Here are four more links:
http://www.420magazine.com/forums/cannabis-facts-information/74324-cannabis-dogs-do-not-mix.html
http://blog.howardhuge.com/2009/04/effects-of-marijuana-in-dogs/
http://hightimes.com/entertainment/mellis/3752
http://www.critterology.com/marijuana_toxicity_in_pets-120.html
Again, I am not a scientist. I am not going to do my own independent study and publish my findings to any medical journals. As a responsible pet owner, I came across these articles and, on the side of caution, will not be allowing my dog to get high. I don't care what anecdolts people have on the subject. Some of these posters (and supporters of getting their dogs high) do not even know how N. Korea and China are related. The links DO address the issue. If people choose to not acknowledge them because they need a burning bush, that is their problem. I am not going to further debate the issue. Do, or don't, but have the decency to at least study the matter before forcing it on your dog. I prefer to err on the side of caution, especially for those I love and are dependent on me. Frankly cn, I am disappointed.
Faulker out.
Clayton,
my question would have to be what information you're gleaning from those links, stuff I'm not seeing.
I looked through those four new links and found
1) a century-old account, "we tried to kill a dog with intravenous Cannabis and could not. the dog recovered competely".
2) No author; no citations. Classic Internet cud. Two deaths but of unreported etiology. Fearmongering by association?
3) "breaking news! Dogs can get stoned!"
4) A digest from two handbooks published by commercial interests. its editorial slant is evident from Drug Warrior language.
I think that you're using an old definition of "toxic". Back when, the word had two distinct meanings: 1) it's bad for you, andor 2) it makes you feel funny (as in
intoxicant). Obviously dogs can get intoxicated. In fact, for humans, that is sort of the point, and for all the "anecdolts" who report vigorous and durable drug-seeking behavior in their dogs and cats, it rather injures the proposition that weed is more anxiogenic in those mammals than in humans.
But as to the first, more serious meaning of toxic (injurious, damaging) I have so far seen no evidence beyond that second reference's mention of two dog deaths. (The absence of detail means that we are NOT allowed to draw the conclusion that that Bloggist would have us draw, and the absence of references or any sort of review marks that factoid as simple "sez you!" stuff.) Nowhere have I found a single confirmed instance of weed doing real harm to a dog or cat.
So I continue to challenge your claim that weed is toxic to dogs or cats. Intoxicating? hell yeah. But who uses "toxic" that way any more unless propagandizing?
Clayton, I respect your passion regarding this topic. But if you want to make an emotional appeal, make it honest and unadorned. I see you trying to invoke science, but not doing that in a way that stands up to even my sloppy Net-warrior review. THAT is why I am investing this much energy ... the false aura of legitimacy that the irrelevant (and far-from-primary in almost all cases) links would give your position. And when you insist that "the links DO address the issue!' when they demonstrably do not, you're beginning to step into some bad old territory: verity by repetition.
I am not championing getting animals high. I would never defend or countenance getting a dog high that didn't actively seek the drug, like the idiots who horbox their pets.
At the same time, I look at folks whose pets act to share or steal the buzz, and I cannot see the harm. This holds true after reading all your links.
Finally, understand that this is not personal. i am not attacking you or even finding reason to like you less. But I feel it is my full right to call BS on your claim. cn
