Couple adopts Dachsund, days later doses it with LSD, tripping dog wanders into traffic and dies

Two assholes in Georgia dropped some acid, ran naked in the streets, and dosed their pet dachsund "Oscar" (at left), who they'd just picked up only days earlier from a Georgia animal shelter. The disoriented and dosed doggie wandered into traffic and was struck dead by a car. I'm all for consenting adults having whatever fun they want with substances, but this is just awful. (source: TSG)


  1. It could be argued that they had lost any sense of judgment when they took LSD.  Would they have dosed the dog *before* dosing themselves?  Never having dropped acid myself, I honestly don’t know. Just sayin’.

    1. It could be argued that they had lost any sense of judgment when they took LSD.  

      No.  People don’t ‘lose any sense of judgment’ when they take LSD.  Sometimes they get distracted, sometimes they misjudge things.  (And so do people who *don’t* take LSD.)

      But giving a recently-rescued dog LSD is something that people only do if they’d do such a thing without LSD.  

      If they blame it on the acid, they’re lying to try to reduce their culpability.

      It’s the sort of thing the drug-warriors will latch onto to try to convince you of the horrors of LSD, but it would be the same sort of bullshit as most other drug-warrior horror stories about LSD.

    2. It could be argued that they had lost any sense…

      Nonsense. Drugs impair judgement and can hurt some people, but if what you describe is the case there would be an insane amount of animal abuse in the world based on the amount of folks who “disconnect” from reality to deal with the world.

      Stuff like this is rare.

      And in my personal experience, I have rarely wanted to destroy the life of another when on drugs or alcohol. If anything, the worst thing animal related I ever did was get drunk, go to a local pet store and hug the store cat—who was obscenely fat—to the point the manager kicked me out of the store.

      There’s a new manager, same cat and no problems hugging it.

      These two dinks are douche-bags.

  2. If only the law had the teeth necessary to punish something like this with the severity it deserves. At the very most, I’m guessing, this will be considered a misdemeanor and paying a fine and court cost will be all the consequences these idiots ever see. This shit really chaps my ass.

  3. Asshats like this are the reason the rest of us can’t have nice things.

    Gives the Blue Meanies the excuses they need.

  4. It’s too bad they weren’t the ones to wander into traffic. But here’s to their really bad trip the next time.  That dog will come snarling out of their subconscious and it won’t be pleasant. 

  5. I know it’s a terrible, but shitty things are happening to animals at the hands of humans every second of the day. Tens of millions living their brief lives in factory farms, being abused in zoos and circuses, millions of dogs and cats euthanized every year, tens of millions of animals, wild and domestic, killed by cars. Wish people cared about some of those things.

      1. Not sure  if you’re saying that I don’t care about both. But I’m constantly seeing these stories about a kitten getting it’s head stomped, or a dog given LSD as if these people are some kind of unique monsters when there’s sanctioned abuse going on on a massive scale.

        1. “Not sure  if you’re saying that I don’t care about both.”

          Ditto. Right back atcha. Seemed to be what you were saying, that it’s a shame people only care about dogs on LSD, not underloved animals everywhere. Caring about one does not preclude caring about the other. Your approach of appreciating everyones concern but telling everyone they’re not concerned about the right thing, the right way, it’s more dismissive of others opinions than you probably realize.

  6. It is absolutely terrible that the dog died.  It is terrible that the dog consumed lsd and was likely freaking out.  If this couple was on lsd at the time the fed the dog acid, they may not have been aware of their actions or the consequences thereof.  Given their streaking and arrest, they were going hard and headed toward a hard comedown that would be further negatively impacted by the death of Oscar.  I hope the dog’s suffering was brief and that all people remember to establish some common sense guidelines (voluntary consent free of undue influence, a safe retreat zone, good wingmen, right mindset, etc.) and properly prepare for such journeys.  Please remember that you will have your hands full looking out for yourself and your wingman and likely unable to give animals the attention and safety they require.  I don’t know enough to call these people assholes, but I know enough to question their ability to properly care for any other living animal.

  7. At what point can you be “all for consenting adults having fun with substances”, yet not factor in that this is exactly what can result when you’re in an altered state?

    This is exactly *why* such things are controlled or banned – people can no longer make rational decisions while on them, and this impacts others around them.

    1. Well, no. Most people under the influence do not hurt anyone else or damage anything. So banning drugs is like banning cars or power tools – yes they heighten risk, but negative outcomes still happen rather rarely.

      Still, the heightened risk should be accounted somehow. Personally, I always thought that the best idea would be to increase the freedom of adults to alter their minds however they want, but with the understanding that any unlawful act committed while under the influence of something would be punished significantly harsher (e.g. double the sentence) than the same act committed sober. Then let people decide for themselves.

      1. I’ll give a big thumbs-down to your second paragraph.  There’s already more than enough anti-drug lunacy (at least in the U.S.) as it is.

        1. But why is it bad specifically? If you voluntarily reduce your mental capacity and then hurt innocent others as a direct result of this decision, then surely you ought to pay a higher price for this than if you just hurt others through an unfortunate accident?

          I do not even see it as anti-drug – provided you do not hurt anyone else, you should be free to do whatever it is you want to yourself. But with greater freedom must come greater responsibility.

          1. [sigh]

            Last year I had an extremely painful wisdom tooth that almost abcessed.  I eventually found a dentist willing to see me even though I was uninsured.  After he got out the offending tooth, he gave me coedine pills and a low dosage of vicodin so I could eat, sleep, and report to my temp job without being in blinding amounts of pain while the tooth healed.

            There’s already more than enough intrusive, racist, classist bullshit being shoved down our throats in this country in the name of “Just Say ‘No’.”  Now imagine that I’d somehow injured myself or another employee while on necessary prescription meds.  Or suppose I’d been fogged up and half asleep and accidentally let the cat out of the house in the evening, and the cat had subsequently been hit by a car.  I really, really don’t want to hear that I’m suddenly culpable for “twice the crime” while on prescription meds, as opposed to nobly toughing out pain and going without them.

            (And anyone who wants to say that it’s easy to tough out severe dental pain– eat, sleep, go to work, et al?  They’ve never experienced severe dental pain and I hope they never have to.)

          2. Blinding stabbing shooty pain that only sorta hurts a little less if you’re having to use over the counter stuff? Been there. Done that. Never want to do it again. That’s the kind of pain where you’ll do stuff and forget about it because you literally cannot think beyond the pain and making it stop.

          3. Yeah.

            The best part was when the pain first got to be terrible, I was reduced to calling up the help desk at my shitty HMO– the same place that made it too expensive for me to have routine dental care in the first place.  Their nurse told me to chew some sugarless gum and then jam some gum in the decayed space until I could get to a dentist.

            No lie. >:

          4. Well, obviously the system would not apply to medical conditions and the like. Why on Earth would it – if you are doing something not by free choice, but on the instruction of an accepted authority (e.g. doctors, but there would probably plenty of other similar exceptions), then clearly you are enjoying no extra freedom and must bear no extra responsibility!

            On the other hand, if you just want to have fun in a way that raises the risk of hurting innocent others, then you better take actions to offset that risk to others or suffer the consequences. My whole point is that we should change the conversation from “just say no”, to “don’t hurt others”… at which point voluntarily putting yourself in a position with a higher risk of hurting others must somehow be accounted for. It’s only fair.

          5. Again, no.  I have my doubts that the people who make laws and administer punishments can be trusted to understand what it really means to tell an individual, “You CHOSE to take the drugs, and when you did, you CHOSE this more harsh sentence.”

            I posted my own experience with pain, because there are people in this world so lacking in empathy that they believe you should CHOOSE to live with distracting, even debilitating, levels of physical pain rather than risk fouling your body with teh evol drugs.  Some of those people enforce laws and some of them make the laws, too.

            These people also can’t be trusted to grasp the nature of disease and addiction.  Some other countries treat drug dependency and addiction as medical issues, which they are by and large.  The U.S. treats them as moral issues, by and large.  Which is one reason that our drug policy is already such a steaming pile of racist, classist, intrusive crap.

            We really don’t need a more moralistic drug policy.  It’s plenty bad as it is.

      1. Which is why I’ve always been mystified as to why marijuana is outlawed yet alcohol is not. Alcohol causes far more damage to people than marijuana, which mostly causes munchies and inappropriate laughter.

        Oh, right – people make big money off alcohol. Nevermind, I understand now. *sigh*

    2. This is exactly what can result when you’re in an altered state

      Or when you’re *not* in an altered state.  Animal cruelty doesn’t need psychedelics to happen.

      This is exactly *why* such things are controlled or banned – people can no longer make rational decisions while on them

      Such things are banned* because frightened people believe the scare stories they’ve been told.

       *Well, some such things, anyway – alcohol is much more likely to result in random cruelty for the lulz.

      1. Of course some people are rationally and sanely cruel. People can be assholes. But once your perception of sheer reality is altered, the nicest guy in the world could think he’s doing something harmless while he’s actually nail gunning his hand/friend/dog.

        Such things are banned based on a hell of a lot of documented evidence – see medical studies and ER records.

        And I completely agree that our stance on alcohol is hypocritical. To that, I’d add tobacco and marijuana as being backwards. Of those three, marijuana is demonstrably less dangerous than the others and has valid medical uses. Alcohol can be quite tasty in minor amounts, and lessens inhibitions. Great if you’re trying to get the courage to talk to the person across the bar, but not so much if the inhibitions it loosens allow you to hit your kids. Tobacco is just a disgusting way to poison your body.

    3. Are you advocating prohibition for all mind-altering substances? As much as acid can affect your brain, alcohol-related deaths are practically a tradition in this country, and even something as simple as coffee can push that stress too far in individuals close to the edge.

      People are responsible for their actions, which are affected by substances consumed; however, that choice is usually conscious, as is the choice of where you are when you consume a substance, and what you do while in that affected state you placed yourself in. Rational decisions are difficult for most human beings at the best of time, and altered states can be brought about by depression or even euphoria as much as substances, legal or illegal.

      If we teach responsibility and ban ignorance, then we can know that when the inevitable occurs and injury or death results, it didn’t happen because people were too afraid to deal with it.

      1. No, banning substances isn’t terribly effective. The experiment of Prohibition should have shown us that. If anything I’m more for increased penalties if you do something illegal while under the influence (much as a DUI will hike up the penalties for traffic offenses), and mildly for decriminalizing marijuana, as it’s hard to rationally make that illegal while tobacco and alcohol are not.

        Very broadly speaking, my philosophy is you can do whatever you want to yourself, as long as it doesn’t affect an innocent bystander. So if you want to cause yourself all kinds of harm, well, your prerogative. But if you then cause harm to others as a result, there’s consequences. The more a drug alters your mental state, the more I’m concerned that you can no longer control your actions, and thus cause harm to others. Or in this case, kill a dog.

        If we could find a way to trip out and not be a threat to those around them, I’d say have at. But my personal view is that’s just not the case.

    4. The people who were taking the drug were making irrational decisions long before the dosing, if you had read the report.

      Also, that’s actually *not* why these things are controlled or banned – although a cursory bit of research would have led you to that understanding.

      1. I’m a bit confused then – you’re saying that the mind-altering and societal effects of drugs are not among the reasons they were banned? I’m *not* saying we’re even mildly consistent in our policies, but I would argue that this plays a major role in it. By all means, feel free to convince me otherwise – it would be an interesting argument. :-)

        1. Obviously, due to your careful wording this time, one can not say that those reasons were among the many spouted by politicians as to why they were banned. What I’m saying is that those are not really the main, or even secondary, reason that they were banned. It’s all about the politics of the matter – and mostly the money. DEA came afterward…but when the Controlled Substances Act was passed, they were still under the jurisdiction of the FDA and Department of the Treasury. Nixon was a crazy person that felt that the commies and “Jews” were trying to undermine his power by spreading these drugs around – he *explicitly* says so about making drugs like this illegal in recordings that were made public.

          Highly recommend reading a history tome on the subject. “Drug Crazy” by Mike Gray is a good start.

    5. This is exactly *why* such things are controlled or banned…

      Refresh my memory: weren’t you raised by a mother who works for the FDA?

      1. Actually she was a clinical oncologist, during which time she did serve on FDA panels, although she was never employed by them. Later on she was director of clinical trials for a major pharmaceutical company, so she saw both sides as it were.

        And… what does that have to do with mind-altering substances? Or is this just because – quite simply – I don’t like you and you don’t like me?

        1. Since you’ve previously raised it as a credential for discussing drug-related issues, I feel that it’s fair to point out that you might have a rather skewed perspective on risk and control issues related to drugs.

  8. Dunno about anyone else, but I was totally against giving the 46-legged Cerberus and his tree-gnome friends ANYTHING but dogfood, even if he was begging me telepathically in binary. Cool thing was, I gave him his chew toy (an old sock) and he told me how protein folding works.

    Joking aside: Mega Assholes.

  9. Stupid muthafuckers. There’s no sense in dosing a dog or any other animal – other than to laugh at it’s bewilderment of what is going on. It can’t tell you what it sees, relate the experience or broaden it’s mind (that we know of – they can’t talk).  There’s no productivity there. None. And no excuse for it. 

    This dog looked to these people to help it into a loving home, and they simply abused it. They oughtta be locked up.

  10. ‘Shortly after being granted bail, some livid dog lovers beat these two trippin’ assholes to death with large-sized rawhide chew bones’?  No?  Because unless the story has that kinda happy ending, I gotta tell you, Xeni, I’m getting really tired of the ‘the stupid self-centered shit people do to others’ stories on BB!  (I’m looking at you too, Cory!) 

     Lighten up!

  11. I had always had the impression that dogs brains didn’t react to LSD.  I never thought to prove it though. 

  12. LSD? In this day and age?  Sounds like so far everyone’s just assuming that’s what it was based on their own self-reporting – haven’t seen reports of any testing.  Anybody taking bets they were on DOI or something instead?

  13. It’s sad that they didn’t keep track of the dog and let it wander into traffic, but I don’t really feel like the LSD aspect of the story makes them significantly bigger assholes than if they hadn’t dosed the dog. Probably our perception of the story depends on whether we imagine the dog was freaked out or enjoying its “trip” at the time, but I think the latter is probably more likely (no way to know for sure of course), given that animals regularly seek out the experience of getting high in nature. Lots of people have probably let their dogs lap up spilled alcohol, right? And I once met a Brazilian shaman who regularly did ceremonies with the hallucinogen ayahuasca, he said that when he would do the ceremonies with his dog, he would often leave a bowl with ayahuasca in it which the dog enjoyed lapping up and then lying down to apparently have its own experience…

  14. People need to stop tattooing, piercing, dosing, dressing, fucking animals. 
    Many of us already kill and eat them, (mostly after raising them in an inhumane manner) isn’t that enough?

  15. From The Smoking Gun:

    Modrich [the man who ran naked down the street] is a guitarist who fronts the group “Funguy Trio.” The band, whose name appears to be a play on the word “fungi,” likens its sound to “the inside of a mushroom after it has consumed you,” according to its MySpace page. On his own MySpace page, Modrich, pictured above, includes “psychedelics,” “green herbs,” and “booze!!!” among his influences. His band’s songs include “Mind Magic” and “Captain Pothead.”

    Somebody ought to expand his influences to “animal cruelty charges,” “mandatory neutering” and maybe “being savagely beaten with shovels.” His dumbass girlfriend deserves the same treatment.

    In my mind, animal abusers are just as bad as the creeps trying to finger little kids or smack around the elderly.

  16. Dachshund dosed on acid, I know, I know it’s serious.

    R.I.P. Oscar.

    All dogs go to heaven… Your newly adopted humans can rot in hell.

  17. What kind of moral relativism do people need to associate mind-altering drugs with power tools? Power tools are dangerous because they are pokey and can be mishandled even by rational people making rational decisions. Mind-altering substances are dangerous because THEY ALTER YOUR MIND AND (can) MAKE YOU DANGEROUS. No one picks up a power tool and says well, I’d better jump of this building what with my new flying powers.

    1. What kind of moral relativism do people need to associate mind-altering drugs with power tools? Power tools are dangerous because they are pokey and can be mishandled even by rational people making rational decisions. Mind-altering substances are dangerous because THEY ALTER YOUR MIND AND (can) MAKE YOU DANGEROUS. No one picks up a power tool and says well, I’d better jump of this building what with my new flying powers.

      Admit it: you have absolutely no experience with psychedelics, do you?

      DARE makes me so happy

    2. Jeb, the comparison comes in because both drugs and powertools are dangerous if misused.  When you’re taking mind-altering substances you’re supposed to make arrangements to minimize the risk to yourselves or others — the same way you’re supposed to wear safety goggles and work gloves when using certain power tools.

      Incidentally, the substance users LEAST likely to take such risk-minimizing measures before getting started are drinkers of alcohol, at least in my experience.  So what kind of moral relativist do you have to be to be against LSD but for cheap beer?

      1. Wait? Now I have to defend cheap beer but be against LSD? Only someone on drugs would think up this argument. 

        I would be as mad at someone who drank cheap beer and then fed cheap beer to their dachshund and sent it into traffic. I don’t look at these stories as opportunities to talk about how awesome legalizing drugs would be because power tools are dangerous too. I look at them as stories about how people that would not normally do something so fucked up, do, in fact, do things like this when tripping. It’s moral relativism to take this story and turn it into a use case for everyone be more experienced at hallucinating. 

  18. Why was my comment deleted? I wasn’t endorsing the concept of giving drugs to animals, and I said the owners should be ashamed for not keeping track of their dog and letting it wander into traffic. I was just saying that our perception of whether this story is much more terrible than all the non-drug-related incidents of owners letting their dogs wander into traffic probably depends on whether we imagine the dog was terrified or enjoying itself before being hit by a car, and that I think it’s more likely the latter was the case given how regularly animals seek out drug experiences on their own. Still, you obviously shouldn’t give your animals drugs on the chance they will have a bad experience (and for some drugs they could also have a bad physical reaction, though it’s pretty much impossible to overdose on hallucinogens).

    edit: never mind, earlier one wasn’t deleted and it was just a disqus issue where it wasn’t showing up for a while…but I’ll keep this one up to clarify that I do think it’s a bad thing to dose your pets

    1. I hope it’s still okay to let the cats have their Friday pinch of catnip, though.

      Before anyone asks, our cats don’t go outside.

  19. “Thou shall not dose friends without their consent.”

    Dogs are everyones friend, unless they have been abused.

    As far as being under the influence at the time, I believe the law considers what happens during drunk driving a crime because you knew what you were doing when you drank the alcohol. Same here.  Yes, their judgement was impaired.  They impaired it, and took the drugs knowing (because!) it would impair them.  They get to take the blame for what they did.

    Unfortunately, most of the ‘punishment that fits the crime’ would probably be considered ‘cruel and unusual.’

  20. I’m waiting for somebody to announce that from now on, all potential adopters of animals will have to undergo drug testing.  Because Lord knows, I don’t get enough obnoxious moralists prying into my private life as it is.

    These people did a stupid, stupid thing.  Ask any occasional user of LSD: It isn’t that hard to have a human “guide” nearby while tripping in order to safeguard against this kind of shit.  And now they have to live with knowing that they’re stupid and that a harmless animal suffered for it.  If they have any conscience at all, that should be punishment enough.

  21. Unfortunately, I’ve heard stories like this before – kid brothers, dogs, cats – never the 350 pound bouncer at the nightclub.  They knew what they were doing.  They thought it would be funny – maybe they even planned the whole thing before they got the dog.

    1. Yeah, legalizing drugs sounds like a great idea.


      That way people can safely use them (and safely learn to use them) so we’ll have less of this irresponsible asshattery.

      Because lord knows prohibition isn’t doing a good job reigning in this kind of crap.

  22. When your “tripping” the oils from your hand can transfer the chemical to your pets, just petting your dog, especially their ears can cause them to trip. I found this out the hard way on shrooms while petting a ferret, poor little hid under a blanket for 8 hours, trembling.

  23. These “the substance isn’t the problem, it’s what people do with it” arguments sound a little like the NRA.

    And saying “XYZ is no worse than alcohol” falls somewhat short of a ringing endorsement in the view of those of us who don’t use it.  

    1. Keep your morality out of my body!

      No, seriously. The dog is cute and all, but if all it takes is one anecdotal example of someone doing something stupid/cruel to outlaw it, then you won’t stop until we all live restrained in plastic bubbles.

      Some drugs ARE relatively benign, and some are much less so. A few are bad enough that I would consider keeping them outlawed, but for the most part: yeah, legalize them.

      And for the record, while I experimented a bit when I was younger, I am not a drug user, and only drink infrequently, usually with a nice dinner.

  24. Dosing animals or other people against their wishes is not only immoral, its taking someones life in your hands. They should make these people spend a few years doing mandatory volunteer service at animal shelters, at the very least.

  25. “I’m all for consenting adults having whatever fun they want with substances, but this is just awful.”

    Well…this begs the question: If adults aren’t responsible enough UNDER THE INFLUENCE of acid…who do you blame? They were taking an illegal drug, Xeni. Lets blame the real culprit: Taking illegal drugs doesn’t always end bad, but has a lot of potential to. You can’t be gray about this.

    1. Exactly. Consenting adults can indeed have  whatever fun they want with substances, but they are responsible for taking the substance, so they are responsible for whatever they do under the influence!. They know that it will impair their judgement, but they do it anyway. Whether or not the drug in question is legal doesn’t even enter into it. The same goes for getting drunk, for instance.

  26. Nothing to do with drugs or prohibition of same. Edward Gorey could make a new book: “The Loathsome Couple II.” I’m amazed that no one has asked if this dirtbags have children. Sterilization seems to me quite reasonable in this instance.

  27. I thought the rule of thumb for acid/LSD trips was that one person remain sober to essentially babysit anyone who would have an adverse reaction, like, wandering into traffic.

    I find these asshats contemptible for combining irresponsible drug use with serious animal neglect.

    Also, for breaking the unspoken ruleset that most responsible drug users follow : “Don’t be that guy.”, “that guy” being a catch-all for anyone who drinks so much he passes out, or so high he does something monumentally and publicly stupid which shines a negative light on the partygoers and revelers as whole.

  28. According to the police report the dog was brought back to their home alive and the an animal control officer took custody of him. Was he given proper veterinary care while he was in police custody? The police may share some culpability in his death.

Comments are closed.