Last ditch attempt to demonize Mary Jane

[B. de Corbin]

Well, now that everybody knows that A) Mary Jane is pretty harmless, and B) it actually DOES have therapeutic effects, the DEA is now warning that it, occasionally, harms dogs.

The story referenced a 2012 study that found that two dogs who ate large amounts of marijuana-infused butter died, out of a sample of 125 dogs that were believed to have ingested marijuana.

Let's ruin the lives of millions of humans with crazy, expensive, pointless prohibition in order to save two dogs... (I wonder how many dogs die from eating aspirin? Maybe aspirin should be a schedule 1 drug?)

DEA Chief: Please, Think Of The Dogs Before You Legalize Pot

Does this look like it makes sense to you?

[Sean R. R.]

Re: Last ditch attempt to demonize Mary Jane

The article doesn't make any sense, I agree. However, and I know it's out of context: I am against the legalization of pot. Of course, that's my personal opinion and I don't think this is the place to explain further.

People just have to be careful of what they leave at the reach of their pets. Problem solved.

[MoonRaven]

Re: Last ditch attempt to demonize Mary Jane

There is a compound in cocoa beans that can give dogs cardiac arrest. I suggest that DEA immediately move to ban chocolate.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Last ditch attempt to demonize Mary Jane

There is a compound in cocoa beans that can give dogs cardiac arrest. I suggest that DEA immediately move to ban chocolate.

Interestingly enough, a Pope at one time banned hot cocoa because it was believed to drive women insane with sexual desire (oh, if only that were true! Alas...), and when the drug schedule was being created there was serious discussion in making coffee illegal.

Maybe they should have made java-juice a crime, 'cause I now hear that kids are smoking coffee grounds for a speedy buzz.

Youths are smoking coffee now, apparently

I wonder is coffee is bad for dogs?

[anunitu]

Re: Last ditch attempt to demonize Mary Jane

NO NOT COFFEE...and CHOCOLATE??!!!!

[MoonRaven]

Re: Last ditch attempt to demonize Mary Jane

Interestingly enough, a Pope at one time banned hot cocoa because it was believed to drive women insane with sexual desire (oh, if only that were true! Alas...)...

Well chocolate does have that effect on me. :XD:

[Rowanwood]

Re: Last ditch attempt to demonize Mary Jane

Aspirin is only toxic to cats, btw. I give my dog baby aspirin all the time.

I'm really iffy on this subject, because I know when I've indulged, I'm hardly capable of anything other than eating. I certainly shouldn't drive or anything. We need to make a whole new set of field tests and laws to address DUI of THC. I don't know we're ready yet.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Last ditch attempt to demonize Mary Jane

Well chocolate does have that effect on me. :XD:

Phone number?

- - - Updated - - -

Aspirin is only toxic to cats, btw. I give my dog baby aspirin all the time.

OK - avocados, then.

[Aeran]

Re: Last ditch attempt to demonize Mary Jane

Mary Jane is pretty harmless

Relatively speaking, maybe, but its negative effect on mental health is well documented, and there's the issue of lung problems with regular use (putting aside the small percentage who restrict themselves to vaporizers or eating). Certainly not a supporter of prohibition, but I don't think it does anyone any favors to downplay the risks that the drug does pose in the effort to portray it as harmless or some kind of panacea.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Last ditch attempt to demonize Mary Jane

OK - relatively speaking, then.

[anunitu]

Re: Last ditch attempt to demonize Mary Jane

Generally everything is toxic depending on amounts and personal effects on different people. To much water can kill you(not from drowning) and even sugar in to great an amount might kill you.

So solution....Ban everything....hell even Air can most likely do you in,and you know everyone is addicted to Air..

[Roknrol]

Re: Last ditch attempt to demonize Mary Jane

Aspirin is only toxic to cats, btw. I give my dog baby aspirin all the time.

I'm really iffy on this subject, because I know when I've indulged, I'm hardly capable of anything other than eating. I certainly shouldn't drive or anything. We need to make a whole new set of field tests and laws to address DUI of THC. I don't know we're ready yet.

Like you, other adults are perfectly capable of realizing when they shouldn't drive when they smoke weed. Also like you, their judgement gets a little more out of whack when they're drinking. The two are NOT equivacable. Oh, and also like you, most adults would just wish that other people would let them be adults. There are arguments to be had for outlawing caffienne (sorry soda, coffee, and tea drinkers, that shit's dangerous), and even banning pets (after all, they can bring pests (and rabies!!) into your home!). When you start making laws because some people are retarded, you just end up turning the real adults into criminals. We need to hold people accountable for poor judgement. We *don't* need to hold them accountable because we think they might have poor judgement.

I support any laws that grant us more Freedom, and since those don't exist, our Government can just f*** right off, seriously. Read your Constitution, learn a little bit about the people that wrote it, and read Civil Disobedience. If you do those three things, you'll be qualified to limit my rights (not that I'll necessarily let you, of course, but you can try).

FEAR is the worst reason to enact a law, and if the people in this country didn't figure that out 12 years ago, there is no hope. I just need to find myself a nice piece of land in the middle of Siberia and be solitarily Free :-/

[Clive]

Re: Last ditch attempt to demonize Mary Jane

Yeah, that's dumb. The difference between pot butter and rat poison is what humans use it for, but neither of them should be within a dog's reach. Nobody's banning rat poison because nobody likes having vermin.

On a related note, legalization is just another way of being robbed by Uncle Sam. Decriminalization is where it's at.

[Roknrol]

Re: Last ditch attempt to demonize Mary Jane

Relatively speaking, maybe, but its negative effect on mental health is well documented,

Source? Keep in mind that anything relying on the anti-marijuana act (and the Government documents that refer to it) are based completely on non-science (as is completely plain to anyone that bothers to read the thing. Their "conclusions" fly directly in the face of their findings, and the guy that was hired to write it has admitted as much).

On a side-note, really is it anyone elses business if someone wants to make themselves dumber? We certainly don't force people to accept facts like Evolution, so why is everyone so damned insistant on making sure that people don't destroy their own brains? Shit, if *anything*, the ONLY thing we actually have any control over is our own body...and f*** anyone that tries to tell you what you can and can't do with yours.

and there's the issue of lung problems with regular use (putting aside the small percentage who restrict themselves to vaporizers or eating).

Ah, you're talking about the smoke thing. Well, it's far less harmless than the smog in your average city, so I imagine that unless you're going to ban cars/cities, you'll have a hard time backing that up.

Certainly not a supporter of prohibition, but I don't think it does anyone any favors to downplay the risks that the drug does pose in the effort to portray it as harmless or some kind of panacea.

Nor does it do any good to handpick individual anomalies and call it science.

Interesting fear story - there was a newspaper article a few years back (I think it was from LA, but don't quote me on it) that talked about a medical marijuana patient that tied himself to a tree and tried to cut off his arm with an axe. This was after he tried eating his 5 year old sons' face. OMG!!! WE NEED TO BAN WEED!!!!....oh...but at the end of the article - literally the last paragraph - they mention the guy was on PCP.

The actual science is out there, but if you listen to the people that have agendas (myself included) without actually checking your information, you are doing those around you a disservice every time you voice your opinion (not just you - I don't mean to single YOU out...I'm speaking very generally about the people that perpetuate the above fear mongering.

For everyone's perusal:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_J...0.E2.80.931937 (yeah, sources are cited)
https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/t...t_of_1937.html (the page looks like shit, but, you know...Princeton...)

- - - Updated - - -

Oh, and animal cruelty/endangerment should certainly still be against the law...we don't need to say "yeah, that, but with weed"...that's retarded

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Last ditch attempt to demonize Mary Jane

On a related note, legalization is just another way of being robbed by Uncle Sam. Decriminalization is where it's at.

From my point of view, decriminalization won't work. Because of my job, as long as it isn't actually legal, I can't use it.

And, to tell the truth, I figure that the gooberment needs money to operate, they will get it one way or another - either with our permission or not - so we may as well let people choose to pay the tax.

If anybody doesn't want to pay the tax, it's not as if the stuff is hard to grow. The autoflowering varieties can give you a couple premium ounces per plant in under 6 weeks, on a window ledge.

Or so I am told.