Don't Get the Delete High

May 30, 2007 3:31 PM

Getting the dog high? Why wasn't the whole thing deleted? Letting any comments ride on that one is a slippery slope, I should think. Especially ones condoning it or speaking of giving a dog something toxic.
posted by valentinepig to etiquette/policy at 3:31 PM (146 comments total)

You wouldn't understand if you've never got your dog high.
posted by Jimbob at 3:35 PM on May 30, 2007

I admit that there was a value judgment in my answer, but I think this question begs for it. I am not a teetotaler, by any stretch of the imagination. I really do, though, think this action (dog high) is wrong-headed and felt my answer was helpful. The dog would certainly be better off.

What if the question was "Is it OK to drink and drive?" I think that the legitimate answer is an emphatic NO and that that person should look into not drinking, perhaps getting help.

Or am I too egotistical in thinking that my comments were deleted on their merits?
posted by valentinepig at 3:36 PM on May 30, 2007

Good idea to link the thread in question.
posted by cortex at 3:38 PM on May 30, 2007

Jimbob - don't misunderestimate me. I am a worldly one. And have a history. I do understand. And still think it's more than childish tomfoolery. I have been there and done that more than enough to have earned my right to dole out advice. "Kids these days..."
posted by valentinepig at 3:40 PM on May 30, 2007

Thank, tex. Here.
posted by valentinepig at 3:42 PM on May 30, 2007

valentinepig, both of your answers basically told the poster he was an idiot. The first one said it outright and the second one implied it. If that's all you've got to contribute to the conversation -- witness many other people who had variants of "it's not a good idea" without going all Comic Book Guy Worst. Idea. Ever. on the OP -- you're probably better off talking about it here not there.
posted by jessamyn at 3:46 PM on May 30, 2007

What if I wanted to Google "getting the dog high"? If the thread was deleted I would probably never find all the useful information about whether or not it should be done. Metafilter is a resource for all dogowners, potsmokers, left-on-counter-sandwich-eaters, lolcatters (and those who despise them), bottom-hitters, bean counters, bean analyzers, 2-3-4-5+letter acronymn lover and haters alike. It's not just for the OP anymore.
posted by iamkimiam at 3:53 PM on May 30, 2007 [4 favorites has favorites]

Just look at which answers were marked as BEST! Job well done, I'd say.
posted by snsranch at 3:58 PM on May 30, 2007

Is it just me, or do people freak out more about comment deletions in Askme than on the main page?

Moderators are here for a reason! Sure, feel free to ask critical questions, but when your comment is deleted, some self-reflection is probably in order.
posted by serazin at 3:59 PM on May 30, 2007

Substitute "my developmentally-disabled brother" for "my dog."

Please.

/try the veal
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 4:01 PM on May 30, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

This is the first time I've seen "slippery slope" used in an entirely unironic way.
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 4:02 PM on May 30, 2007

some self-reflection is probably in order.

I've never had a comment deleted (to my knowledge), but I know that "self reflection" is easier/possible when I can see what I've written. However, if the comment was deleted, I don't have any way of viewing what I wrote. As such, odds are I'd probably recall what I said as being perfectly fine, or at least be unable to see what might have been viewed as delete-worthy.

Just sayin'.
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 4:05 PM on May 30, 2007

I'm really getting tired of the "try the veal" meme. You know who else liked veal?
posted by grouse at 4:06 PM on May 30, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

Like, bow-wow, man. also dog spelled backwards is God, so who are you to argue, man...
posted by jonmc at 4:06 PM on May 30, 2007

You know who else liked veal?

Mussolini?
posted by jonmc at 4:06 PM on May 30, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

Aw, poor widdle baby had his comments flagged by many MeFites (including me), including the comment where he said hoped/expected the AskMefi poster would die from social darwinism, and now he runs crying to Mommy.
posted by Asparagirl at 4:08 PM on May 30, 2007

You know who else liked veal?

Do stoned dogbots dream of electric veals?
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 4:09 PM on May 30, 2007

However, if the comment was deleted, I don't have any way of viewing what I wrote.

Maybe comment deletions could be added to "Recent Activity".
posted by smackfu at 4:12 PM on May 30, 2007

Man, I can't believe I missed the comment where someone said they hoped I'd die.

I must have been .... busy.
posted by chlorus at 4:23 PM on May 30, 2007

Oh, and I asked the question in good faith. I know many people, including a few friends, that have smoked out their pets, and probably still do from time to time. The google was not helping much, so I figured I could get some straight dope here. I knew I would take shit for it, but I asked anyway, because I think the answer is not so obvious to everybody, and it would be good to have a resource to point other people to, namely people who already engage in this behavior and think it's completely harmless.

My intention has never been to do any harm, and I have never actuallly engaged in the practice myself.

I greatly appreciate all the helpful answers.
posted by chlorus at 4:25 PM on May 30, 2007

What if the question was "Is it OK to drink and drive?"

Yeah, seriously, what if it was?
posted by ludwig_van at 4:35 PM on May 30, 2007

This is why potheads are largely idiots. What kind of moron has to actually ask that question?
posted by dios at 4:36 PM on May 30, 2007

dios: has anyone ever told you that you are a humorless tosser? Because you are.
posted by chlorus at 4:38 PM on May 30, 2007 [4 favorites has favorites]

Potheads are largely idiots because of this question?
posted by ludwig_van at 4:39 PM on May 30, 2007 [2 favorites has favorites]

The whole thing wasn't deleted because it's okay to ask questions others view as moot stupid or obvious. Asking a stupid question isn't rude or hurtful to anybody. Unlike say, being rude and hurtful to people.
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 4:40 PM on May 30, 2007 [2 favorites has favorites]

Eh, I wouldn't judge you either way, chlorus.

My take on it goes like this: My dog hates the vacuum. Whenever it comes near, he'll get up and move to another location.

He also doesn't like getting baths. When I put him in the tub to wash him, he'll whimper and whine and try and escape.

What I'm getting at is that my dog isn't the smartest animal in the world, but he's smart enough to know when he doesn't like something, and he knows enough to get up and leave if that's the case.

If you were to attempt to smoke up your dog, and he didn't like it, odds are he'd let you know/leave.

Just my two cents.
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 4:41 PM on May 30, 2007

This is why potheads are largely idiots. What kind of moron has to actually ask that question?

I think you need a hit more than chlorus's dog, dios.
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 4:42 PM on May 30, 2007

dios: has anyone ever told you that you are a humorless tosser? Because you are.
posted by chlorus at 6:38 PM on May 30

I'm humorless? So are you saying you were kidding? You didn't want to do that? If that's the case, then it should be deleted as a guy taking a piss and you should be kicked in the nuts for fucking with AskMe. Or are you saying it is funny that you get your dog stoned? If that's the case, then you are as moronic as a first stated, and if pointing that out makes me humorless, then call me Dane Cook.
posted by dios at 4:44 PM on May 30, 2007

Is it wrong to offer my dog the last hit, then suck it all up myself at the last second? I am asking comically and ethically, of course.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 4:45 PM on May 30, 2007 [3 favorites has favorites]

if pointing that out makes me humorless, then call me Dane Cook.

dios: thank you for demonstrating that you indeed have no sense of humor whatsoever. If you think my question is proof all potheads are morons, you really need to just, relax, man. Seriously.
posted by chlorus at 4:46 PM on May 30, 2007

You know who else liked veal?
Dude, he was a vegetarian.
posted by kirkaracha at 4:47 PM on May 30, 2007

Aw, poor widdle baby had his comments flagged by many MeFites...

Now how is that helpful? jessamyn suggested I ask here, so I did. Why am I a crybaby?

Yes, I think the idea of getting the dog high is a dumb one. The second answer suggested he not smoke dope. I did not call chlorus an idiot in the second posting. I did cast that aspersion in the first. But come on, the topic is begging for it. The material does not get any richer.

chlorus - it was a Darwinism comment. I did not wish you to die. Someone 'tagged' it as hilarious, too. That's what I intended.

Again, come on the topic!!! If you're going to let a topic like that fly, then the lines have got to be blurred.
posted by valentinepig at 4:49 PM on May 30, 2007

if pointing that out makes me humorless, then call me Dane Cook.

Okay, THAT was funny.
posted by empath at 4:49 PM on May 30, 2007

Again, come on the topic!!!

I'll do it again, but I need to take a nap first.
posted by ludwig_van at 4:51 PM on May 30, 2007

What if the question was "Is it OK to drink and drive?"

Yeah, seriously, what if it was?

We'd have to discuss the fact that alcohol slows reaction time and worsens judgment, even when the drinker doesn't necessarily feel subjectively drunk. We'd have to bring up the importance of reaction time to stopping, and maybe provide some back-of-the-napkin calculations showing how even a relatively small amount of alcohol can turn normally-safe traffic hazardous. We'd talk about how the ability to make quick, correct judgments is crucial when dealing with the other knuckleheads on the road. We'd probably conclude that drinking and driving imposes an unjustifiable risk on oneself and others, particularly in light of the presence of other modes of transportation.

In other words, we'd have to objectively weigh the pros and cons of the proposed course of action in light of demonstrable facts. It would be a nightmare!
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 4:52 PM on May 30, 2007 [3 favorites has favorites]

Now how is that helpful? jessamyn suggested I ask here, so I did.

Mwahahaha! Another victim succumbs to the crafty trap of the Librarianess. The fools cannot resist the temptation that will lead them to a certain doom.
posted by grouse at 4:55 PM on May 30, 2007

My comment got deleted before the insults began and I didn't even bother to complain. I knew that the comment was somewhat trollish for MeFi's high standards.
posted by Memo at 4:59 PM on May 30, 2007

Can someone point me to the part of the guidelines where it says that some topics can't be asked about? I remember the part about jokey or insulting comments being deleted, but I don't recall the part that says you can't ask a question that someone someone else thinks is dumb.
posted by team lowkey at 5:03 PM on May 30, 2007

dios: thank you for demonstrating that you indeed have no sense of humor whatsoever. If you think my question is proof all potheads are morons, you really need to just, relax, man. Seriously.

Just to make clear, lest someone think I am being puritanical: I have no problem with people who engage in drug use or any self-destructive behavior. I have no quarrel with those who occasionally smoke marijuana in their homes. Fine by me. I don't think negatively about the subject.

But I do have a problem with potheads: the loud and repetitive idiots who always talk about pot as it if is the answer to the mystery of life and think that everyone who doesn't smoke is just some prudish square who doesn't understand, man; the idiots who ask seriously ask if there is something off about stoning their pet; the idiots who wear their pot shirts and stink like shit but don't understand why everyone looks at them askance; the idiots who argue that other people and the law are in the wrong for not accepting their habit as if we have some obligation to give everyone's habit the stamp of approval--after all, pot is less dangerous then drinking, man.

In sum, pot is fine; potheads--the kind of people who think it is funny or cool to stone their pets--are idiots. YMMV.
posted by dios at 5:04 PM on May 30, 2007 [3 favorites has favorites]

You know what? Giving marijuana to dogs is just wrong. Dogs are not stoners.

Dogs are boozers, that's why I only give mine bourbon. And occasionally heroin, but only when he needs the edge taken off.

The cats are all meth freaks and the birds are getting heavy into psilocybin. That's another story I don't even want to get into right now.

But don't give pot to dogs, it's not nice. Pot is for bunnies. They know how to do the whole 'munchies' thing.
posted by quin at 5:04 PM on May 30, 2007 [24 favorites has favorites]

But come on, the topic is begging for it. The material does not get any richer.

The topic is begging for you to insult the poster? I think you should stay out of AskMe until you can learn to restrain yourself.
posted by oneirodynia at 5:12 PM on May 30, 2007

i, uh...
posted by quonsar at 5:14 PM on May 30, 2007

quin, my bunny doesn't need any encouragement. He's already found his way into the sofa to knaw on the frame.

The sound of chewing should never come from deep inside something I'm sitting on. It's a bit nerve wracking. Like finding a bunch of earwigs in your newspaper when you unfold it at the breakfast table.
posted by oneirodynia at 5:17 PM on May 30, 2007

if pointing that out makes me humorless, then call me Dane Cook.

Ok, that was hilarious.
posted by mathowie at 5:18 PM on May 30, 2007

I get my cat high all the friggin time. I don't know what's in that catnip, but she's a junkie for it. Always rolling around, staring off into space, and getting paranoid.

I fail to see how altering my cat's mind in this way is fundamentally different from smoking up a dog. Dogs are pretty sturdy creatures. Sturdy creatures who will eat their own poop if you don't watch them carefully.

I don't think that it's a good idea to smoke up your dog, but I don't think it's going to do much harm to the dog.

This has nothing to do with anything, but I wanted to mention that I once had a dog who really liked rootbeer. He was crazy for it.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 5:23 PM on May 30, 2007

Okay, I'll bite. Dios, you don't think negatively about smoking pot, but you don't think it should be legal? That's seems odd. "I have no problem with people who eat tofu, I just think they should be fined, and if they sell tofu to other people they should be thrown in jail."
posted by L. Fitzgerald Sjoberg at 5:48 PM on May 30, 2007 [3 favorites has favorites]

"That seems odd"
posted by L. Fitzgerald Sjoberg at 5:49 PM on May 30, 2007

“I get my cat high all the friggin time. I don't know what's in that catnip, but she's a junkie for it.”

Your cat isn't getting high on catnip.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 5:50 PM on May 30, 2007

My cat's breath smells like catnip.
posted by jonmc at 6:20 PM on May 30, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

I once had a cat who never, ever failed to appear when it was time to pass one around. Said cat would follow whatever smoky number was being passed, even going from lap to lap.

Said cat also had a very obnoxious habit of stealing my stash, tearing open the plastic baggie and rolling around in it like it was some very primo catnip.

I think I would have been much less upset by this if the cat just learned how to use a pipe and a lighter. Or if it just ate it.

Rolling around in it, though? Very superfluous and hedonistic. Even for a cat.

And you ever try picking cat hair out of a pile of mashed up herbs? It's unpossible. There's always a few hairs left. Burnt cat hair is very gross.

I have met dogs with similar tastes, but they generally seem to prefer beer. I have met dogs that very obviously appear when it's time to smoke, but they seem to be rarer than cats.

Rats also seem to prefer beer to weed. Yes, I gave my rats beer. If I didn't they'd knock over my beer and take all they could before I caught them and put them back in the cage. It was much kinder for all for me to put some in a bottle cap and let them have a little. It was good, nutritious beer, and by the way that they hopped all over the room and grew extra-playful and rambunctious, I can only assume they enjoyed it. A lot.

However, I've heard that marijuana smoke can actually be harmful or even deadly for small birds, like parakeets, finches and budgies. But this is anecdotal. I am not a vet.


Also, a lot of the stark "anti" opinions in this thread and the AskMe thread seem to come from people who have probably never smoked pot.

To them I say the following: First, unless you're a pharmacologist, neurobiologist or at least a GP vet, please just shut the fuck up, ok? You don't actually know what you're talking about.

Granted, I don't actually know what I'm talking about either, but there's a mighty good chance that know more about it than you, that I'm probably better read about this than you and I might even be (generally speaking) smarter than you.

But at least I've smoked the stuff and have a familiarity with it.

Those of us who actually know and enjoy the stuff are mighty tired of your shrill, uninformed and ill-formed reactionary "opinions" which are about as objectively accurate and about as useful as a wet fart. If I wanted to hear the party line being spewed I can turn on the idiotarian television at any time. Nancy Reagan is no longer relevant, and has never been relevant - and neither was "just say no", ok?

Please, please stop repeating these lies. You're actively harming society by spreading misinformation - the same sort of misinformation that today has marijuana classified alongside much more dangerous drugs like methamphetamine or heroin as though they were kin and brethren.

Which they aren't. 15-20 years of meth plague later, and this should be totally obvious to anyone with two active neurons.

It is this misinformation that has led to our youth thinking things like "if marijuana isn't so bad as they've been saying, I bet speed is also mostly harmless."

Said "party line" has been, is, and will be for the foreseeable future entirely and completely wrong - particularly in the United States. They (the DEA, FDA, ONDCP, NIDA) and the have been provably wrong over and over and over again on a number of important "facts" about marijuana which they've either back-pedaled away from, obscured, disinformed or otherwise ignored and covered up with bad or criminally negligent science.

This is neither good science, nor good government, nor good health care. I won't even bring up the issue of their lack of compassion except to scoff at it and mock it.


Secondly, the intended effects and unintended side effects of marijuana are exceedingly subtle and mild. Yes, I've smoked good marijuana. I've probably smoked marijuana so good and strong you've never even dreamed it actually existed.

No, you (or anyone's dog) aren't going to suddenly start seeing talking plaid coyotes upon ingestion. You (or your dog) aren't going to see anything like that even after ingesting a "potentially fatal" clinically-heroic dose of synthesized cannabinoids nor from even highly concentrated plant extracts by any delivery method - including IV or IM injections.

It's simply not going to happen. You're going to fall asleep first. But not before eating every available snack in 3 block radius.



All that said - humans aren't the only animals that enjoy getting "high". A number of mammalian species - including primates - intentionally seek out fermented fruit. Psychedelic mushrooms are also a favored item for some mammals - including primates, bears and canids, and it has even been posited that such mushroom ingestion by primates may be part of the "missing [evolutionary] link" by way of granting primates with symbolic language and communication. (See: Terrance McKenna's Archaic Revival. Ignore the hippy metaphysics, stay for the linguistics and archeology.)
posted by loquacious at 6:27 PM on May 30, 2007 [16 favorites has favorites]

Since it wouldn't be appropriate in the askme thread, I'll use this as an opportunity to say this reminded me of "Dogs Don't Do Drugs" by Gals Panic.
posted by drezdn at 6:29 PM on May 30, 2007

“Also, a lot of the stark ‘anti’ opinions in this thread and the AskMe thread seem to come from people who have probably never smoked pot.”

"Seem to come from"? How can you tell that? First, I doubt there's anyone left alive in the US who hasn't smoked pot by now. Second, some of the "against" opinions in that thread are from people who explicitly say they smoke pot. Third, people are weird and protective of their pets and it's easy for me to imagine that someone could be very pro-pot but very anti-getting-your-dog-high.

Basically, of all the comments in this thread and that one, your overblown, angry screed is the only polemic around. Thanks for inadvertently validating dios's crude caricature.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 6:45 PM on May 30, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

Don't get your dog high is one of my personal rules. If someone asks me what I think, I say, don't get your dog high.

Frankly dogs are already high and it's a fucking waste of reefer. If the dog comes over when you are smoking weed and acts like he wants some, say "Fucking get a job and kick a little in and then we can talk about you getting high in your downtime you crotchlicking freeloader."

I used to smoke dope all the time and I don't anymore, and while I have never gotten a dog high, I have to say that not having to worry about if the dog needs to get high or not is just one of the many advantages of not smoking dope anymore.

Smoke dope all you like I say, just be aware of the fact that dios is right about one thing, not about the specific place where he approves of you smoking dope in moderate quantities or if your shirt is a "pot shirt" or not, but "What kind of moron has to actually ask that question?" is, in fact, perhaps a harsh statement of what seems to be a relatively common sense way of thinking about the responsibilities of pet ownership.

And loq, fine bro, you're totally right that it's not a question of some kind of "the dog got high and thought he was dinomut and jumped out the window." However, it is really a question of never submitting another living being to an altered state without their clear and unequivocal permission* (or a medical emergency, you nitpicking assholes) and it's a sound rule and I bet you understand that.

*I mean if the dog comes over and acts psyched when you light up, please bear in mind that many dogs, like mine, come over and act psyched when one of the cats takes a firey sulphery world record tunashit in the catbox. Just smoke your dope yourself and play with your dog, it's cool, the dog won't ever get mad at you and if he does just lie down for a while and maybe have some toast and a glass of milk or something.
posted by Divine_Wino at 6:52 PM on May 30, 2007 [40 favorites has favorites]

First, unless you're a pharmacologist, neurobiologist or at least a GP vet, please just shut the fuck up, ok?

So which one are you, loquacious? I'm not any of the three, but I am an evolutionary biologist, and I can tell you that repeating an incoherent hypothesis about hallucinogenic mushrooms granting primates advanced communication abilities definitely makes me think twice about believing any of the other stuff in your rant.

On preview: what Ethereal Bligh said.
posted by grouse at 6:53 PM on May 30, 2007

First, I doubt there's anyone left alive in the US who hasn't smoked pot by now.

Observation bias, or optimism, or whatever it is that leads to that conclusion: it ain't so. I know folks what ent, young and not so young.
posted by cortex at 6:54 PM on May 30, 2007

I need a freakin' playbook to follow the intrigue in this thread. Did Dios get his dog high?
posted by Dave Faris at 7:00 PM on May 30, 2007

Thank you, dw. That was hilarious.
posted by OmieWise at 7:03 PM on May 30, 2007

Again, come on the topic!!! If you're going to let a topic like that fly, then the lines have got to be blurred.

I'm not much for pointing this sort of thing out, but it seems germane to suggest that more than a month of membership might better recommend your opinions on the Askme "lines."

Unless you're a sockpuppet, in which case you know already that protesting deleted outside the lines comments is the mark of a real tool.
posted by OmieWise at 7:06 PM on May 30, 2007

Even excepting the (surprising to my mind) studies one runs across about marijunana smoke being less harmful than tobacco smoke, you never see anyone flipping out about smoking cigarettes around the pets, so why the freakout here?

And let's add onto the catnip idea (have you seen a cat's pupils when they're on catnip?), various mammals have been known to go after fermented fruit for the alcohol, and that's way worse than pot, brain cell by brain cell.

Additionally, if you want to talk "toxic," well ... check out what you're feeding that animal.

For the record, I do not smoke pot, but the drug hysteria gets on my nerves.
posted by adipocere at 7:10 PM on May 30, 2007

If you're going to let a topic like that fly, then the lines have got to be blurred.

Are you from the past? That just isn't true in AskMe. In fact it's so STILL NOT TRUE, I think it needs to go on the FAQ.

Q. Aren't some questions just begging for it?
A. No, no they are not.
posted by jessamyn at 7:14 PM on May 30, 2007 [3 favorites has favorites]

you never see anyone flipping out about smoking cigarettes around the pets, so why the freakout here?

The question wasn't about just smoking around the dog, it was about deliberately trying to get the dog high by blowing smoke into his face.
posted by Aloysius Bear at 7:16 PM on May 30, 2007

I can't believe I was the first to think of this.
posted by ND¢ at 7:22 PM on May 30, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

Duh!!!!! Dogs can't break the law. You people, I swear.....
posted by The Deej at 7:26 PM on May 30, 2007

The real Deej says: ya, that one bugged me too. It bothered me so much I had to get stoned just to chill out.

Crap, sorry. For real, it did strike me as very deletable.
posted by The Deej at 7:28 PM on May 30, 2007

Real dogs smoke on their own.
posted by brain_drain at 7:30 PM on May 30, 2007

Marijuana is a gateway drug. First you're blowing the reefer smoke up Poochie's snoot, the next thing you know, someone's feeding him LSD^*. After that, it's a pretty short tumble 'til he's humping legs and sniffing crotches for nickles down at the bus station.

Long story short: In AskMe, responses are currency. If you don't approve, take your business elsewhere and remember, flagging is your friend.

^*Actually happened to my cousin's dog. Poor doggie.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 7:32 PM on May 30, 2007

the next thing you know, someone's feeding him LSD

Don't eat the yellow snow or the brown acid.
posted by cortex at 7:34 PM on May 30, 2007

Plus it's a gateway drug. My dog was doing black tar after a few months. And you not NOT want to know what she had to do to earn the money. The bitch.
posted by The Deej at 7:35 PM on May 30, 2007

I do not smoke pot, but the drug hysteria gets on my nerves.

You know what I hear is good for that?
posted by Dave Faris at 7:43 PM on May 30, 2007

loquacious?
posted by vronsky at 7:44 PM on May 30, 2007

I doubt there's anyone left alive in the US who hasn't smoked pot by now

Yo.
posted by kindall at 8:00 PM on May 30, 2007

Your cat isn't getting high on catnip.

Hi, ethereal bligh. I saw this assertion both here and in the original AskMe thread, and I was curious as to whether you had a link or other reference for this?

I ask because I have seen cats interact with catnip, and it certainly seemed to me that something was going on that was analogous to what happens with people and pot or other psychoactive drugs.

I did do a google on "catnip psychoactive" and a brief perusal seemed to indicate that most of the top hits did indeed reflect the opinion that the cats are getting some kind of high out of the stuff.
posted by trip and a half at 8:04 PM on May 30, 2007

loquacious?

Oh, hell no! For one, I wouldn't be caught dead in either of those shirts.

Much less smoking out of a plastic bong.

Though the hair is almost spot-on. And my gut ain't helping, neither. Goddamnit, it might be time to start shaving my head again. The (currently vanishing) gut'll be entirely gone in 3 months, though. Or 10,000 miles. Whichever comes first.

I really shouldn't post rants about being stoned when I'm not. They tend to suck more.
posted by loquacious at 8:09 PM on May 30, 2007

I'm actually one of the mythical "never used drugs" people. But I found the whole pothead rant more objectionable than the hypothetical "blowing smoke at doggie" scenario.

Just because someone has a different lifestyle doesn't mean you get to make wild generalizations like their clothes stink from pot all the time. That's like me suggesting you're an uptight prig because you actually use words like "askance".
posted by misha at 8:12 PM on May 30, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

Okay, I'll bite.

Lore, if you're still following (or for anyone else who's curious), dios laid out his political philosophy on stuff like this pretty clearly once before.

Relevant excerpt:
I am a libertarian authoritarian. That is, I don't care where democratic majorities set the line, but wherever it is, you better damn well follow it. For all I care, a democratic majority could authorize public pedophilia sex while smoking crack in public squares as long as one doesn't wear a purple shirt (and if one does, its a life sentence). And I wouldn't have a problem with the person smoking crack and nailing a 5 year old in public, but if that fucker wears that purple shirt, his ass needs to go to the clink for life.
posted by Partial Law at 8:16 PM on May 30, 2007

"crotchlicking freeloader" is probably an oxymoron and definitely a good name for a band.
Also
Metafilter: Fucking get a job and kick a little in.
posted by solotoro at 8:28 PM on May 30, 2007

But then, he had the fight of his life. They pit him against his brother Nibbles. And Killer said, "No, man, that's my brother, I can't fight Nibbles!" And he made him fight anyway. And then Killer, Killed Nibbles. And Killer said, "That's it!" And he called off all his fights, and he started doing crack, and he ffffffff-FREAKED OUT. And then in a rage, he collapsed, and his heart... no longer beat. Wow.
posted by kosem at 8:36 PM on May 30, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

First, I doubt there's anyone left alive in the US who hasn't smoked pot by now.

*raises hand* Does that make me not alive? Am I zombie now? That'd be sweet.

(And uh, yeah, the cat is totally getting a momentary high.)

Also, am I really the first to bring up cannibliss ? I am? Sweet.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 8:40 PM on May 30, 2007

Partial Law: Well, huh! I guess that clears that up!
posted by L. Fitzgerald Sjoberg at 8:49 PM on May 30, 2007

Thanks for having a sense of humor about that that link loquacious. It was meant as a gentle tease, no more. You just moved up a notch or two on my fave mefite list.

And for the record, I love good weed, it is my only "vice". But I try not to overdo it, a couple of times a month at most. And I am totally with divine wino. Weed is wasted on dogs. Dogs are the beer drinkers of the animal kingdom. Cats on the other hand, they are natural stoners. Cats and weed go together.
posted by vronsky at 8:57 PM on May 30, 2007

I'd just like to say that this entire ordeal has been justified by loquacious' and Divine_Wino's comments.

NitpickFilter: Or are you saying it is funny that you get your dog stoned?

Dios, it's evident by his comments that he hasn't smoked up his dog. Hence the fucking point of the the question on AskMe.

Please troll responsibly.
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 9:02 PM on May 30, 2007

I'd say as long as you don't let the dog post on MeFi after you get him stoned, it's cool.
posted by BeerFilter at 9:09 PM on May 30, 2007

I tried to explain libertarian authoritarianism to my dog, and then she barked at me, "Dude, you're so fucking stoned." Then we both started laughing like loons.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:14 PM on May 30, 2007 [10 favorites has favorites]

“I ask because I have seen cats interact with catnip, and it certainly seemed to me that something was going on that was analogous to what happens with people and pot or other psychoactive drugs.”

They're reacting to the scent. No one knows exactly what it is that's going on with that reaction, but the behavior is similar to being in heat. Not all cats respond to catnip, however.

This isn't the same as ingesting a psychoactive drug.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:14 PM on May 30, 2007

“Observation bias, or optimism, or whatever it is that leads to that conclusion: it ain't so. I know folks what ent, young and not so young.”

My statement was hyperbole. And while there are of course going to be people here and there who have never smoked pot, the subtext of loquacious's comment that it's still 1950 and only a few counterculture folks get high while the overwhelming majority are ignorant and fearful about marijuana is just stupid. There's a lot of folk in the US that are ignorant and fearful about marijuana—that doesn't mean they've never tried it. But I doubt that describes even a small portion of that question's answerers.

Frankly, though, that someone younger than 55 and older than 17 has never tried pot seems just truly weird to me. It's like saying you've never drank alcohol. In the US, that's abnormal. (Not that it's wrong or anything.)
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:28 PM on May 30, 2007

Actually, having given it some thought, dios's statement doesn't actually clear everything up. But if that political philosophy were a tree frog, it would be the color of a Poncho Punch Otter Pop, so I'm backing the fuck away.
posted by L. Fitzgerald Sjoberg at 9:30 PM on May 30, 2007

Reacting to a scent with dramatic behavioral changes isn't the same as ingesting a psychoactive drug? How the heck do you draw *that* particular line?
posted by mediareport at 9:39 PM on May 30, 2007

What dios means is that he's a Relativistic Democratic Authoritarian. He doesn't believe there's a principle for deciding right and wrong other than the laws enacted democratically and he believes those laws should be enforced with an iron hand. That's not irrational, it's extremely pragmatic.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:43 PM on May 30, 2007

“Reacting to a scent with dramatic behavioral changes isn't the same as ingesting a psychoactive drug? How the heck do you draw *that* particular line?”

I react to the scent of shit with dramatic behavioral changes. Yet shit isn't a psychoactive drug.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:45 PM on May 30, 2007

i got my dog high why because it look intersting
posted by ludwig_van at 9:45 PM on May 30, 2007

Okay, this is the result of some quick and sketchy research, but here goes. From what I can tell, catnip works entirely as a scent. The chemicals in catnip, like any other scent, interact with olfactory sensors. That smell triggers certain brain responses.

Psychoactive drugs, however, act upon the central nervous system directly. They affect the neurotransmitters and neuroreceptors.

In short, catnip works because the chemicals reach the cat's nose. Psychoactive drugs work because the chemicals reach the brain itself.

Now if I do actually understand this correctly, then it actually seems like a good argument that catnip is not a psychoactive drug by the common technical definition. It's closer to smelling something good and suddenly getting hungry, or smelling something really bad and throwing up.
posted by L. Fitzgerald Sjoberg at 9:54 PM on May 30, 2007

I react to the scent of shit with dramatic behavioral changes. Yet shit isn't a psychoactive drug.

True, unless you've had the shit from Marseille, in which case all I can say is that you're smoking it wrong.


Any NTM fans out there?
posted by Divine_Wino at 9:55 PM on May 30, 2007

In short, catnip works because the chemicals reach the cat's nose. Psychoactive drugs work because the chemicals reach the brain itself.

That doesn't make any sense. The olfactory apparatus *is* part of "the brain itself." In fact, the olfactory system links the nose to the brain very directly:

The nose contains specialized sensory nerve cells, or neurons, with hairlike fibers called clilia on one end. Each neuron sends a nerve fiber called an axon to the olfactory bulb, a brain structure just above the nose.

We have no idea how catnip works. But asserting definitively that it does not function like a drug in the usual scientific definition of the word (which acknowledges some vagueness) is very much an overstatement.
posted by mediareport at 10:02 PM on May 30, 2007

Now if I do actually understand this correctly, then it actually seems like a good argument that catnip is not a psychoactive drug by the common technical definition. It's closer to smelling something good and suddenly getting hungry, or smelling something really bad and throwing up.

You mean, it's like smelling something really weird and getting momentarily high? Like huffing paint? Cause yeah, that's a drug. Saying it's not pyschoactive is splitting a few hairs.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 10:02 PM on May 30, 2007

I react to the scent of shit with dramatic behavioral changes.

You're being ridiculous, and ignoring the fact that *any* definition of a drug is going to include something you can laugh at like that. It's difficult to name and categorize drug versus non-drug experiences; anyone who's looked at the field should know that. I don't know why you're so invested in this notion that catnip acts nothing like a drug, but it's pretty clear you're not approaching this carefully at all when you make your pronouncements. You also have no idea what goes on in a cat's psyche, so your definitive statements are about as far philosophically from science as it's possible to get.

Look, catnip has fairly clear stimulant properties in cats - if I recall correctly, it's pretty well-established that it raises the heart-rate, if nothing else. The whole "but it goes through the nose!" thing is completely off-base.
posted by mediareport at 10:08 PM on May 30, 2007

Look, I've smoked catnip. It will get you high.

Granted, not very high. And you'll end up chasing invisible mice under the kitchen table.

There's nothing you can say that will convince me that the personality and psyche - as much as they are - of a cat is not seriously altered by the introduction of catnip.

The long-lost cat in my previous tale was a total whore for the stuff. I discovered at one point that she would trek several miles across open desert all on her own to roll around in a neighbor's garden patch of catnip. She and the rest of the cats that had visited this patch had flattened it to the ground with said rolling.

If that's not a drug, what is? What isn't?

Do you consider nutmeg or clove spice to be a drug? You probably should. It's psychoactive!

How about turkey? It has L-tryptophan in it, which is certainly psychoactive and now banned by the FDA. Drug!

What about a peanut butter and honey sandwich on wheat bread? The glucose in honey helps block orexin, a neurotransmitter linked to alertness. Even the carbs in wheat bread help release tryptophan, which gets turned into serotonin.

Even our own brains are illicit drug factories. Everything you do and experience is a "drug". Every sigh, every orgasm, every moment of pain and joy and happiness is all precipitated by powerful "drugs" - chemicals which alter your brain or body.

Every little thing you eat, ingest, experience or interact with alters your brain chemistry. Get over it already! You have no precious bodily fluids - you're just a walking sack of chemical-soaked meat with eyes!
posted by loquacious at 10:10 PM on May 30, 2007 [5 favorites has favorites]

My goddess, I've creamed favorites all over this thread.

This is why potheads are largely idiots. What kind of moron has to actually ask that question?
...
the loud and repetitive idiots who always talk about pot as it if is the answer to the mystery of life

I get the impression you're talking, at least in part, about metafilter here. I can't see any other reason why you'd think it's necessary to denigrate millions of people as part of this discussion.

And you know what? Fuck. You. Pot posts are not really all that common around here. A couple in the blue and green each month, at most. Everybody else can talk about their daily activities without fear of getting preached to every time whatever shit they're into comes up. Why can't we? Why does just about every pot ask me get dragged in here?

And, dude, look up 'idiots' in the thesaurus or something. It's like every other fucking word with you.
posted by and hosted from Uranus at 10:13 PM on May 30, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

Look, catnip has fairly clear stimulant properties in cats

Fairly clear!? Look, I like weed a whole hell of a lot but I've never humped a bag of it on the floor, growled as though I was demon-possessed nor spun my head around several complete rotations. Much less chased invisible bats up the walls and across the fucking ceiling.

That cat was fucking high, man. It was like giving Hunter S. Thompson a jar of ether, a ten strip, a quart of rye and a fucking great big fuck-off of a giant gun, man. Instant high-powered mutant, just add catnip!
posted by loquacious at 10:15 PM on May 30, 2007 [3 favorites has favorites]

That cat was fucking high, man.

Oh, I'm with you. I'm just trying to bring EB along slowly.
posted by mediareport at 10:18 PM on May 30, 2007

Well, huh! I learned something tonight!

I was all ready to rush gangbusters into this and declare that the olfactory nerves, the ones that actually hook up with odor molecules, were part of the peripheral nervous system, not the central nervous system. I was basing this -- and I'm sure you'll agree that this is very scientific -- on the fact that pictures of the central nervous system don't appear to go anywhere near the nose.

But a little more research than I did before indicates that olfactory nerves are indeed considered part of the central nervous system! And at least one source refers to them as "[the brain's] own nerves." That's neat! I like the idea that I have little bits of brain extending down into what I believe are technically referred to as "the snot realms."

Well, never let it said that I'm one of those folks who, when caught in a blatant untruth, tries to twist words around and move goalposts and otherwise won't admit he's wrong. Thanks for learning me something, mediareport.
posted by L. Fitzgerald Sjoberg at 10:25 PM on May 30, 2007 [2 favorites has favorites]

Re: Huffing paint.

Is the high from huffing due to the scent? I always assumed it was due to the shit getting into your lungs, same as pot.

Seriously asking here, not being rhetorical.
posted by L. Fitzgerald Sjoberg at 10:29 PM on May 30, 2007

MetaFilter: Just a walking sack of chemical-soaked meat with eyes.
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 10:35 PM on May 30, 2007

A large portion of cats don't react to catnip. Catnip doesn't cause the same reaction when a cat ingests it—in fact, it doesn't cause much of a reaction at all. The whole "my cat is getting high on catnip!" thing is folkloric bullshit, as is especially the particular folklore that catnip is the cat version of marijuana. Catnip doesn't act like THC, or alcohol, or a stimulant on the cat's brain. It does trigger—in some cats—a behavioral response that strongly suggests a pheremonal action. That's not the same thing as a cat "getting high". My cat's eyes dilate and her heartrate goes up when I wiggle my fingers in a certain way. My fingers aren't psychoactive. My heart rate goes up and my eyes dilate when someone waves "smelling salts" under my nose. Smelling salts aren't psychoactive.

You can split hairs and ask "what is, really, 'psychoactive'?" and try really, really hard to muddy the issue. But the bottom line is that catnip doesn't do to cats what you thought it did before reading this thread.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:45 PM on May 30, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

Appropriately, I just got this post in my retro-tagging cue.

Too lazy to click? It says:

Can cats get high from eating frogs? My mom just moved to a new house by a fishpond where a family of frogs also lives. Her cat seems to have grown addicted to the frogs - he eats one and then gets lethargic and glassy-eyed and just generally weird. Is this dangerous for him or just harmless fun? Well, not harmless for the frogs, of course.
posted by The Deej at 11:14 PM on May 30, 2007

Re huffing:COLOMBIAN TOLU TREE -- "Myroxylon balsamum" and "Myroxylon toluifera" in scientific terms. TOLU is the fragrant brown balsam obtained from this Colombian tree and which is a critical component of explosives and the explosives trade and industry. Toluene, a derivative of benzene, can be obtained without much technology from the balsam of this tree. So important is the trade in this substance for ammunitions that the town of Tolu in Colombia has been named for it.

Toluene is a hydrocarbon obtained from petroleum also.
posted by hortense at 11:33 PM on May 30, 2007

you never see anyone flipping out about smoking cigarettes around the pets, so why the freakout here?

I do, actually. I was looking out the bus window the other day and saw two GORGEOUS golden retrievers, and I was all smiley because they were hanging out with their person outside a cafe, and it looked all happy and comfy and yay. Then I saw that the human was smoking, and the poor dogs were breathing in the smoke in order to be by him, and I got very very sad that we subject dogs to such idiocy. I don't interfere with people who don't want interference, but had he asked, I would have started spouting off about the sensitivity of dog's noses and how screwing up other beings' lungs was not kosher.

So, there you go. San Francisco uber-PC freakout, just for you.
posted by occhiblu at 11:38 PM on May 30, 2007

loquacious writes "How about turkey? It has L-tryptophan in it, which is certainly psychoactive and now banned by the FDA. Drug!"

Say wha? Almost any store that sells dietary supplements will have 5-htp. In my experience it was pretty psychoactive, which makes sense since it's raising your seratonin levels. Some people recommend taking it to restore seratonin levels after a weekend of abusing MDMA. It's hilarious that you need a prescription for drugs that raise your seratonin levels selectively, but you can buy 5-htp, which raises them wholesale, without one.
posted by mullingitover at 1:25 AM on May 31, 2007

oh and regarding catnip not getting cats 'high.' From the wikipedia entry on catnip (and personal observation):

When cats sense the bruised leaves or stems of catnip, they will rub it on their genitals, roll over it, paw at it, chew it, lick it, leap about and purr, often salivating copiously. Some cats will also growl and meow.

Is there a substance had this 'not high' effect on humans, and if so where the fuck can I get it? I would like to avoid the stigma of getting high while still being able to enjoy the (obviously enjoyable) effects listed above.
posted by mullingitover at 1:36 AM on May 31, 2007

“(obviously enjoyable)”

Why is it "obviously enjoyable"? Aside from the fact that this folklore about catnip partly relies upon the false reasoning that because a human can smoke catnip and get mildly high then it's the case that when a cat smells catnip it is getting high¹, the other annoying part of this folklore is that it's got a shitload of anthropomorphizing in it.

1. The assumption is that because ingesting catnip and marijuana both will make a human high, and because catnip and marijuana are related, then when a cat freaks out when smelling catnip it must be getting high the same way a human gets high. But if that's the case, why don't cats freak out when smelling marijuana—which is, after all, much stronger? For that matter, why don't humans freak out when smelling marijuana?
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:53 AM on May 31, 2007

AskMe: What kind of moron has to actually ask that question?

To be used in rotation with
AskMe: Food poisoning is still a worse fate than death.
AskMe: If you're that worried, don't hit it.
AskMe: Talk to a doctor! Not random pinheads on the Internet!
AskMe: No way, this song is so much sadder than yours.
and
AskMe: Dare I suggest Cognitive Behavioral Therapy?

Or maybe we could put them all on a subsite. Answered.metafilter.com, also to be known as 'the gold' (and to have that color scheme) in respect of the notion that this is the concentrated store of the hive mind's best finds.

But seriously. 'What kind of moron ...' goes at the top of the list.
posted by eritain at 1:56 AM on May 31, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

When cats sense the bruised leaves or stems of catnip, they will rub it on their genitals, roll over it, paw at it, chew it, lick it, leap about and purr, often salivating copiously. Some cats will also growl and meow.

Is there a substance had this 'not high' effect on humans, and if so where the fuck can I get it? I would like to avoid the stigma of getting high while still being able to enjoy the (obviously enjoyable) effects listed above.

Well, since all but one of those are voluntary behaviours and not effects, I suggest you try rubbing driveway gravel on your genitals. I leave the copious salivation to you.

What Ethereal Bligh said. "I like _____" =! "My pet likes ____" and I wish to god the next time someone dresses their pet in a faux-leather Harley Davidson jacket they'd realize that.
posted by dreamsign at 2:20 AM on May 31, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

Ethereal Bligh writes "Why is it 'obviously enjoyable'?"

Because they seek it out and go crazy with it like strippers and coke? The behaviors cats display when under the influence of catnip seem to be enjoyable to them, and they seek out this experience again and again.

I get it: it doesn't have the same effect on cats that it does on people. I never claimed it did. My understanding is that it mimics a pheromone that same fraction of cats are sensitive to, and probably triggers some cascading reaction in their cat brains that is enjoyable enough to make them want do it again. I routinely watch my friend's cat practically claw the catnip container to shreds, and when he gets some he alternates purring, rolling in it, eating it, and merrily attacking anything in his vicinity. If I did this with any substance people would say I was high out of my mind, and they'd be damn right.

Ethereal Bligh writes "For that matter, why don't humans freak out when smelling marijuana?"

Clearly you've never had a whiff of quality, terpine-rich buds.
posted by mullingitover at 2:26 AM on May 31, 2007

I suppose I have a problem with characterizing an obviously addictive substance as:
i) necessarily enjoyable, and
ii) a product of choice.

Does your cat know any different? Are there unpleasant aftereffects? Is the experience more manic than enjoyable? (my dog trainer says that about frenetic rough play and I can almost see what she's getting at)

The fact is, you don't know how it feels. Your cat is happy enough without it. People, in my experience, don't do this because they think it's a nice thing to do for their cats so much as they like to laugh at their cats.

Unfortunately, what ends up happening rather than a rational thinking through of the potential pros/cons for the cat, anti-drug humans and pro-drug humans just both project their own politics and preferences on the issue. Won't anyone think of the cats? (cause I won't)
posted by dreamsign at 2:49 AM on May 31, 2007

Just to add, because I don't feel like hashing out obvious points, animals often don't know what's good for them. My dog would probably enjoy eating as much food as I put on his plate. He won't explode like a goldfish, but I could certainly make him sick, and it would all be voluntary. He might show all the behaviours of a dog enjoying himself.

So, like a parent, knowing better, it's up to me to not do things that may harm my charge, whether or not he thinks a bottomless bowl of kibble is a great thing or not. Cause I'm the responsible adult human, get it? If you don't, I really don't know what else to say.
posted by dreamsign at 2:52 AM on May 31, 2007

dreamsign writes "So, like a parent"

This is what it all boils down to. I too can put on my parent hat and argue against letting animals get high for a whole raft of reasons. However, if everyone thought like a parent the world would be a horrible place, like Utah or Saudi Arabia. The key is balance, and I'm happy that there are people here arguing in favor and in opposition to the practice.

I have to wonder what Epicurus would say about this.
posted by mullingitover at 3:07 AM on May 31, 2007

You can split hairs and ask "what is, really, 'psychoactive'?" and try really, really hard to muddy the issue.

It's hardly splitting hairs to ask that you define the words you use when you jump into a thread with bold assertions about what goes on inside a cat's brain. In this case, "what is 'psychoactive,' anyway?" just happens to be the crux of the issue you raise, and one every biologist studying the question has to wrestle with. You didn't even bother, preferring to bulldoze over it. Your comment was:

Catnip, by the way, is not psychoactive for cats. That's not why they like it. They're not getting stoned.

Nothing about that comment is scientific. Sure is certain, though.

But the bottom line is that catnip doesn't do to cats what you thought it did before reading this thread.

No, the bottom line is you don't have a clue what's psychoactive in cats, and none of us have more than hints as to the relationship between cats' brains and catnip. There's no reason for *anyone* to be making baldly certain statements about the physiology of the catnip response. Why you're insisting on it is a mystery.
posted by mediareport at 5:29 AM on May 31, 2007

Proof that pig dogs smoke pot.
posted by strawberryviagra at 5:44 AM on May 31, 2007

against letting animals get high

I realized with my food example that I brought that kind of sentence structure on, but to me, when you're dealing with kids, animals, and others who can't really judge for themselves, "letting _____ have it" is basically the same as administering it. So hints at a nanny state perspective, not "letting" people do things, really don't wash for me.

I'm on the same wave as mediareport in that we don't know what's going on with the cat, so adding that to the fact that it's up to you to look out for its interests, means to me don't do it. Ultimately, the "would you subject your kids to drugs if you didn't know the effects" argument is rebutted by the "cats are not kids" counter, which basically means you do this to your cat because it really doesn't matter to you, aka you don't give a shit. So, fine. Don't.
posted by dreamsign at 5:45 AM on May 31, 2007

Can I get my cat high on a plate of beans?
posted by trondant at 6:02 AM on May 31, 2007

"Then I saw that the human was smoking, and the poor dogs were breathing in the smoke in order to be by him, and I got very very sad that we subject dogs to such idiocy.

...

So, there you go. San Francisco uber-PC freakout, just for you."

OK, I agree with the last part.

Personally, it doesn't matter to me what the environment is; I'm OK with cigarettes. Chain smoker in a closet with a newborn doesn't get a second thought. You have different standards, fine. But good God, they were outside! The dogs, by your own reporting were, "happy and comfy and yay". What part of the earth is left to the smoker? How isolated does he need to be? In a national park is he being insensitive to the needs of the vegetation?

And also, "very very sad". What?!

I know you're being somewhat hyperbolic, but, uh, really? Seriously?

*-*-*-*-*

mullingitover,

Epicurus would think this is a bunch of nonsense. Perhaps a mildly amusing discussion, but I suspect he would think there are better ways to spend the time.
posted by BigSky at 6:05 AM on May 31, 2007

Let me pose this another way: if I found some herb that would cause the reaction in some humans that catnip does in some cats (all of the flipping about, growling, raised heart rate, everything Wikipedia lists) ...

... precisely how quickly do you think it would take Congress to call it a "drug" and ban it? You don't think schools would be looking for kids huffing a sock stuffed with humanip? Do you believe the public would say, "Well, it's not really a psychoactive drug, you see, it only goes to the nose, so it's okay"? It wouldn't end up as a Schedule II or better controlled substance?

Get real.
posted by adipocere at 6:50 AM on May 31, 2007

Yes, adipocere, but I get the impression (because of the scare quotes around "drug", for instance) you think Congress would somehow be in the wrong for doing that. The analogy falls down when you realise that cats don't drive cars or own guns, or really have any ability to harm others while not in full possession of all their mental faculties.
posted by Aloysius Bear at 6:59 AM on May 31, 2007

I routinely watch my friend's cat practically claw the catnip container to shreds, and when he gets some he alternates purring, rolling in it, eating it, and merrily attacking anything in his vicinity. If I did this with any substance people would say I was high out of my mind, and they'd be damn right.

For cats, catnip--for dogs, a dead fish: which is why you never see bags of dognip sold in pet stores. Too stinky.
posted by y2karl at 7:05 AM on May 31, 2007

EB, you have a habit of convincing yourself of something (e.g., that catnip does not get cats high), based on whatever mix of reading and rationcination you found convincing at the time, and then treating that thing as equivalent to the basic laws of physics, so that anyone who disagrees with you gets sneered at and insulted just as if they'd claimed gravity doesn't exist. I'm here to tell you that that habit is neither charming nor effective; I seriously doubt you've convinced a single person of your point of view, and may in fact have convinced some people to take the opposite view just because it would annoy you. That may not bother you, you may just like the sound of your own typing, but in case you have any fugitive notions of winning people over to what is clearly a counterintuitive notion, you might want to move away from "You can split hairs... and try really, really hard to muddy the issue. But the bottom line is..." and in the direction of "You might want to think about..."
posted by languagehat at 7:07 AM on May 31, 2007 [5 favorites has favorites]

"However, if everyone thought like a parent the world would be a horrible place, like Utah or Saudi Arabia."

Dude, that comparison is so unfair.

If you have money in Saudi Arabia, you can have fun.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 7:25 AM on May 31, 2007 [2 favorites has favorites]

Um, LOL?
posted by kosem at 7:32 AM on May 31, 2007

treating that thing as equivalent to the basic laws of physics, so that anyone who disagrees with you gets sneered at and insulted just as if they'd claimed gravity doesn't exist.

I've certainly gone around with EB on something like that point, but in his defense here, he might be dealing with idiots. There's seeing both sides and then there's doing damage to your own brain wiring.
posted by yerfatma at 7:44 AM on May 31, 2007

The extra commas are my gift to all of you. The shitty sentence structure you get for free.
posted by yerfatma at 7:45 AM on May 31, 2007

in his defense here, he might be dealing with idiots.

True. Also, before he has the chance to mention it: I've been guilty of the same thing myself. We always notice in others the sins we hate in ourselves.

Hey, thanks, for the commas! I'm putting them, to good use!
posted by languagehat at 8:05 AM on May 31, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

If you have money in Saudi Arabia, you can have fun.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 9:25 AM on May 31

You wouldn't like it there, Rev. You can't race cars in sand and there are no pugs to mock/kick.
posted by dios at 9:11 AM on May 31, 2007

loquacious writes "How about turkey? It has L-tryptophan in it, which is certainly psychoactive and now banned by the FDA. Drug!"

Say wha? Almost any store that sells dietary supplements will have 5-htp.

Yes, you can buy 5-htp, but 5-htp is not L-tryptophan, and L-tryptophan has indeed been banned. (I'm splitting hairs, though, since when digested, 5-htp becomes L-tryptophan becomes serotonin...)
posted by Specklet at 10:23 AM on May 31, 2007

But tryptophan was banned because it caused at least sickness, and maybe death (?) in a bunch of people due to impurities. It had nothing to do with supposed psychoactive properties.

As long as we're splitting hairs.
posted by OmieWise at 10:30 AM on May 31, 2007

BigSky, it seems to me that the whole point of golden retrievers -- even more so than other dogs -- is that they're loyal to a fault. You call a golden retriever over to you, he's gonna stay there, and do that "I'm a happy dog" thing with the big eyes, and look at you like you're a god. It just seems really shitty to then subject the poor thing to second-hand smoke, which, even when I smoked, was foul-smelling and cough-inducing.

It just reminded me of being in my grandparents' house when I was a kid, and feeling like I should be feeling all familial, but practically gagging from all the smoke and feeling like it would be rude to leave, or show any signs of being upset by it.

And I think I pretty much implied where smokers should be allowed to smoke: Anywhere it's not bothering other beings. (And in SF, it's actually illegal to smoke in parks as well. Mostly because it bothers the people, though -- I don't think it's to protect the plants. But it is SF, so I could be wrong on the reasoning.)
posted by occhiblu at 10:39 AM on May 31, 2007

Fresh air for plants! When you smoke, the flowers choke! Free Mumia!
posted by occhiblu at 10:55 AM on May 31, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

Ok, I just want to make sure I have my MeFi vocabulary up to date and correct.

"Overthinking a plate of beans" is now used to describe any discussion that takes place, and "splitting hairs" is when you want to clarify something.

Is that accurate?
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 12:40 PM on May 31, 2007

"You wouldn't like it there, Rev. You can't race cars in sand and there are no pugs to mock/kick."

I also understand they're a bit more harsh with their alcoholic beverage laws.

But only a wee bit.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 12:47 PM on May 31, 2007

CF, please stop beanplating the hairsplit issue.
posted by cortex at 12:59 PM on May 31, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

Beanplating, hee hee!
posted by Specklet at 1:06 PM on May 31, 2007

"We always notice in others the sins we hate in ourselves." Wise words l-hat. And so true.

Beanplating! Nice!
posted by vronsky at 1:47 PM on May 31, 2007

Alyosius Bear, that's a nice thought, but let's really think about Congress and their track record on the drug/not-a-drug issue. We could go all the way back to the "cocainized niggers" issue. Or, to get modern - alcohol. Talk about guns and cars and harming folks, there's alcohol. Of course, you're not supposed to drive after drinking, but you don't get a corresponding setup with marijuana - you can't do it at all. People aren't in their full possession of their faculties on alcohol, it's sort of the point of drinking it (unless you're at a wine tasting or going for the reservatrol). Would you then ask Congress to treat alcohol like a drug, like everything else? Alcohol can make people at least as slobberingly insane as catnip can to cats. Let's hit that with some scare quotes.

But everyone's gone down this particular discussion path before, probably before age eighteen, and I don't see any reason to rehash it. My point remains - the objector has internalized the irrational "psychoactive [see further discussion above] substances deemed by society to be naughty" propaganda and used that to react. It's hard to take their stance on that issue seriously when the larger issues have a disjoint alcohol/marijuana comparison. If the poster believes that alcohol should be a scheduled drug, that would show logical consistency, enough that I would consider further merits of their stance. They haven't, so they get the "dude, chillax."

By the way, those aren't scare quotes, they're more of the "aspirin is a drug, penciillin is a drug, and we don't have a handy term for Naughty Drug We Think Only Bad People Like" quotes.
posted by adipocere at 4:01 PM on May 31, 2007

Related.
posted by mullingitover at 8:20 PM on May 31, 2007

Concentrated Catnip. FWIW.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:23 AM on June 4, 2007

Adipocere, I read your comment several times, but when I just now re-read it, I've finally decided that you might be talking about me when you write this:

“My point remains - the objector has internalized the irrational ‘psychoactive [see further discussion above] substances deemed by society to be naughty’ propaganda and used that to react.”

If I'm the "objector" you mention, then you're wrong. I'm pretty pro-drug, particularly pro-psychoactive drugs. Drug-scare propaganda has nothing to do with my objection to characterizing catnip as a psychoactive. My objection is that I don't think it is, with regard to how cats "use" it. I don't think that reacting to a pheromone can be properly characterized as "psychoactive" in the sense that we use that term. The arguments used to justify that appellation would apply much more strongly to drugs like SSRIs or the opiates. But we don't think of those as psychoactives because we're looking for certain kinds of ways in which brain functioning is altered when we call something a psychoactive. And, again, in the case of catnip and how cats use it, I don't even think that brain functioning is being altered–the catnip is more like a sensory input than a drug acting directly on the brain, whether or not the olfactory sense is directly connected to the lower brain.

The reason I care about this, to the degree to which I do (it's not like I'm passionate about it or anything), it's because I think that catnip's botanical relationship to marijuana, and especially the fact that it is a mild psychoactive (for humans, at least) when ingested has caused people to wrongly conclude that catnip is the cat version of pot. This is a bit of folkloric science that is false, and false folkloric science annoys me.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 2:51 PM on June 4, 2007

Thanks for doing your part to keep the world safe, EB.
posted by Dave Faris at 12:14 AM on June 5, 2007

What's your part? Being a third-rate writer of quips?
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:39 AM on June 5, 2007

You say that like it's a bad thing.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 10:29 AM on June 5, 2007