to ask dh not to take Class A drugs a week before blood tests for recurrent miscarriage?

[OffTheCoffee]

Will it screw up the results of his blood test?

He hardly ever takes any drugs but would need to in order to survive a festival, apparently.

I haven't mentioned it yet. What should I say?

There are lots of threads on mumsnet about partners who are alcoholics. I dont see them getting the same posts about having children with their partner. I would say alcohol causes far more problems than class a drugs as far as family life is concerned.

True.

But as I just pointed out, not all drugs are produced to the detriment of others.

Well said hercules.

Drug users get a much worse wrap than anyone else, because people have an instilled fear of drugs, probably due to ignorance, lack of experience and purely from the inbred fear of all things illegal.

Alcohol is the root cause of a much higher proportion of problems in this country than drugs.

The whole 'drugs are evil and Cause pain and suffering and misery throughout the world' argument is pointless here. As is the judgemental attitude of those who hate drugs and think all people who take them are addicts.

To answer your actual question: He probably shouldn't be indulging in a heavy weekend before having teh tests. If his festival trip has been planned a while it may be better for you to rearrange the appointments. Thougth sitting down with him to explain why you are doing this may be a good idea because even occassional drug use needs to be talked about when making plans for how you will cope and deal with things when you do have children.

Also - if it's coke or pills then the drug will probably not be in his body anymore afte a week so it may not be that much of an issue.

I do find it interesting that it seems the general trend of threads on MN related to drugs that it has became unacceptable to say that you don't approve of taking drugs. When did that happen? Or has it always been that way?

I can accept that sonme people can function fairly normally and take drugs recreationally, but I still disapprove of it on principle. I also disapprove of people getting drunk or smoking and I certainly don't approve of being overweight even though I am. However all of these things are legal and taking drugs is not which adds a degree of recklessness (only in my very humble opinion of course) if a parent chooses to indulge.

I'm lucky - having had my fingers singed a little with alcohol I now prefer to take my joys in life 100% conscious and unadulterated by drugs of any sort (legal or illegal). I discovered that I quite like myself sober and that I'm actually a much nicer person without stimulants than with (in my experience most people are).

I now realise from reading various threads that this makes me sound like a 1950's housewife. Ah well, no trendy festivals for me then.

Kew

I don't think it is unacceptable at all to say you do not approve of taking drugs.

I really, really object to anyone saying that they think another person should not have children because that person does something in their spare time that they don't approve of. Its is unbelievably sanctimonious and intolerant.

Kewcucumber: I'm a little biased, being generally fairly liberal, but it seems to me that the reason people who are, for example, anti-drugs have a harder time than those who take a more liberal attitude towards them is becase they tend to take very hardline views on the subject, i.e. drugs are bad and they will kill you; if you take them, you are a bad person and a bad parent. Those on the more liberal side tend to have a more flexible and open attitude, i.e. drugs can be bad but can be okay depending on the circumstance/ drug/ person etc.

For the original post, I do think your DH is being unreasonable. I can understand why he wants to do it and don't have any problem in that per se but given what you're trying to achieve through the tests, it seems that they should take priority over what he wants to do recreationally. I'd also add that whilst the timelines people have included on here look about right, for someone who binges only once a year or so, the effect on his system and timeline may be somewhat different to the norm...

And I'm biased because an ex-P was a (harmless!?) pothead. I think he thought he was with Claudia Schiffer and when we split I'm not at all convinced that he noticed for the first two months.

Oh and I've been officially approved as a parent (unlike you amateurs ) so I am allwoed to be sanctimonious and intolerant.

You can get official parent approval? I'll bet DD's CBeebies consumption alone blows any chance I'd have of getting that!

adoption panel - a jury of 12 peers and professionals (I wouldn't recommend it as a hobby though!).

Of course what I said I would do and what I do are exactly the same

"Are they able to look their 2 year old in the eye DSM knowing that indirectly their purchase of drugs is responsible for a 2 yr old knowing nothing except the inside of a Bolivian jail?"

Oh for crying out loud

You don't even know that the 'Class A drug' OP is talking about was cocaine. It could be other stuff that is fabricated in UK or Amsterdam. "2 yr old in jail in Bolivian jail", indeed...

Do you have any problem wearing your engagement ring, knowing your indirect contribution to the misery of African diamond miners, child workers, and the like?

Come off your high pedestal.

Kewcumber, re "it has became unacceptable to say that you don't approve of taking drugs"

You can disapprove to your heart's desire. The reaction on this thread is to a poster's declaration that people who even rarely do drugs shouldn't be parents.

"I'm actually a much nicer person without stimulants than with (in my experience most people are)."

I can only assume from this that you have never been in the vicinity of anyone on Ecstacy

no not to my knowledge Cote - my experience is limted to pot or cocaine. I'm the wrong generation for e.

I am slightly put off cocaine by the number of my contemporaries having cocaine induced heart attacks in their 40's.

I don't personally like cocaine, but some people do seem to enjoy its rather short-lived high that induces a superiority complex for a few minutes.

I don't think as a parent you should take drugs at all but then I am soooo square that you have to be careful not to knock into my sharp corners!

Drugs are part of what is so wrong with our society these days and whether you do them every so often or everyday you are lining the pockets of very nasty people who use fear and humiliation and pain to get what they want and to make all that money.

Ah Twinkie you can come sit next to me! We can be square together!

The thing is, nearly all the problems associated with recreational drugtaking are down to the illegality of the drugs. The reason America has such a huge problem with organised crime is the legacy of prohibition. Legalising drugs would have immense benefits for society, particularly with regard to the increased revenue the Government could get from taxing the things (so legalisation of some things may be coming up in the near future as they will need to replace the tax revenue they are losing by banning cigarette smoking).

'Nasty people' wouldn't get to make money off drugs if they were legalised. See what happened during and after Prohibition in the US.

Of course this won't happen because 'square people' (no offense ) would scream bloody murder and get the head of whoever proposes it.

No I wouldn't - I dont approve but because I don't take drugs it really wouldn't have any effect on me if they were legal.

I don't drink, I don't like people getting drunk and didn't approve of extending the licensing hours (because I didn't think it would work to reduce binge drinking). Howver as I can't remember the last time I was in a pub other than a quick diet coke at lunchtime, I didn't kick up a big fuss it that either.

Madamez - CoteDAzur...

Thank you

Kew - you sound like a wild girl..

Also (off topic but I don't care) people who don't approve of extended licensing hours because they 'don't think it will reduce binge drinking'have no idea what they are talking about. Where on earth do you even get an opinion like that?
First of all, the main purpose behind extended licenses is to prevent crime, ie; not all pubs will shut at the same time and therefore there will not be thousands of drunks people thrown out onto the street at the same time, thus minimising violence.
The binge drinking culture will be helped by extended hours, as people feel more relaxed, they have more time to drink. They do not need to get drunk quick, as the pub is open for hours.

'Drugs are part of what is so wrong with our society these days'.. nonsence. People have been taking drugs in this country for hundreds, even thousands of years. Its the rest of societies attitude that is the problem, and the fact that drugs are illegal which is the problem.

Bloody hell

Excuse the typos there!

Let me tell you a story. When I was a kid my dad used to take some drugs recreationally sometimes. when I went to university he gave me the talk on sex drugs and rock'n'roll. This included a frank discussion about hard drugs. I have indulged in some drugs in my life, some absolutely terrify me, but I still think using them can be done in an informed and safe way.

I absolutely hate the old 'but alcohol is so much worse' argument as it's self-defeating and stupid. What are you trying to say - Ban drugs and alcohol?

Anyway - like i said earlier I think all this stuff about poor babies in Bolivia is pointless when you are talking to people who understand that some drugs, when used safely and with care, can be enjoyable for some people.

to suggest that people who take drugs should not be allowed to have children is utterly rediculous.

"'don't think it will reduce binge drinking'have no idea what they are talking about. Where on earth do you even get an opinion like that?" - from the research done by Lancaster UNiverity in 2004

"The hoped for benefits of licensing reform on drinking behaviour and its antisocial impacts hinge on the assumption that staggered closing times will attenuate ?beat the clock drinking? (i.e. that self-paced drinking will produce less drunkenness) leading to a more orderly pattern of dispersal, reducing closing time ?flash points?. To the extent that conclusions may be essayed from the research discourse, we may certainly say that, at best, there is scant evidence for this notion. The evidence that exists tends if anything to say the opposite. The same may be said of deregulation in general: greater regulation, not less, would appear effective in curbing alcohol misuse and its attendant impact, an uncongenial message for contemporary policy-makers. "

RThast only the conclusion but I can link you to the whole study of course referencing to studies performed around the world.

Can I stick to my original opinion then. If thats OK with you?