Skip to comments.DEA administrator claims that marijuana legalization imperils dogs
Posted on 04/12/2014 2:37:27 PM PDT by Wolfie
DEA administrator claims that marijuana legalization imperils dogs
Washington, D.C. -- Its hard to come up with a new angle on a much-debated policy issue like the War on Drugs. But Drug Enforcement Administration head Michele Leonhart may have succeeded with her recent claim that we should oppose marijuana legalization because it poses a health risk for dogs. Unfortunately, her argument ignores the reality that the War on Drugs poses a far greater threat to dogs than marijuana does.
It is indeed true that ingesting marijuana creates some small risks for dogs. As Jacob Sullum notes, marijuana itself is not dangerous to canines; but ingesting it can sometimes lead them to be slower in vomiting up other dangerous foods in which it has been infused, such as chocolate (which is poisonous for dogs, when ingested in large quantities).
Meanwhile, every year hundreds or thousands of dogs are needlessly slaughtered in overaggressive police raids undertaken as part of the War on Drugs. Jacob Sullums critique of Leonharts argument includes links to descriptions of numerous reprehensible incidents of this type. Whether you focus on dogs or on humans, the War on Drugs destroys vastly more lives than it saves.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Cops raiding homes and shooting dogs, imperils dogs far more than a blunt does.
How many dogs have been shot by law enforcement because of the “war on drugs”?
Maybe to all the drug sniffing dogs put out of work by legalization.
Guess what? It imperils your brain too.
plenty of reasons not to legalize - do not need to make them up
I hear you. This is asinine.
I believe it. Your dog turns into a stoner, quits working, goes on dog biscuit stamps, applies for Obamacare, then becomes a registered Democrat. It shouldn’t happen to a dog.
cops shoot/kill more dogs every year that pot will in a century
Lets all rally ‘round to protect “Jasper”.
Yea ..like dogs don’t already lay around all day and eat
Yes. This is silly.
like bow wow maaaan.
Link doesn’t work. It should be:
Ashburn, VA, the `burbs, a guy sees a sign in front of a house: “Talking Dog for Sale.”
He rings the bell and the owner tells him the dog is in the backyard. The guy goes into the backyard and sees a black mutt just sitting there.
“Um, hmmm ... OK, do you really talk?” he asks.
“Sure man.” the dog replies.
“So, what’s your story?”
The mutt looks up and says, “Well, I discovered my gift of talking pretty young not long after I started blowing dope, and I wanted to help the government, so I told the CIA about my gift, and in no time they had me jetting from country to country, sitting in rooms with spies and world leaders, because no one figured a dog would be eavesdropping.
“I was one of their most valuable spies eight years running. The jetting around really tired me out, and I knew I wasn’t getting any younger and I wanted to settle down. So I signed up for a job at the airport to do some undercover security work, mostly wandering near suspicious characters and listening in, sniffing out pot, eating brownies. I uncovered some incredible dealings there and was awarded a lot of medals. there in my little house. Had a wife, too, and a mess of puppies, and now I’m retired.”
The guy is amazed. A talking dog. He goes back in and asks the owner what he wants.
The owner says, “Ten bucks.”
The guy says, “Why on earth are you selling him so cheap?”
The owner replies, “He’s a lying stoner. He’s high most of the time and he didn’t do any of that stuff.”
We all know Dogs only eat Grass when they have Worms!
She’s full of crap. Even if legalized, it would still be illegal for minors and dogs.
Enlighten us with your top 10 list.
Heh. Decriminalization of drugs threatens a trillion dollar empire. If there’s anything drug cartels and LE agree on it’s, “Please don’t decriminalize drugs! We might have to get real jobs.”
DEA administrator claims that chocolate legalization imperils dogs.
There fixed it.
The cartels and LE are like opposing teams, in the same league. They battle each other; but they all realize that they need each other, or there’s no game.
There. Fixed it.
Is that both the “medical” AND “recreational” brands of weed?
The biggest reason not to legalize is that there is no test to determine level of impairment for driving, as there is for alcohol. It takes 2 weeks for THC to leave the body, so what are the stoners supposed to do, never drive?
It is a better standard than measuring intoxicant levels, because it actually PROVES a danger. It is a reasonable expectation that the government prove a charge, no?
So, the cops can't just pull over your "stoners" for a dim tail light and then measure some arbitrary juice level & stick them for ten grand in penalties based on that. Cry me a river.
Apparently you have some? Do tell...
The best reason is that potheads are dopes, they will corrupt children and the libertards will move on to normalizing cocaine for kids and stuff
Sometimes I really wish FR had a “Like” button.
You are right. What did they do before the breathalizers? They did roadside impairment tests. Walk the line. Touch your nose. Count. Say the ABC’s. Go back to that.
Law enforcement has killed infinity times more people and dogs while enforcing pot prohibition than pot itself ever will. Zero people or animals have died from pot ingestion. Labs cannot even induce damage through doses not possible in nature.
The most dangerous thing about pot is the possibility of being shot by cops or ending up in jail with violent criminals for holding a dry plant.
observe the obviously impaired drivers and cite them
That is a rather subjective standard and it gives law enforcement more discretion than I am comfortable with.
In fact I was pulled over once for a roadside sobriety test at a USAF gate. I didn’t do well (drunk buddy just woke me up from a sound sleep to help him find his van). The pocket breathalizer read 0.00. Under your standards I’d have been given a DUI for my buddy being passed out drunk!
Oddly though, that was the only time I ever went through that gate sober.
A quick scan of the thread so far and I seem to be the only one remembering the Cheech & Chong “dog ate my stash” skit...
“This dope tastes like sh*t man.”
All that matters in the driving. So document, record, and describe the event, submit to cross examination, and convince a jury. Neither the ability to do physical stunts, nor the measurement of some arbitrary level of intoxicant, proves impairment.
Any conviction ought to begin with an observed and documented event showing actual impaired driving ability of the suspect, which could stand on its own as a violation of failure to maintain reasonable control, careless driving, or reckless driving. MADD type lobbying groups have brought forth increased sanctions similar to criminal penalties while legal procedures continue to follow standards used for speeding tickets - but justice in those cases should demand a full burden of proof from the government, 4th and 5th amendment rights, and so on.
Heh. In my youth I was often advised by the older and wiser that some day I might be undeservedly tagged for something, and the best course of action might then be to chalk it up as karma for the many times I had likely gotten away with it in times before.
But I think with something as serious and life altering as a possible DUI conviction can be today, I wouldn't be so easy going. I came of age in the '70s when where I come from a DIU ticket was just an extra big fine (the local police blotter column showed it was usually $365, though the less well to do would often get a break) and you could get a bunch of them before more serious sanctions than that were ever brought to the table. And without going into detail I am willing to admit I have gotten away with drunk driving a time or two, and I have driven while spun up pretty good on some other stuff as well - and I think in that regard I don't represent anything close to a small minority - but as we mature we do come to learn the errors of our ways and we become better and more conscientious people. Some learn sooner and perhaps in more harsh ways, and that's life.