Time is running out for Salvia. More and more states are starting to legislate – or to consider legislating – against the hallucinogen that is more potent than some forms of marijuana. So far, Salvia has been outlawed in the following states: Delaware, Louisiana, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Tennessee, and most recently in Kansas.
About 20 other states are considering limiting the availability of salvia. In addition, Salvia is illegal in the following countries: Australia, Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Italy, South Korea, and Sweden.
So if you’re thinking about giving this interesting little herb a try, you should move fast. Right now, the best source for quality Salvia leaves and extract is www.bouncingbearbotanicals.com
Salvia is claimed to be relatively harmless (which explains the somewhat lackluster and lethargic approach by the legislators) alternative to marijuana, PCP and LCD; certainly its hour-long effects do not seem to cause as much strain on the body and mind as those of these other drugs. Naturally whether Salvia is harmful or not doesn’t really come into the equation when we’re talking about possible legislative measures: only perception and political points.
Mike Strain was the leading light in Louisiana’s battle to ban Salvia, making it the first state to do so. He claims the move has largely been a seen in a positive light, with only a few hardcore Salvia advocates wishing him moderate ill-will. This, he says, is an inevitable part of his job.
Public opinion
Despite its growing notoriety in some circles, media stories generally suggest that the public at large are still mostly unaware of salvia, with the majority perhaps having never even heard of it.[74] With regard to their coverage of proposals to make salvia illegal in the U.S. state of Maine, Bangor Daily News ran an on-line poll in March 2007 which posed the question “Do you think the state should outlaw the sale of the drug salvia?” to which approximately 70% of respondents answered “no.”[75] While this has over 300 reader responses, the poll itself says, that it is “not a scientific survey and should not be used as a gauge of public opinion. It reflects only the opinions of bangordailynews.com readers who have chosen to participate”. A similar online poll was conducted in connection with an Indianapolis news channel’s story in November 2007, asking the question “Do you believe Indiana should regulate salvia divinorum?”. 76% of the poll’s respondents were opposed to prohibition (59% preferring age regulations, and 17% no restrictions at all).[76] In March 2008 the Miami Herald ran an online poll in connection with its news story asking the question “Should Florida lawmakers place restrictions on salvia?”. Out of over 670 respondents a majority of 79% voted ‘No’, against 21% who voted ‘Yes’.[77]
Again, although published responses may not necessarily be representative of public opinion as a whole, some news agencies generally support reader and viewer feedback in connection with their stories.
Brett’s law
A particular focus of many US media stories is the long-running coverage of the case of Brett Chidester.[74][60] Chidester was a 17-year old Delaware student who committed suicide in January 2006 by climbing into a tent in which a charcoal grill was lit. He died of carbon-monoxide poisoning. Reportedly, some months before this, Brett’s mother had found out and questioned him about his salvia use. Brett said that he had ceased his experimentation, but his parents do not believe that he was telling the truth. They have argued instead that salvia caused depression and must have been largely to blame for his death. Some of Brett’s earlier writings about his salvia experiences have been used to suggest that it made him think “existence in general is pointless”. Some media stories have referred to these earlier written experience reports as if they were part of Brett’s suicide note. In any case, law was soon passed in Delaware classifying the herb as a Schedule I controlled substance in that state. This legislation was named “Brett’s law” (formally referred to as Senate bill 259).
It was reported on August 3, 2007 that Chidester’s parents intend suing ‘Ethnosupply’—a Canadian based Internet company that sold Salvia divinorum to Brett some four months before his death. The parents allege that the distributors knew salvia could be dangerous and failed to warn their son. The lawsuit seeks unspecified punitive damages for their pain and suffering, lost future earnings, funeral expenses, etc.[79]
Although the Chidester story has been given continued exposure by US media, there has not been anywhere else, either before or since this controversial incident, any other reported cases involving or alleging Salvia divinorum as a serious factor in suicide, overdose, accidental, or any other kind of death. The extent and significance of Brett’s use of alcohol is a matter of debate, but for his demographic, more than 1,700 college students in the U.S. are killed each year as a result of alcohol-related injuries.[80]
Legal status
The situation may be subject to future change but at present Salvia divinorum remains legal in most countries. Exceptions as at June 2008, countries where there is some form of control, include Australia, Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Italy, Japan, Spain, Germany, and Sweden.[81][82][83] In the United Kingdom, following a local newspaper story in October 2005,[84] a parliamentary Early Day Motion was raised calling for Salvia divinorum to be banned there. However, it only received 11 signatures and has not been debated or further escalated.[85]
In such places where Salvia divinorum legislation exists, it varies in its prohibitive degree from country to country. Australia has imposed its strictest ’schedule 9’ (US Schedule I equivalent) classification for example, and Italy has also placed salvia in its ‘Table I’ of controlled substances (also US Schedule I equivalent). Whereas in Spain there are just controls focusing on the commercial trade of Salvia divinorum, and private cultivation (growing your own plants for non-commercial use) is not targeted. In Germany there are also measures targeting commercial sales, i.e. in any shops that are not drugstores.[81][82]
In the United States, salvia is not regulated under the Controlled Substances Act but some states, including Delaware, Louisiana, Missouri and others, have passed their own laws.[83] Several other states have proposed legislation against salvia, including Alabama, Alaska, California, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Texas. Many of these proposals have not made it into law, with motions having failed, stalled or otherwise died, for example at committee review stages.[81][82]
National legislation for amendment of the Controlled Substances Act to place salvinorin A and Salvia divinorum in Schedule I at the federal level was proposed in 2002 by Representative Joe Baca (D- California). Those opposed to bill HR 5607 include Daniel Siebert, who sent a letter to Congress arguing against the proposed legislation,[86] and the Center for Cognitive Liberty & Ethics (CCLE), who sent key members of the US Congress a report on Salvia divinorum and its active principle,[87] along with letters from an array of scientists who expressed concern that scheduling Salvia divinorum would negatively impact important research on the plant. The bill did not pass.[88][89][90]
Similar to the international situation, in the United States, where individual state legislation does exist, it varies from state to state in its prohibitive degree. As of June 2008 twelve states had passed legislation to regulate Salvia divinorum and/or salvinorin A. Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Virginia have classified Salvia divinorum and salvinorin A as schedule I substances under state law; for example the Illinois Controlled Substances Act (Jan 1, 2008) list of Schedule I substances includes any plant part, extraction, or preparation of Salvia divinorum. Legislation restricting the distribution of the plant had been enacted by Louisiana, Maine and Tennessee.[83] By contrast, the state of Maine has passed laws imposing age restrictions, prohibiting use and sale to minors under 18 years of age - in a manner generally consistent with controls existing for tobacco and alcohol.[91] California has also passed similar age restrictions. These come into effect on Jan 1, 2009. Legislative bills for Schedule I classification are proposed in Iowa, Michigan, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina. New York has proposed restrictions on possession, with a fine of no more than $50 per violation.[nb 4][83]
Louisiana passed a wide-ranging law (RS 40:989.1) in 2005 which designated 39 plants, including Salvia divinorum, as “hallucinogenic” and made it illegal for any one to “knowingly or intentionally produce, manufacture, distribute, or possess” (with or without intent to produce, manufacture, distribute) “a material, compound, mixture, or preparation intended for human consumption which contains a hallucinogenic plant.” Although the penalties are steep (with intent: 2-10 years of imprisonment “with or without hard labor” plus a possible fine up to $20,000; without: up to 5 yrs imprisonment and a possible fine up to $5,000), the law does not apply to “possession, planting, cultivation, growing, or harvesting of a hallucinogenic plant strictly for aesthetic, landscaping, or decorative purposes” nor does it apply to any “dosage form which is legally obtainable from a retail establishment without a prescription and is recognized by the Federal Food and Drug Administration as a homeopathic drug” (i.e. listed in the Homeopathic Pharmacopeia of the United States, an addendum to it, or its supplements, by definition in the law).[92]
Tennessee has some provision for Salvia divinorum in its natural plant form. - There the law classes its use as a ‘Class A misdemeanour’, but it is not an offence to possess, plant, cultivate, grow, or harvest Salvia divinorum for “aesthetic, landscaping, or decorative purposes”.[93]
In some states there is no mention of Salvia divinorum’s active constituent at all. In Delaware for example the plant in its natural form is classified as ‘Schedule I’, while much more potent purely extracted salvinorin A remains quite legal.[94]
In Illinois their legislation wording does not mention salvinorin A either, but there it includes instead “the seeds thereof, any extract from any part of that plant, and every compound, […] derivative, mixture, or preparation of that plant”.[95] Daniel Siebert has criticised this wording as being “absurdly broad in scope, for it implies that any substance extracted from Salvia divinorum (water, chlorophyll, whatever) would be treated as a Schedule I controlled substance under the proposed law.”[81]
Salvia legislation may prove difficult to police. The plant has a nondescript appearance; unlike cannabis the leaves are not distinctive and it does not have a distinctive odour. Salvia divinorum looks like and can be grown as an ordinary houseplant without the need of special equipment such as hydroponics or high-power lights.[96][97]
Opinions and arguments
Concerns expressed by some politicians on the subject of salvia echo those of the media. In November 2006, the morning after a story by news channel KSL was aired in Utah, warning its viewers about what it called “this dangerous herb”,[58] Representative Paul Ray (R) submitted a bill calling for its Schedule I classification in that state. KSL TV cameras were on Capitol Hill to see the paperwork filed, with KSL reporting “Moments after our story ended, Utah Representative Paul Ray began writing a bill to ban salvia.” As he presented the bill Ray said “It was upsetting to see we have a drug of that strength that’s legal.” and “We’re basically going to make it illegal to possess or sell. Period.”[98] Ray’s action was further supported by the news channel in a subsequent KSL editorial. Viewer feedback was unanimously more critical.[52]
Texas news channel WOAI reported that San Antonio City Councilman Justin Rodriguez and other council members were “appalled to learn the so-called herbal meditation supplement can be bought at local stores”, with Rodriguez saying, “I had not heard of it until your story, so thank you for bringing it to light. A lot of my colleagues had never heard of it.”[61]
Senator John Bulloch (R) reportedly saw a report on an Atlanta television news station about the increased use of Salvia divinorum. He was quoted as saying “I thought, ‘Why hasn’t somebody already jumped on this?’” before filing Senate Bill 295. “I hurriedly got legislative counsel to draft the bill…Everything that I read about it is it’s considered to be a hallucinogenic drug…A lot of the reading that I’ve found on it says that it gives a quicker and more intense high than LSD.” Senator Don Thomas (R) was reported as saying “I just know about the publicity of the dangers of it, and the use of it, so my first impression is to ban anything of that nature.”[99]
In February 2007, the day after a Fox TV local news story on salvia had aired in Milwaukee,[57] Wisconsin state lawmaker Sheldon Wasserman, who had never heard of it before, spoke to Fox news in a follow-up report about then wanting to make it a Schedule I controlled substance.[100]
Comparisons to LSD and particular focus on “protecting our children” are also being echoed by politicians. In June 2007 the Wisconsin State Journal newspaper ran a front page headline cover story about salvia, reporting that Representative Wasserman (D) had recently begun seeking sponsors for a bill that would ban the manufacture and sale of Salvia divinorum for consumption in Wisconsin. Wasserman was reported as saying “This bill is all about protecting our children” and “I want to stop the Salvia divinorum dealers who are pushing young people to experiment with a potentially dangerous substance.”[54]
In connection with his proposals to make Salvia divinorum and salvinorin A Schedule I controlled substances in Oregon, Representative John Lim (R) was quoted as saying “From what I understand this drug is at least as dangerous as marijuana or LSD”, and Seth Hatmaker, a spokesman for Lim, “I think it’s only a matter of time before we find people addicted to this stuff”.[101]
In the state of Illinois, in support of his bill for Schedule I classification of Salvia divinorum, Representative Dennis Reboletti (R) wrote in his own website that salvia is a “powerful psychoactive plant which in appearance looks like marijuana but has the psychoactive properties of LSD.” and “It’s important that we in the legislature are proactive in protecting our children from highly addictive substances” […] “For a drug to be classified as a Schedule 1 substance signifies that it’s a highly dangerous and potentially lethal drug for its user. Hopefully, the passage of my bill will bring attention to “Magic Mint” and help law enforcement combat the future rise of this drug.”[102]
Other references and sources indicate however that Salvia divinorum does not look like marijuana. Its psychoactive properties are not like those of LSD, and that Salvia divinorum is not generally understood to be either addictive or toxic.
Concerns about driving while under the influence of salvia have also been expressed. Senator Karen Peterson (D), who introduced Schedule I classification of Salvia divinorum in Delaware, said “I, for one, don’t want to be driving down Route 1 next to someone who is having an out-of-body experience”[103] and “I thought this is not something that I would want people using driving around the streets of Delaware.”[104]
There has not been much evidence to suggest that salvia use is particularly problematic. Some arguments against salvia have been of a preventative or imitative nature. North Dakota Senator Randy Christmann (R) stated “we need to stop this before it gets to be a huge problem not after it gets to be a huge problem”[105] and New Jersey Assemblyman Jack Conners (D) argued “Salvia divinorum use may not be a runway (sic) epidemic, but it’s certainly is a phenomenon that warrants attention. We should take preventive steps now to prevent wholesale problems later on”[106] In October 2005 MP John Mann raised an ultimately unsuccessful Early Day Motion calling for Salvia divinorum to be banned in the UK, saying “The Australians have clearly found a problem with it. There’s obviously a risk in people taking it.”[84]
The National Institute on Money in State Politics indicates the major sources of campaign contributions for US politicians. For example, Representative John Lim’s largest individual campaign sponsor in 2006 was the Oregon Beer & Wine Distributors Association. Lim argued for Schedule I classification of salvia in Oregon. Senator Karen Peterson’s second largest group campaign donations in 2006 came from ‘Beer, Wine & Liquor’ industries. Peterson introduced Schedule I classification of Salvia divinorum in Delaware. Senator Tim Burchett (R) sponsored salvia legislation in Tennessee. In 2006 his second largest individual campaign donation came from the Tennessee Malt Beverage Association. In the same period alcohol and tobacco related contributions amounted to the fourth largest industry contributions for Representative Paul Ray in Utah. Representative Ray (R) submitted a bill calling for Schedule I classification of Salvia in that state. Alcohol related contributions also featured highly for Representative Dennis Reboletti in Illinois ‘Beer, Wine & Liquor’ was his seventh highest industry contributor.[71] Representative Reboletti (R) sponsored a bill for Schedule I classification of Salvia divinorum in Illinois.
Opponents of more prohibitive measures against salvia argue that such reactions are largely due to an inherent prejudice and a particular cultural bias rather than any actual balance of evidence, pointing out inconsistencies in attitudes toward other more toxic and addictive drugs such as alcohol and nicotine.[107] The worldwide number of alcohol-related deaths is calculated at over 2,000 people per day,[108] in the US the number is over 300 deaths per day.[109] While not objecting to some form of legal control, in particular with regard to the sale to minors or sale of enhanced high-strength extracts, most salvia proponents otherwise argue against stricter legislation.[81]
