everything you're saying seems to be based on the assumption that the human drugs experience maps directly onto the drug experience of animals. what makes you think that animals respond to different drugs exactly the same way that humans react to drugs? it seems to me you're just assuming this is the case and then building your position on that foundation.
do you think it's possible - just possible - that animals might react differently to drugs that humans take, to the way humans react to the same drugs?
let's assume, for the sake of making your argument, that dogs react to pot and lsd in similar ways to humans. i have a friend who's taken lsd many times without negative incident. two of the most psychologically terrifying episodes he had were caused by marijuana. how do you know that the dog to which you (plural) are giving marijuana isn't going to have an adverse reaction? do you accept that individual humans react to different drugs differently? doesn't it then hold that individual animals will react to different drugs differently? would you dose a human without their consent? if not, why would you dose an animal without its consent?
your case is so vague it's troubling. your case is, you say, built on experience yet you've never experienced an animal on lsd and you throw out an arbitrary number and say that 90% of the time these animals seemed to be enjoying pot. even the wording you chose confirms that you don't know that they're enjoying themselves - they just seemed to be enjoying themselves. you have no way of knowing whether this is this case. it's this guessing, in large part, that i have trouble with.
i can and can't imagine a lot of things but i don't assume that because i can or can't imagine something, that's how it is in the real world...
it seems to me that's your entire case. if i seem to be on your case a little it's because i've been around bluelight a long time and i've put a lot of hard work into this site and i truly believe that, when discussing issues, we have to set the bar higher than "it's obvious!"
i invited you to substantiate this claim with some third-party corroboration. for now, you can't or won't do that. if it's truly as clear as you say it is, you should have absolutely no trouble at all providing a couple of sources which back up your claim. is it really too much to ask somebody who makes a claim to back it up with something more convincing than "come on - it's obvious!".
your post is littered with blanket statements. i invite you to practice what you preach.
alasdair
First off, I never said that I gave drugs to my dog. I don't. I said I've seen dogs who had been given drugs by other people.
I'm not saying that dogs react
exactly the same to these drugs as humans do. I'm saying they react in a very similar way.
I've watched dogs beg for marijuana. I've also seen cats that begged for marijuana- cats that would reliably, every time anyone smoked in the room, come up and rub their heads against the pipe and lighter and beg. One cat I'm thinking of was completely standoffish and wouldn't let a person touch them unless the person had a pipe in their hand.
I can assume that humans and dogs and cats react similarly to cannabis because I've seen them on the drug and the effects are very similar. The animal will usually lay down and relax, eat more then usual and act very pleased in general. Often times it will nod in and out of sleep or sleep for a very long time.
I also never said that people necessarily react better to marijuana then to LSD, just usually. As in, if a randomly selected person takes 3 hits of acid they are more likely to freak out then if they smoke a blunt. There aren't studies I know of testing this, but having seen hundreds of people on each drug I can say that I've never seen someone freak out on cannabis to the same extent I've seen them freak out on LSD, and I've only observed 1 bad cannabis experience vs dozens of bad LSD ones. I know you won't accept this info because I'm not a scientist in a lab, but I don't care because I believe worldly understanding and experience counts for a lot.
On top of that, I think that the significantly longer duration of LSD would make a bad experience more likely for an animal.
I think it's possible that somewhere there is a dog that loves LSD but freaks out on marijuana. But I think that is the exception to the rule.
Basically I think that what you are saying is an example of absolutist Scientism.
Not everything has studies done on it. And not everything needs to. It's very obvious that giving a dog LSD is far more irresponsible then giving a dog cannabis. If you can't understand why without reading a scientific study I suggest you get out more, because humans can learn in many ways other then reading studies online. Including observing our environment and through personal experience.
Scientific studies aren't the end-all be-all of human understanding, and studies aren't necessary to back up every argument made. Just because there aren't studies to prove something doesn't mean that it's not true.
Also it's an interesting double standard that you think giving dogs LSD is wrong but you demand that there be studies in which dogs were given LSD. Wouldn't that be morally abhorrent in the same way as what the people in this article did? Should such studies exist, ethically speaking?
Anyway, I think we can just agree to disagree, but I find Slimvictor's hypothetical situation applies perfectly- if you had to, would you rather give your dog cannabis or LSD?
I'll agree to disagree, we each have our own views, I don't think that studies are necessary (or would be ethical to do) to show that giving a non-human animal LSD is worse then giving one cannabis.
Neither of us can prove our point or disprove the other person's so there's no reason to debate it.
![:\](https://bluelight.org/xf/BL_Images/Orig_Emoji/wrygrin.gif "wry grin :\")
As far as giving an animal pot over acid, I don't have to take a poll and I'm sure you agree the latter is perverse. Smoking out your animals may be taboo, but justifying it by comparing isn't rationalizing my moral.
