Lemmy Shitpost
Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.
Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!
Rules:
1. Be Respectful
Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.
Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.
...
2. No Illegal Content
Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.
That means:
-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals
-No CSA content or Revenge Porn
-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)
...
3. No Spam
Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.
-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.
-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.
-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers
-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.
...
4. No Porn/Explicit
Content
-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.
-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.
...
5. No Enciting Harassment,
Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts
-Do not Brigade other Communities
-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.
-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.
-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.
...
6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.
...
If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.
Also check out:
Partnered Communities:
1.Memes
10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)
Reach out to
All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker
view the rest of the comments
No, allergies happen when the immune system detects innocuous substances as a threat. In this case, their metabolism has trouble breaking down the drugs in their gut so it can have unintended consequences for them. They can't metabolize some organic structures in their livers or lungs as fast or as much as we do. And unfortunately, we don't even know what the toxic dose is.
E: Jesus, downvoting legit pharmacology in favor of ideology. What a time to be alive.
Theoretically that’s possible, but what makes you think that cannabinoids wouldn’t have that effect on a cat? What evidence do you have of this?
I’ve had multiple cats in my life, and none of them have ever had any sort of adverse reaction to cannabis. Some may not like it, but that’s not really the same thing. And I’ve never heard of anyone reporting any sort of adverse reaction from any of their cats. I realize this is anecdotal, but still.
Even in human beings, a toxic dose of THC would far exceeded what any human could possibly consume (unless an ultra-mega-concentrate stronger than anything ever made were produced, perhaps). One would think the same would apply for a cat.
As for organic structures that don’t get metabolized, often they just get peed out. after all, that’s what happens with excess THC in humans that doesn’t get metabolized. That’s why you can detect it in a urinalysis.
Yes, and that's a bit of a wrong assumption because cats don't have the same enzymes we do, and even if they did, their physiology doesn't allow for the same quantity of expression. For example, if a cleaving enzyme is anchored to the lumen of their liver, lungs, or kidneys, the surface area of those tissues may not be enough to reduce the concentration in the blood, If they have an alternate gene that does the same thing, it's usually less effective or it could produce prodrugs that may be more toxic than the original. Also, the bioavailability of drugs largely depends on the route of exposure which is very short for cats because they have a shorter respiratory tract and the blood volume is magnitudes smaller.
In short, couple the rate of exposure with the volume of blood and a lower rate of metabolism, and your cat can reach higher levels of the drug in the blood than you'd expect more quickly. You can't rely on what is toxic to humans to translate to another species and vice-versa or we'd have a lot more productive studies on mice.
As for the evidence, I'm sorry but I'm gonna have to outsource that to Consensus via ChatGPT which usually does a good job finding relevant science articles because I'm not well-versed in the literature. I hope it doesn't bother you but I don't have the time or energy to do it myself right now.
Behavioral Changes:
Cardiovascular and Respiratory Effects:
Safety and Tolerability:
Veterinary Reports:
The direct evidence is scant because of the legal limits on research. But the point is the type and extent of symptoms that these pets experience like hypothermia, hypotension, bradycardia, etc. that are alarming. Also, the rates of hospitalizations are increasing and that's a huge danger sign now with legalization.
So, aside from your vagaries of comparative biochemistry and pharmacology which sound smart, but aren’t relevant to the topic, and a couple of citations from ChatGPT that basically say that the animals got high and were taken to be monitored when exposed to very high doses, you don’t actually have any evidence to support your claims that it’s “toxic”, which you directly admit.
In fact, the evidence you posted supports my claims that it behaves pretty much the same way it does in humans, aside from the fact that dosages should be adjusted for the body weight of a cat.
So, yeah. That’s why I don’t blow the smoke directly in my cat’s face because it’s too much. I blow it near him, so he can take hits at his own pace.
I'll pretend your choice of words isn't low-key confrontational and dismissive like every other comment on this site. I also hope that you're replying in good faith and not just mocking me because you're clinging to what you want to believe, and that I'm not the anti-pot boogeyman for replying with what you asked. We're adults, right.
But I have some questions.
How are the pharmacokinetics not relevant to the conversation? Maybe to someone who knows pharma. But for everyone else, this is the context needed to realize how vastly different metabolic and physiological differences affect other species so that they don't mistake thinking that "ultra-mega-concentrates" like you said are the only way to cause harm because that's how humans behave. That tells me that you either don't know much pharma or you're vastly underplaying the effects, so I had to reel it in.
Also, just because I asked Consensus doesn't devalue the research. Everything links back to the abstracts so please focus on those or link to your own. I know AI hate is wild here but, in this case, it's accurate.
One of the hallmarks of drug poisoning is literally breathing suppression and hypothermia. When was the last time you felt that smoking pot? Are these symptoms not valid, do you have some other insight, or what's going on?
Read carefully. It does not.
And how will you do that? There's no therapeutic index. Not a single longitudinal study of cannabis consumption exists for pets to say that a few blows in their face depending on your mood that day won't cause long-lasting harm. You're gambling your cat's health. As they say, lack of evidence is not evidence of absence. The first case is a great example of a cat showing extended periods of altered state far longer than they last in a human. It's one night of rest for you vs two weeks of recovery for that cat at the vet, and that's just an acute intoxication. And the fact that acute intoxication was even achieved in a cat is a clear sign there's a lower tolerance for them.
And I will add that I find it contradictory that you demand evidence but simultaneously expose your pets despite the evidence and lack thereof.
So, two things unrelated to the actual topic being discussed.
It's entirely possible to be correct and do it in such a way that invites confrontation and dismissal.
If it seems like everyone apart from you is confrontational and dismissive, perhaps it's time to consider additional perspectives on why that might be happening.
It doesn't escape me, but what part of what I've said has invited confrontation or dismissal? I'm asking honestly. It's grating that it keeps happening and I keep telling people to stop. Hyperbole aside, it's frequent enough that I can see a pattern of people starting petty arguments trying to win and throwing low punches instead of clarifying what is being said and why. Like, I don't even want to argue.
Meaning what, it's also me? lol If I'm the one telling people to stop and act like adults and that gets 180° turns in behavior, what does that say to you?
It's kind of baffling they are arguing exposing their cat to drugs is fine, for what? They can't know that's safe. Why take the risk? Might as well let them drink some wine while we are at it eh?
They are arguing on emotion more than anything. Nothing to do about that.
I didn’t argue any of those things. But go ahead and put words in my mouth since it appears to make you feel validated.
So you think exposing your cat to drugs isn't fine? You said you do just that though, so I would like if you clarified the difference. The last point of the wine was not your words, but my own. I will own that. I will ask the simple question, why do you choose to expose your cat to cannabis?
you're clearly here to pick a fight and troll, and i'm not going to enable your childish behavior.
i suggest you take it easy on the wine.
I don't drink alcohol. I do want to know your reasoning though. I do want an answer to the question before. The reason I came off strong is because I admit that I found it irresponsible what you claimed to do. I can't understand the risk benefit analysis that would lead you to decide it's worth it. I want to understand your reasoning.
In this case i can't see any big red flags.
The tone is a possibility, as i said, being correct isn't an absolute defence against being considered an arsehole.
To be clear, I'm not implying you were incorrect, or the tone was incorrect, just that that kind of certainty (evidence based or not) gets some people's backs up.
I don't think it's what you actually meant but this could be interpreted as "Somebody didn't accept my answer and argued, so i told them to stop, they didn't even though i was clearly correct, this is grating"
Firstly, welcome to public internet forums in general, this is common behaviour.
That aside, there are numerous trolls and bad faith "debaters" around, but just because you consider something petty doesn't mean the other person does.
This is what i was trying to convey in my reply earlier, if almost all interactions end up with what you consider petty behaviour it's worth considering the possibility that you are contributing to that outcome somehow.
So don't, if you don't want to continue the interaction then don't reply.
Possibly, yes.
Honestly, it says to me that your communication skills might need some work.
Again, to be clear i don't mean your communication of facts and information, i mean your ability to understand how phrasing something in a certain way might illicit a certain kind of response.
"Stop acting like a child" is a very good way to build enmity and confrontation, which is useful in some cases, if you intend to illicit that response.
However, saying something like that and then being confused/frustrated when people get confrontational and dismissive suggests a lack of understanding about the impact of tone and phrasing.
I see. I don't agree with everything but I'll think about it. Sincerely, thanks for the feedback.
Because stoners are basically a cult at this point, and refuse anything even as remotely negative as "it's not good for your cats?"
To be clear, I smoke most nights... but god damn do I hate people who feel the need to defend weed against everything. It's a drug, y'all. It's not good for you.
I mean, i specifically stated it wasn't related to the actual topic being discussed, but i can address this anyway i suppose.
Possibly culty i suppose, about the same amount as alcohol consumers, smokers, people who see chiropractors etc.
Less than people in organised religion ( big cults ), actual cults and MLM schemes.
If all of the stoners you know are your definition of culty ( except you of course ), perhaps consider that it's your choice in acquaintances rather than an entire demographic.
Can't say i care either way, but i'd be interested in any studies you might have on the subject ( belief systems of stoners in general, not specifically the ones you know ofc, that would be unlikely )
If that personal preference works for you, who am i to tell you you're wrong.
Drug doesn't automatically imply harm, but i think i know what you mean.
You’re being unusually argumentative, and this argument with you is extraordinarily tiresome.
You haven’t presented any evidence that any harm is being done, and you’re over complicating this argument Beyond any point that is necessary. That’s why I’m being dismissive. You continue assert that there is something wrong when you have presented no evidence that supports that claim. In fact, you constantly evade that claim.
It’s not up to me to prove your claim, it’s up to you, and you haven’t. In fact, the evidence you did present supports my position. The fact that you can’t seem to understand that tells me that you’re more interested in arguing than you are in accepting facts. Also, that at this point, you’re probably just trolling me. Also, that I should probably just block you and move on with my day.
I’m gonna stick by Hitchens or razor on this one.
Pfft. That's the most ridiculous answer you could've given and you avoided every single one of my questions. I'm not sure if you're looking for particular signs of cytotoxicity or you want he to prove that it causes hypoxia or what. But there are clear signs of intoxication that you're actively ignoring just to confirm your beliefs.
I repeat my last line. What incredible irony to ask for evidence, dismiss it, and still do it despite it and in the absence of it. You're actively not interested in the facts or give proper weight to them. Block away. I'm not sure why I'm also wasting my time and energy with someone who doesn't want to listen in earnest and would rather poison their pets and keep being confrontative beyond reason. Oh well, I thought we were adults.
Ratio'd.
Not to mention, your cat has the intelligence of maybe a 3 year old. You're sitting here arguing about whether or not it's toxic to give weed to a cat when it has the ability to consent as much as a 3 year old does.
Enjoy whatever you enjoy, IDC - you're a bad person for exposing your cat to the smoke, moreso that you're doing it with the intent of getting it high whilst ignoring the potential downsides.
Could be worse— I could care about imaginary internet points or be confused about the meaning of the word “toxic”. But I suppose that such is the life of one who fills their day judging internet strangers.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
You are either:
giving your cat a toxic substance
giving something with the intellectual capacity of a 3 year old weed
Both are toxic. You're a bad person.