Are you sure you want to delete this post?
GemsWoven Wrote: Why limit it to illegal drugs? Is this about babies health or a war of some kind?
GemsWoven, That's directly the point I was going to make. Most that advocate criminal sanctions balk when alcohol and tobacco added to the drugs tested for. When it is known what the adverse effects these two can have on an unborn child. With the scientific information known to us at this time, alcohol and tobacco may do more harm than any of the illegal drugs, to an unborn child.
Criminal sanctions are not the proper measures, especially when it's not based upon facts. Look at the mythical "Crack Babies" of the late 80's early 90's and our rush to judgement. Stereotypes like this do more harm to the family than the use of such drugs. There are many more functional drug users than dis-functional, many only fall to the later because of legal issues. What's to gain by incarceration or the removal of their childern? Those measures do much more harm to the family unit, than the drug use. Harm reduction should be the goal and that starts with fact based education and information.
This is just one of the many drug laws that, flies in the face of the facts. These laws that are rushed to pass so that the politicians look good in the media and at election time. Look at the increased sentences that were given for crack for many years, It sounded good in the media but in reality made no sense at all. If asked which is more harmful to the unborn child, a mother that uses meth or a mother that smokes cigarettes, the politicians in my state would with out a doubt say meth. This is not true with the facts known at this time. More studies need to be done on meth usage by expecting mothers to know the full ramifications. As far as alcohol usage, fetal alcohol syndrome has been known for a longtime.