Dear Dave,
Thank you for your reply and for apparently giving the matter some
consideration. It is appreciated.
I found your statement about those trying to make a buck on the internet
rather sweeping however. Many Salvia vendors, like Daniel Siebert, try to
encourage a more respectful approach, the majority do I would say. – Though
you’d be correct to point out that this is by no means always the case.
There are less responsible traders. I would agree that anyone selling Salvia
divinorum merely as incense – and thus offering no practical advice as to
its powerful effects – is actually being quite irresponsible. I suspect such
ploys to avoid litigation follow from traders taking legal advice, but I
certainly don’t agree with these tactics, nor do I believe they’ve fully
thought it through.
As for the “targeting of young minds”, I have to say I find this concern to
be largely unfounded. For the most part I think this is rather fearful
projection, not well substantiated when one looks at a representative
cross-section of Salvia sites.
With Salvia legal as it is most traders have observed a ‘voluntary’ ban with
regard to its sale to minors. Could we imagine, say, the tobacco industry
showing similar self-restraint in such circumstances? In any case, I’m sure
most Salvia sellers would not object to formal legal clarification in this
particular area.
You mention other countries banning or closely controlling Salvia. The
assumption here always seems to be that these steps must surely have
followed as a consequence of proper research and reasonable interpretations
drawn from good evidence. This is what makes me really despair, and why I’m
so concerned about the issue, despite being on the other side of the world
over here in Scotland.
For example, John Mann MP (a member of our UK parliament), has been quoted
in our press warning…
"The Australians have clearly found a problem with it. There's
obviously a
risk in people taking it" [my italics].
In fact, if one looks further into it, one would more reasonably conclude
that Australia’s ban was actually made without proper consultation, by an
unelected committee (their National Drugs and Poisons Schedule Committee),
and without any real knowledge of what they were legislating against. –
Using incorrect technical terminology apparently copied from various (and
less than authoritative) websites and Salvia forums, for example, and
dismissively stating "There was no evidence of traditional therapeutic use
other than in shamanistic healing rituals." – Which begs the question, does
a shamanistic healing ritual not count as a traditional therapeutic use
then?
Australia was the first country to ban Salvia divinorum. How others could
have so unquestioningly followed suit I would suggest has got far more to do
with reaction to media hysteria, and the domino effect, than any
commensurate or proportional response to the actual risks.
I am not saying that you or anyone else should feel the same way about
Salvia as do its advocates (it’s not as if any of us are asking that it be
made compulsory after all), but neither do I believe that it’s justifiable
to enact or support prohibitive legislation which simply panders to others
prejudice and cultural bias.
Thank you again for your time and consideration so far.
|