3) "Reasonable health", as a description from a lay person, who has an obvious interest that that may be the case, and would have a real problem if she had to admit, first to herself, that she may have caused harm, is simply nothing to go by; would you bet on this ?
Perhaps she had relatively good health to start with, and less of an inherited load than others, who knows ?
And what is "reasonable" here, or in her opinion ? Not caughing all the day, not in hospital with chronic disease ?
And even if it were a doctor's assessment:
What sort of children do they see, to compare with ?
And above all you simply cannot know or say before a long time has passed wether it did have an effect, or wether not. It is nothing but idiotic to rely on that wished-for hypothesis "it does not harm" on the basis of that little bit of "evidence". If you don't want to see a thing, you do not see it.
I wish the children I'd be wrong, over-cautious etc.
But with that information in mind, a number of patients needed treatment after adult age intoxication with cannabis, and they felt so themselves ( only could not see the connection ), I would never buy any claim a smoking embryo gets away with it unharmed.
How many cig. smokers knew and know for sure it is completely safe what they use to do ? And if you were the deciding representative of a health ensurance firm, what would you base your decisions on ?

[ 04. March 2003, 10:19: Message edited by: panthera-non-onca ]