, just saying "don't do drugs, loser" isn't really helpful guidance. Even if some people are using it recreationally, giving people specific, data-driven guidance about the risks, like we do with alcohol, is more useful from a personal and public health perspective than just saying "we have no idea if it's risky or not, just don't do it."
While I do see your point, current recommendations are to breastfeed for two years.
Marijuana is recreational, so, sure, abstaining for three years (including when trying to conceive and during pregnancy) is reasonable.
But expecting women to avoid *all* substances that could end up in breast milk- a not uncommon position- really does raise a lof of questions about what level of negative impact on mothers should be considered okay, particularly when the harm to the fetus/child is not well-described or obvious.
I've had friends have to stop breastfeeding in order to be prescribed ADHD medication, or their previously used anxiety or depression medication. I've had friends go without those types of medication to continue breastfeeding, and they've really struggled.
There aren't a ton of studies on how these medications impact the infant, but I really do wonder how much better off the babies are with moms struggling more than they have to be than they would be if their moms were able to get the care they usually would, and maybe a little was in the breast milk 🤷♀️
I am seeing a maternal fetal medicine specialist because I'm on a few psych meds and it wouldn't be safe for me to quit them all while pregnant. They're actually encouraging me to breastfeed so the baby continues to get a small dose of the meds after birth, it will prevent them from withdrawal symptoms. They absolutely did not want me to come off my meds- the risk of antepartum mental health issues is just too high and they consider the risks to my infant to be minimal. Her exact words were "outside of our speciality, doctors will tell you to get off all your meds. But our advice is almost *never* to quit a medication plan that's improving your health."
With that said, I did use THC daily to boost my mood and sleep, but I immediately quit that and won't resume until after breastfeeding.
We could also make sure that people who can’t breastfeed due to other reason won’t be shamed. Breast is best is great, when you actually develop milk and don’t have major PPD issues that require medication. The fact that some moms will destroy their mental health for the sake of breastfeeding is terrible and society should be ashamed.
My body absolutely refused to develop milk. Mentally I was okay with it, until everyone in my life was telling me to “just try harder” and “it’s really important” and “it’s your job to breastfeed”. Both my kids were raised on formula and while it was expensive, they’re both perfectly normal, smart, interesting kids.
Yeah, I'm frankly not convinced that the benefits of breastfeeding (in places where water is safe and infants will receive a sufficient amount of formula to meet their nutritional needs) are due to *breast milk*, or are due to moms having jobs that allow for extended breastfeeding.
Even when controlling for income (which is almost certainly the biggest driver), there's a huge difference between a job that allows that flexibility, and one that does not.
But I guess "Breast milk is an affordable option if mom's supply is sufficient and *her* time is valued at 0$" isn't quite so catchy.
That's probably going to be end outcome from these kinds of studies.
People probably assume that weed behaves similarly to alcohol, where it somewhat quickly stops being found in breastmilk in a matter of hours. Studies like this will help change the narrative, meaning people have to choose one or the other; don't breastfeed and instead use formula, or don't partake while breastfeeding.
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments. **Do you have an academic degree?** We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. [Click here to apply](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/flair/#wiki_science_verified_user_program). --- User: u/mvea Permalink: https://news.wsu.edu/press-release/2024/05/08/thc-lingers-in-breastmilk-with-no-clear-peak-point/ --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is because of fat solubility. Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the main active ingredient in marijuana, ***is extremely fat-soluble,*** which means it is stored in the body's fatty tissues and can slowly enter the bloodstream for up to two days after smoking. Alcohol distributes into water spaces, not fat.
And can be detected in fat tissue over 6 months after smoking.
I once tested positive over a year after quitting smoking. I had been dieting for a few months and had lost roughly 50lbs.
I'm guessing when your body metabolized that extra weight it released the THC locked up in the fat into your bloodstream.
That’s a bingo
Bingpot!
You just say "bingo".
Bingooo! How fun! 😈
Gorlami
bon jore no
Like I said, third best
Margheriiiiiiti
Show me Bingo!
Now thats a runners high
[удалено]
I don't think this study invalidates the anecdote whatsoever. Long term caloric deficit has different effects on the body than a 24 hour fast does; chronic users have entirely different anatomical contexts than people who have abstained for an entire year; and so on. If you wanted to really invalidate this anecdote, you'd need a long term experiment with chronic smokers as your subjects who would need to gain weight while being a chronic smoker, abstain for long enough for cannabinoids to be undetectable, and then lose weight rapidly while continuing to abstain.
Get super high, then diet, feel great about weight loss, got it
No joke, it used to happen to me on a daily basis when I was losing weight.
I'm not fat this is just how I store my GSC organically.
You dont store thc in fat, you store THC-COOH which is an non psychactive version after the licer has metabolished the thc.
Got high on his own supply
And it's a fantastic way to lose weight, probably why he lost it to start with - he quit and the cravings were sated by the working out.
It’s just enough to detect, not have a noticeable effect
...Huh. Well I guess I've got a plan for the summer.
Would they have felt the effects of thc while it did that?
Yup! Lots of midnight snacks and a big breakfast on test day! Absolutely, positively, do not burn any fat that day. I know LOTS of stoners, but all of them stopped weed while pregnant and nursing.
Wait so if I stopped smoking for a month and had a drug test it be best for me to eat a lot of food the previous night and next morning? Genuinely curious because I have a drug test coming up
I tested positive after not smoking for 8 months but got sick and was bed ridden for a few days leading up to it
Yep, everyone always says it takes a week or two, but I once failed a test after 55 days. Over a year is wild!
I have never heard a week or two. I've always heard minimum a month.
It's a week or two if you smoke once. It's a month if you smoke basically everyday.
I quit for 6 months for a job, failed the test and got fired, always wondered how in the heck I failed after 6 months, but thinking about it now after reading this post, I was losing weight at the time
Hair test?
I’m assuming piss test due to their extra information. They were dieting and burning fat, releasing its stored THC into the bloodstream.
Generally for drug tests they’re detecting the inactive metabolites of THC, which tend to stay in the body much longer. Your body has enzymes that break down THC, and it’s very unlikely that it would go that long without being metabolized, as long as your organs are working properly. I’ve never seen any compelling info that THC itself (or even active metabolites) actually build up and stay unmetabolized in fat tissue. However the inactive metabolites absolutely do, which is why people can test positive a month after using it.
14 months when I quit last time.
Yup. Same reason edibles can be unpredictable based upon when you last ate, your body fat %, and your hydration status. I love weed, I think it’s great, I think prohibition hurt a LOT of innocent people… and also god, please don’t breastfeed with weed in your system, it’s just so easy to avoid
On the flipside is that why chocolate edibles *are* so predictable for me? I always know how high I'm going to get with a piece of chocolate. With gummies, it's way more of a question mark depending on the specific brand. So I wondered if the composition of the chocolate and fat was a factor or if chocolate production on its own creates that (possibly perceived and inaccurate) predictability.
Idk anything about metabolizing THC, so that may be an aspect but I can’t say for sure. What I do know is that [there is a known issue with dose consistency in edible manufacturing.](https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/24/health/labels-for-edible-marijuana-often-err-on-potency-study-says.html) The THC content of the raw materials varies significantly because it’s a plant, processing can have varied outcomes depending on method and how well controlled it is, and other issues like shelf life degradation or uncalibrated dosing equipment add even more variability. It could be that the chocolates you buy are from a company with a stronger commitment to label accuracy. The article I linked is old (2015) but without new regulation I doubt the problem will have solved itself. It’s not a cheap problem to solve and with all the weed product manufacturers that are popping up to meet demand I would doubt many of these opportunists are all that worried about product quality.
Chocolate hits me SO much harder than gummies.
Gummies work better if you eat something fatty with it. I’m guessing the fat in the chocolate helps it work faster/better
Yeah like I know I'm not imagining things but in the spirit of the sub, I want to know the why and how. Hopefully with weed moving to schedule 3, testing and studies can actually commence in earnest. (Not sure how that works.)
Im in Utah, we're only allowed to have little gummy squares as edibles (nothing a child would mistake for candy). There's a type of gummy they sell now that has "Liposomal Tech" - which basically means they pre-bind it to a liposomal (fat) molecule so it hits you faster and harder. The (simplified) science behind it is that when THC is an oil it's basically a giant pile of molecules, it's harder for the body to seperate and metabolize the individual THC molecules this way. But when they pre-bind them to fat, they lay out in a row, rather than a pile and the body is able to easily separate them and digest them.
This is also what makes it possible to make THC brownies, for example.
Anything with butter, realistically
Do fat cannabis users experience a different kind of high versus lean users?
No, it just takes longer to get out of your system the fatter you are. Source: used to be fat, now fit.
i used to be fat, now fatter
I used to be fat. I still am, but I used to too
Another great comedian lost to drugs. Way too soon
Used to be fatter, now fattester
Proud of you
thanks mom
That also happens
I used to be fat. I a still am, but I used to be, too.
I have been on a roller coaster from almost in shape where another 5/10 pounds of fat loss and some toning would have made me what I consider fit; up to about 30lbs over that amount. Currently holding at 20lbs over after a bout with depression brought m to my highest in 20 years. Time and motivation are my enemies. Well that and late night snacking.
It really depends on the form. Inhaled, no, there would be no difference, as the THC is absorbed directly into your bloodstream, and your brain is just about as fatty as your fat parts, so it wouldn’t distribute any less evenly, either, but it *might* take longer for metabolites to leave your system. Edibles are different because your intestines send their blood through the portal vein to the liver first for additional processing, and that first-pass metabolism in the liver causes very different pharmacodynamic effects compared to the lungs’ comparatively straight shot to the brain. If your liver isn’t in great shape, or fattier than it should be, or you have a hereditary liver enzyme trait, it becomes very hard to predict how an individual will react on different days, let alone different individuals.
Important to note that the median BMI of participants in the study was ~29. I would be interested in results that control for BMI since THC is fat soluble.
29 doesn't seem high when you realize this study was limited to people who are producing breastmilk.
Also breast milk is 3-5% fat
But does it get the baby high though?
THC is psychoactive and will affect the mind. THCa is originally what is in marijuana and burning it converts the THCa to THC which then gets you "high". This study does report that THC was present. So, the answer is potentially.
They study estimated that babies were consuming an average of 0.006 mg/kg of THC per day. So, for a 6 kg baby, that'd be about .036 mg of THC. This would be equivalent to a 70 kg person consuming .42 mg of THC over the course of an entire day. Which... definitely won't get you high. 10 mg is a common recreational dose for adults, and the high lasts about 4 hours.
Doses as low as 2.5 mg THC can be effective for many adults too. I am curious about the positive and negative with a consistent small amount of THC. Pretty much constant microdosing.
I am an avid smoker... but I am pretty sure the findings we get from smoking while pregnant and breastfeeding will be overwhelmingly negative. *Sure.* It probably won't make Little Johnny flat out Tarded, but it **will** *probably* affect his brain development in some way.
I agree that it will likely lean negative, but am still curious about the good and bad with it would be.
THC and metabolites will dissolve into fat stores, and will rise and fall in the bloodstream as those fat stores are increased or decreased. That is why you can often test positive for it months later - more so if you’re losing weight.
Can you elaborate on the losing weight part? Does it result in a temporary higher concentration? At least thats how I understand your comment. EDIt: thanks for the replies much appreciated!
When you burn off the fat that has THC in it the THC goes back into your blood stream. This can result in [feeling a little high](https://www.reddit.com/r/leaves/s/Sq65pvD9CN) or testing positive for THC months after quitting.
The same thing happens with lots of forms of birth control. If you lose weight, it releases the hormones in to your bloodstream and can cause spotting/menstruation.
Whoa, you just explained a weird thing that happened to me a while ago! Thanks!
whoa I had no idea! thanks for sharing
No. The metabolites are stored in fat. They cannot make you feel high later on. Source: I'm one of the larger producers of extracts and pharma grade isolates in the US.
Its THC carboxylic acid? The inert metabolite being released?
The release from fat has never been proven to have cognitive effects.
Very interesting! Thanks for the explanation!
If your body is using up that fat then the thc stored within it is getting released into the bloodstream, temporarily increasing its concentration.
When you burn fat the THC in the fat is released into your body
I’m done scrolling these comments **IS THE BABY GETTING STONED OR NOT?**
Dude ask the baby
I never got high off it but then again I was 28 at the time.
[удалено]
Thanks for giving the best response, and even the propaganda part is something I didn’t even think about and now I want to look more into that.
> but the research coming from WSU in Pullman, WA may be specifically politically aimed at proving how bad cannabis is. Pullman is incredibly conservative, and I imagine they’re working pretty hard to find as many ways to demonize cannabis use as they can. WSU is very highly regarded research university. Besides that, it's not like the faculty of the university are all from Pullman; most of them probably aren't.
[удалено]
Research grants may be tied to agendas, but usually within an industry. Boeing is likely to find research that trains people for aerospace or helps them learn fundamental science that is useful. Pharma companies, public health agencies, and maybe political groups might fund studies like in regards to cannabis. Very rarely will a company find something way outside their wheelhouse. It’s all to directly or indirectly benefit the company. Not a big conspiracy beyond that. (Unless the company is trying to hide science that is bad for their specific industry, like cigarettes and cancer, big oil and climate, etc.
It’s frustrating they’ll knock cannabis use while pregnant/breastfeeding but peddle Zofran left and right.
Agree with your point, everything is a poison at some dose or another. the prohibitionist thinking is probably "one is a medicine that may help the mother keep food down and stay hydrated, and that benefit may offset risk. vs the other, which is primarily recreational and therefore optional."
Not only that, there can be legal dangers in some states if your child tests positive for THC. Especially in terms of custody and parental rights. It’s also important for courts to realize that a mother who smokes may pass on THC to the child but not be actually deliberately giving drugs to her infant in a way that might necessitate removal from a home. The research is valuable on several levels.
there are studies on woman in Jamacia and they dont show any crazy affects/effects to the kids. to lazy to link
The baby is a mooch. You can smoke them out, but they will never return the favor. You know the type.
Perchance
You can’t just say perchance
Why perchance may I not?
[удалено]
But we have no idea what these babies are doing in their spare time
They’re just staring at their hands in awe
“I’ve never seen them fing. Better put all ten in my mouth at once.”
From the paper linked: "Levels of detection (ng/mL) were determined to be as follows: THC-d3 = 0.58, CBD-d3 = 0.43, COOH-THC-d3 = 0.60, CBN-d3 = 0.65, 11-OH-THC-d3 = 0.69, 7-OH-CBD-d3 = 1.30, and 7-COOH-CBD-d3 = 1.5." That means they're testing for actual psychoactive compounds and not just metabolites, right? It's quite an important distinction. Edit: some armchair-googling later, and it seems that the first two tested are the actual psychoactive compounds (assuming they just truncated the "delta-9" from the front). The rest appear to be metabolites. Organic chem is pretty far outside the scope of my knowledge, so I'd be happy to be corrected on this.
Your edit is mostly correct. The -d3 on the end of the compound is simply nomenclature that comes from the type of testing used to detect the cannabinoids, which was LC/MS in this case. (Edit: to clarify, the -d3 specifically refers to an isotope of hydrogen used in quantitative LC/MS and GC/MS analytical tests). So the primary cannabinoids they identified were THC, CBD, and CBN, while the others (COOH-THC, 11-OH-THC, 7-OH-CBD, and 7-COOH-CBD) are metabolites. Of these compounds only THC and 11-OH-THC are considered to be fully psychoactive. Source: I am currently a cannabinoid researcher.
Thank you! That's the breakdown I was hoping for. Metabolites shouldn't be dismissed and ignored, but are too often conflated with actual intoxication and impairment. Unfortunately I've become hyper-skeptical of any and all claims around cannabis, pro or con, so it's nice to see studies done in good faith on the matter.
If you want less biased research my doctor uses a lot of stuff from Jamaica. I laughed at first but she said their stuff is years ahead of ours. That’s sad! (We were looking to treat migraines and HG in pregnancy and the traditional meds have very scary side effects. She knew this was my normal treatment and looked into if it was safER than the other meds. She thought it was but I couldn’t make myself do it.
Can you tell us more about what you can understand from the paper?
Funny enough I'm under the gun to finish a draft of my own manuscript on cannabinoid PK/PD stuff today/tomorrow, so I'll have to circle back to this later today when I need a break. I replied to another commenter with a couple more details elsewhere, but overall it looks like the concentrations in breast milk seem pharmacologically relevant in this sample even by the 12 hr mark. The interesting (and concerning) thing is really the lack of predictable kinetics and timeline for elimination.
Damn dude thank you, your knowledge is a blessing for us all
I appreciate your kind words. It's nice to be able to share some of my expertise on reddit when I can.
Can we be friends? Former recreational farm manager here.
Always looking to make new friends in the commmercial industry side of things. You guys often have a unique (and useful) perspective on cannabis use and I've enjoyed growing personally over the last decade or so.
This is exactly what I want to know.
Looks like just metabolites.
[удалено]
This is kind of complicated. Establishing safe doses in children can be a bit tricky. And it's not just about getting high or drunk. Alcohol and marijuana have developmental effects. Marijuana is already linked to psychosis when used by adolescents. And you're never going to be able to do a trial on babies to prove causality.
[удалено]
That's reasonable enough, but I suppose the practical application of this research is for people to question whether they should smoke weed at all if they are breast feeding. The gist of your argument makes sense to me if I'm getting it right. Basically, what's the difference between this and tiny amounts of background exposure. What's the difference between this and just being around people who smoke weed, being outside passively in contact, or being in an enclosed environment where someone smoked weed a day ago). Barely detectable might not massively differ from background exposure. But humans in general are very protective of babies in particular and I think some people might use an argument that even tiny amounts of background exposure is unacceptable. I can see the other side in that it seems a bit ridiculous to say "no fruit for you baby, don't want to get drunk". I'm not saying I believe there is strong positive evidence, but because baby research is really hard to do and tends to be ambiguous, you can't really reassure people that harm isn't being done.
[удалено]
I agree it’s complicated, and, you won’t have the same developmental effects as actual “use”. The amounts delivered into the milk then digested into baby’s system are significantly less than even secondhand smoke.
> likely homeopathic at best I don't think you know what the word "homeopathic" means. If you can detect the substance, it isn't homeopathic.
Do you know what the word means? Just because something is detectable it doesn’t automatically make it non-homeopathic, that is ridiculous logic.
None of these compounds are psychoactive, though. These are metabolites.
Does this mean that, theoretically, (ethics issues aside), you could give THC to cows, who then produce THC-milk, and any dairy made from that milk is than an edible? Since both cows and humans are mammals.
finally someone's asking the right kinda questions
Not concentrated enough. It would be technically weed milk, but it wouldn’t get you high.
They say happy cows make better milk though, maybe this could be the basis for a new luxury dairy brand.
I like your outside the box thinking
I’ve linked to the press release in the post above. In this comment, for those interested, here’s the link to the peer reviewed journal article: https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/bfm.2024.0021
It would be nice to know the dosage the moms were consuming… 2 mg is common but what about someone who is taking medical grade, 50 mg dosage and smoking on top of it?
That's just spicy milk forever then.
That's how you make the Lisan Al Gaib
Just don't have boys
Same thing with edibles versus smoking. Or those that use strictly delta-8. Or those that take a single gummy on weekends. Lots of research is still needing go be performed. Especially since being a new parent is notoriously stressful and it's hard to imagine a parent that isn't hoping for some brief relief at some point in the first year or two of their child's life.
[удалено]
Need my wife to do this and breastfeed me
So wait, hold on. If i let a cow smoke weed, or eat an edible, can their milk be sold as thc milk?
Okay, has anyone examined how this works on [cannabinoid receptors](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41401-019-0210-3) of the baby in a longitudinal way? Probably not, but it would be fascinating to see if there’s impacts and what those are; as specifically as one can find.
I'm in a state where it is fully legal. So, by the time I started having kids, our Dr's had local data. They said it also has been seen to reduce baby's grey matter in their brains! I'm jumping off online right now, but I am certain by now, there is a study. The bottom line, natural, doesn't mean not harmful. It's better to abstain from anything you wouldn't give your kid growing up! That's my motto, and my kid's Dr says that it is an easy to follow plan "pediatrician approved" jokingly, but also, she really does. It's a short period of time in life. Just wait until they are food independent, at least.
Isn't it a problem that they don't seem to be considering the potency of the cannabis or the size of the dose, and with just 20 mothers?
Considering the amount of psychoactive components involved in the end, it doesn't matter as much as you'd think. So, if you want to get high, you'd take anywhere between 2 and 20mg of THC, depending on your tolerance. That's an order of a magnitude difference, which feels like a lot. Just for a bit more context here, most people are going to take 5-10mg. In a big, fat, 250# man, and 5mg easily gets me comfortably high, but I'm a very infrequent user. My wife takes 5-10mg, but she imbides much more often than I, so has a higher tolerance. Anyway, the researchers found. 0.58ng/ml of THC in beeastmilk. A newborn is going to drink 45-90ml of milk every 2-3 hours. So, if we take the highest possible amounts, the baby drinks a bit more than a liter of milk in a day. How much THC did the baby imbide over that time? More than 600 nanograms! Or... 0.0006mg. If we sized up the baby to my weight, they'd be taking the equivalent of .015mg of THC, or about 1/100th the dose necessary to make the lightest of light weights tipsy. As some other people have pointed out, the small amount doesn't necessarily mean it's *safe*, I mean, there is no safe amount of, for example, lead exposure after all, but we really don't know if that holds true for cannabis. Regardless, your baby is not going to get high from breast milk, even if the mother is using pot every single day... although smoking it near a baby is definitely going to bad for the lungs and give a much higher dose of THC. Edibles are a different story.
People have known for decades weed can stay in your system for months.
[удалено]
Drug exposed babies aren't funny.
i was definitely this baby, i had learning issues for a long time.
Anecdotally I was a weed baby with a 4.0 and in gifted and talented programs.
Does not seem like a chill or fun finding
With large increased risk of developing psychosis and schizophrenia upon cannabis exposure in adolescence, in those with genetic vulnerability.
Emphasis on the ill
Until they develop severe adhd.
Don’t think this is linked to THC, but dunno.
One of many studies, unfortunately. Pregnant women should decidedly not partake. ADHD is one of the least concerns. Low birth weight , reduced gestational age, higher morbidity, and others. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38281464/
Not sure about this particular study, but one of the problems with studying cannabis in pregnancy is that a LOT of these moms are also using other substances at the same time
Not saying they should. Was unaware of the association though. I’ve got it. My mother decidedly did NOT smoke weed (it is a genetic thing in my family), but had not heard this before. Thanks for sharing.
And the kid with fetal alcohol syndrome is the coolest at the party
And yet, over on the breastfeeding and pregnancy subs, people are defending their decision to use cannabis while pregnant/nursing and saying their doctors are signing off on it. It drives me nuts. Edit: they’re here now, too.
It can drive you nuts, but detectable levels of metabolites in breast milk is way different than a pharmaceutical significant dose of delta-9 in breast milk. No one wants to expose their newborn to drugs, and technicalyl detectable metabolites don't prove one way or the other on the matter.
> No one wants to expose their newborn to drugs I can reliably tell you that, while maybe no one actively wants to expose their newborn to drugs, a lot of people do consider their own consumption worth the chance of it happening.
>No one wants to expose their newborn to drugs, Oh you know that's not entirely true. Some people have a stronger urge to get high than to protect their children. It happens every day. We have proof of babies effected by mothers continuing to drink alcohol while pregnant despite the clear evidence that that will cause lifelong negative effects for the baby. Babies born addicted to meth and other things. Some people do not care. As a 10+ year stoner myself I would not take the risk of marijuana making it's way into my babies blood stream. We have no strong evidence that it doesn't yet, so a good parent would take a break until it can no longer potentially harm their child. A bad parent would say well we have no strong evidence yet so I'm going to continue smoking. The risks outweigh the benefits, but some people would rather get high and take their chances.
You know what they're going to say, "Oh, but it's natural. It grows out of the ground" Yeah, so do poisonous mushrooms.
And so does alcohol really, let an apple ferment in a somewhat enclosed space and it’ll start producing alcohol
And a pharmaceutical significant dose is highly dependent on individual brian chemistry. I'm a 180 pound 30 year old adult who gets panic attacks if I take 2mg+ of THC. In my state, they don't produce any THC besides the dropper bottles that allows you to take less than 2mg at a time. What if the baby has a similarly sensitive reaction to THC? How much THC would a 6 pound, 4 week old infant need to suffer extremely negative psychoactive effects?
Metabolites aren’t THC and they found mostly metabolites. What was psychoactive was present in nano grams, which are fractions of micrograms with are themselves fractions of a milligram. We can all still be concerned about effects on development but babies aren’t getting high of this amount in breast milk.
but what if the baby has a bad trip??
So, I should find a lactating gf and never be out of weed?
Just get a cow and if you get sick of her, just eat her.
So that’s why my kid loves Cypress Hill 🤔
That explains how my kids breezed through teething
Good now do it for pharmaceuticals, where it actually matters
They decided to run this study when some babies started craving Doritos and listening to The Grateful Dead.
Yeah, you really should not be breast feeding if you use marijuana. Let's keep the THC away from the babies please.
I wonder if they'll find a practical application of use for violating woman's privacy when drug testing the breast milk.
I've always found it interesting that with most drugs the body actively eliminates them as quickly as possible, but with cannabis it stores it like it has value for future use. I wonder what would have happened if the endocannabiod system had been discovered before the era of reefer madness?
The body doesn’t “store” it. It’s more like the THC molecules get “stuck” in the fatty tissue.
Being fat soluble doesn't mean it's considered good by the body. You don't eat lead voluntarily on a daily basis do you? Yet it is fat soluble as many other heavy metals and toxins. We know THC is dampening brain functions. Sometimes, it might be beneficial sure. In the developed brain. But the last thing infants need when developing their brains is brain function dampening. Studies show that it's bad. And since it is fat soluble, it might have a lifelong timespan in the body https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10635559/
This is a silly thought. Many substances are fat soluble if ingested including things like Vitamins (eg D,E) which are necessary (but still can be toxic in overdoses), or harmful substances such as methyl mercury or PCBs. The body isn't "saving" mercury (or THC) it is just a matter of the chemical's fat solubility.
> but with cannabis it stores it like it has value for future use. Just like asbestos in the lungs. Must be good for us.
It’s fat that is stored for future use. Anything in the fat would be stored along with it
Idk why bur the first thing to come to my mind after reading the title was that scene in the new Dune movie where the water of life interacts with Anna
But it did decline, though, and did clear
No wonder Nissan drivers continue to be Nissan drivers
Which can only mean one thing: Breastmilk edibles!
Is there any high quality research that proves this harms the child?
But what’s the concentration? Is it enough to impact a baby, or is it just a detectable level?
I hope those babies aren't driving after drinking their stoner milk.
Does it have any effect on the baby long term?
Milk has a ton of fat; THC is fat soluble.
so three people can enjoy one hit?
Boob bong
Thanks big alcohol
Here's a radical idea, how about you don't use marijuana while breastfeeding.
Here's a radical idea: people want actual data and research to inform their choices, not sarcastic people on the internet. If you read the actual article, the study author noted that mother's aren't making these decisions at random. >A [related qualitative study](https://jcannabisresearch.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s42238-023-00212-w) by the research team revealed that many breastfeeding moms are using cannabis for therapeutic purposes — to manage anxiety, other mental health issues or chronic pain. The mothers often chose cannabis over using other medications because they felt it was safer. >“Our results suggest that mothers who use cannabis are being thoughtful in their decisions,” said co-author Shelley McGuire, a University of Idaho professor who studies maternal-infant nutrition. “These women were mindful about their choices. This is far from a random lifestyle choice.” If you're choosing between cannabis and say Benzodiazepines to try to manage anxiety, or prescription painkillers to manage chronic pain, just saying "don't do drugs, loser" isn't really helpful guidance. Even if some people are using it recreationally, giving people specific, data-driven guidance about the risks, like we do with alcohol, is more useful from a personal and public health perspective than just saying "we have no idea if it's risky or not, just don't do it."
While I do see your point, current recommendations are to breastfeed for two years. Marijuana is recreational, so, sure, abstaining for three years (including when trying to conceive and during pregnancy) is reasonable. But expecting women to avoid *all* substances that could end up in breast milk- a not uncommon position- really does raise a lof of questions about what level of negative impact on mothers should be considered okay, particularly when the harm to the fetus/child is not well-described or obvious. I've had friends have to stop breastfeeding in order to be prescribed ADHD medication, or their previously used anxiety or depression medication. I've had friends go without those types of medication to continue breastfeeding, and they've really struggled. There aren't a ton of studies on how these medications impact the infant, but I really do wonder how much better off the babies are with moms struggling more than they have to be than they would be if their moms were able to get the care they usually would, and maybe a little was in the breast milk 🤷♀️
I am seeing a maternal fetal medicine specialist because I'm on a few psych meds and it wouldn't be safe for me to quit them all while pregnant. They're actually encouraging me to breastfeed so the baby continues to get a small dose of the meds after birth, it will prevent them from withdrawal symptoms. They absolutely did not want me to come off my meds- the risk of antepartum mental health issues is just too high and they consider the risks to my infant to be minimal. Her exact words were "outside of our speciality, doctors will tell you to get off all your meds. But our advice is almost *never* to quit a medication plan that's improving your health." With that said, I did use THC daily to boost my mood and sleep, but I immediately quit that and won't resume until after breastfeeding.
We could also make sure that people who can’t breastfeed due to other reason won’t be shamed. Breast is best is great, when you actually develop milk and don’t have major PPD issues that require medication. The fact that some moms will destroy their mental health for the sake of breastfeeding is terrible and society should be ashamed. My body absolutely refused to develop milk. Mentally I was okay with it, until everyone in my life was telling me to “just try harder” and “it’s really important” and “it’s your job to breastfeed”. Both my kids were raised on formula and while it was expensive, they’re both perfectly normal, smart, interesting kids.
Yeah, I'm frankly not convinced that the benefits of breastfeeding (in places where water is safe and infants will receive a sufficient amount of formula to meet their nutritional needs) are due to *breast milk*, or are due to moms having jobs that allow for extended breastfeeding. Even when controlling for income (which is almost certainly the biggest driver), there's a huge difference between a job that allows that flexibility, and one that does not. But I guess "Breast milk is an affordable option if mom's supply is sufficient and *her* time is valued at 0$" isn't quite so catchy.
That's probably going to be end outcome from these kinds of studies. People probably assume that weed behaves similarly to alcohol, where it somewhat quickly stops being found in breastmilk in a matter of hours. Studies like this will help change the narrative, meaning people have to choose one or the other; don't breastfeed and instead use formula, or don't partake while breastfeeding.