This represents major backpedaling on the part of the government, which, as recently as my personal youth, held that marijuana led to sex crimes (which back then were defined as black men having sex with white girls) insanity and death, or at least was a "gateway drug" which would lead to drugs that actually did cause sex crimes, insanity and death.
Many of us tried smoking pot anyway, probably in the hope that it would lead to sex, even if it was of the criminal variety, but discovered that, despite what we had been told. it only led to sniggering hysterically while watching Monty Python reruns and then eating a gallon of ice cream. This partially engendered the basic distrust of the government that most Americans are noted for today, and also made some of us notably fat as well.
Now all the anti-marijuanistas can find to say is that regular dope use is suspected to destroy personal drive and ambition. Today's useless stoners could be curing cancer instead of watching fail videos on YouTube if they weren't in a state of semi-permanent bakitude, weed-haters argue. That's probably true, but they could also be looting your IRA. Lack of ambition is a two-edged sword.
Mankind's history with dope goes back to the dawn of it. Smoking ganja probably predates drinking beer, since you don't need a lot of cauldrons and tanks to make the intoxicant. You just have to discover fire. Desire for beer has sometimes been credited as inspiring the first civilizations. Nobody gives marijuana credit for that. In fact, stoners probably got their original bad rap back in the Stone Age, when beer lovers told them, "Look, we need to invent civilization and agriculture so we can have tubs and grain to brew beer," and the stoners replied "Pass. There's a sunset scheduled for tonight that we plan to be completely blazed for. And we ate all your grain."
Here in America, we have by now, after years of putting tokers in jail or at the least forcing them to eat innumerable foul-tasting roaches when police flashers go on behind them, have mostly decided that they are usually harmless and it would be better to leave them be. The DEA has noted this, and in a desperate rearguard action, has decide to invoke the specter of harm to possibly the only thing that Americans love more than beer, pot and porn—their dogs.
Apparently, dogs are getting into people's pot brownies and ending up at the veterinarian's office, suffering from ill effects, according to Michele Leonhart, the DEA chief in question, and not just the ill effect of having their noses whacked angrily by pot brownie bakers. According to Michele, and the USA Today article she quoted:
...the effects of marijuana could make it more difficult for a dog to breathe or vomit up a product that could kill them, like butter.
Well, everyone likes a breathing dog over the alternative, so no argument there. But a dog that is unable to vomit doesn't strike me as a problem. Dogs live to vomit. It's their revenge for leashes. They consider it a canine duty. And your dog will only vomit one place-on your rug. Dogs will never toss their biscuits on a tile or wood floor. Try this experiment. Put the tiniest rug you own—the one with the little arms that hug your toilet will do—in the middle of an NBA basketball court. Bring in a sick dog. That dog will run all the way across the court to that rug before it yacks, even if it has to dart through the legs of the Laker Girls to do it.
So if legal blunt gives us an America where fewer dogs are hucking chow, I regard it as a positive, no matter what scare tactics the DEA may employ. Let the stoners be free! And let them keep their brownies away from their dogs. But if they don't, and they really want their dog to vomit, there's a simple solution—just give it some beer.