Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 19, 2017, 09:37:29 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Cast your Ballot in the 2016 Mock Election

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Politics
| |-+  Political Debate (Moderators: Beet, Apocrypha)
| | |-+  should it be legal for owners to get their pets high on pot?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Poll
Question: should it be legal for owners to get their pets high on pot?
yes   -13 (43.3%)
no   -17 (56.7%)
Show Pie Chart
Total Voters: 30

Author Topic: should it be legal for owners to get their pets high on pot?  (Read 1220 times)
© tweed
Miamiu1027
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 36725
United States


View Profile
« on: February 06, 2012, 11:44:16 am »
Ignore

yes
Logged

I wanna contribute to the chaos
I don't wanna watch and then complain,
'cause I am through finding blame
that is the decision that I have made
Great Again: The War on Football
Old Europe
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8290


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: February 06, 2012, 12:09:43 pm »
Ignore

Only if the pets are either in pain or give their consent.
Logged

CLARENCE 2015!
clarence
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4942
United States


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: February 06, 2012, 12:25:05 pm »
Ignore

I didnt realize this even happened... I know a guy who would put vodka in the dog bowl and he would tell us that his dog got drunk off it

Logged

Trounce-'em Theresa
Nathan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 19648


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: February 06, 2012, 01:53:08 pm »
Ignore

This is a thing?

I don't see exactly why one would ban it but I also don't see why anyone would possibly want to do it.
Logged



Professor Nathan. A shameless agrarian collectivist with no respect for private property or individual rights. Can you really trust him?

Yeah that's right, I said Siam. Why don't you go tell Pedro Martinez
© tweed
Miamiu1027
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 36725
United States


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: February 06, 2012, 02:37:02 pm »
Ignore

This is a thing?

I don't see exactly why one would ban it but I also don't see why anyone would possibly want to do it.

because it's mad funny.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R85tm37pdPg
Logged

I wanna contribute to the chaos
I don't wanna watch and then complain,
'cause I am through finding blame
that is the decision that I have made
Boris
boris78
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7114
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -1.55, S: -4.52

View Profile WWW
« Reply #5 on: February 06, 2012, 03:23:35 pm »
Ignore

a better question would be "should it legal to activate receptors or release neurotransmitters in the brains of one's pets?"
Logged

Boris
boris78
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7114
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -1.55, S: -4.52

View Profile WWW
« Reply #6 on: February 06, 2012, 03:25:58 pm »
Ignore

although, in practice, you're altering the neurochemistry of an animal by simply interacting with it, no?
Logged

Sbane
sbane
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14416


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: February 06, 2012, 03:40:51 pm »
Ignore

You shouldn't force the pet to get high. Like blowing smoke in it's face and forcing them to sit there and inhale it. Animals do not like smoke from my experience. Now cooking it a little meal with cannabutter....
Logged
angus
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17463
View Profile
« Reply #8 on: February 06, 2012, 04:25:46 pm »
Ignore

It's a trick question, of course.  I voted yes because you asked about owners, and therein you make an assumption.  Owners can do what they like with their property, including drugging it.  If we presume that people actually own other animals, then it follows that it should be legal.  The better question would ask whether people can actually own another animals to begin with. 
Logged
Lief 🐋
Lief
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 40677
Dominica


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: February 06, 2012, 04:32:19 pm »
Ignore

It's a trick question, of course.  I voted yes because you asked about owners, and therein you make an assumption.  Owners can do what they like with their property, including drugging it.  If we presume that people actually own other animals, then it follows that it should be legal.  The better question would ask whether people can actually own another animals to begin with. 

By that logic, beastiality with one's pets should be legal as well, no?
Logged

fuck nazis
angus
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17463
View Profile
« Reply #10 on: February 06, 2012, 04:36:17 pm »
Ignore

It's a trick question, of course.  I voted yes because you asked about owners, and therein you make an assumption.  Owners can do what they like with their property, including drugging it.  If we presume that people actually own other animals, then it follows that it should be legal.  The better question would ask whether people can actually own another animals to begin with.  

By that logic, beastiality with one's pets should be legal as well, no?

Yes.  (Of course, in such questions the presumption of legalized marijuna is valid.  If we get into too many conditionals, it becomes a mind-warping game.)

But I've never really approved of the term "owner" when I see it on commercials.  It offends me deeply, honestly.  And I don't really subscribe to the notion that the pets are actually owned, in the usual sense.  Nevertheless, if we're going to buy into that assumption, then yes, you own it the way you own a pen or a dildo or a pair of underwear, and are entitled to do with it as you please.
Logged
Is Totally Not Feeblepizza.
Crackers
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 288
United States


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: February 06, 2012, 04:50:45 pm »
Ignore

Well yeah, of course it should be legal.

I didnt realize this even happened... I know a guy who would put vodka in the dog bowl and he would tell us that his dog got drunk off it
Too much alcohol can be dangerous to an animal. My father once gave whiskey to some type of hunting dog (maybe a coon hound or a beagle?) and it got sick and died the next morning.
Logged

lawlz
Senator R2D2
20RP12
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27300
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.39, S: -7.13

View Profile
« Reply #12 on: February 06, 2012, 05:50:44 pm »
Ignore

um...
Logged

Link
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3444
View Profile
« Reply #13 on: February 06, 2012, 09:48:43 pm »
Ignore

It's a trick question, of course.  I voted yes because you asked about owners, and therein you make an assumption.  Owners can do what they like with their property, including drugging it.  If we presume that people actually own other animals, then it follows that it should be legal.  The better question would ask whether people can actually own another animals to begin with.  

By that logic, bestiality with one's pets should be legal as well, no?

Atlas' Law:  As a discussion goes on longer and longer the probability someone will mention bestiality approaches 1.
Logged

Insane quote of the year-

"Every aspect of life in America is worse than when he [Obama] took over" -Marco Rubio
Napoleon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14946


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: February 09, 2012, 06:12:32 am »
Ignore

It's a trick question, of course.  I voted yes because you asked about owners, and therein you make an assumption.  Owners can do what they like with their property, including drugging it.  If we presume that people actually own other animals, then it follows that it should be legal.  The better question would ask whether people can actually own another animals to begin with.  

By that logic, bestiality with one's pets should be legal as well, no?

Atlas' Law:  As a discussion goes on longer and longer the probability someone will mention bestiality approaches 1.

It's called The Santorum Rule, not Atlas' Law.
Logged

Yeah, after four years of being a non-disruptive poster on the forum, never considered a troublemaker, even someone who was liked well enough to be elected Atlasian President, Napoleon should be allowed to stay.


Solitude Without a Window
Antonio V
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 46193
United States


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: February 09, 2012, 10:30:08 am »
Ignore

Most important issue ever.
Logged

Our numbers are dwindling. Our words are confused.
Some of them have been twisted by the enemy
until they can no longer be recognized.

Now what is wrong, or false, in what we have said?
Just some parts, or everything?
On whom can we still rely? Are we survivors, cast
away by the current? Will we be left behind,
no longer understanding anyone and being understood by no one?
Must we rely on luck?

This is what you ask. Expect
no answer but your own.


Bertolt Brecht
PaulandSantorum2012
Newbie
*
Posts: 16
View Profile
« Reply #16 on: February 10, 2012, 06:57:46 pm »
Ignore

Most important issue ever.

Agreed. I voted no because the complications of the pot may be too much for the dog to handle.
Logged
RI
realisticidealist
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10920
Vatican City State


Political Matrix
E: -0.52, S: 4.35

View Profile
« Reply #17 on: February 10, 2012, 08:21:30 pm »
Ignore

No, I'm against animal abuse.
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines