PROBLEM WITH A PLANT? OUTLAW IT!

The story was about a stupid idea, but at least the reporter allowed
some critics to point out that the idea was indeed stupid.

USA Today published an article a few days ago by Oren Dorell about a
bill to prohibit Salvia divinorum in Delaware - see
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20060403/a_salvia03.art.htm

It starts off as a bad story with all the hype. Salvia, a
psychoactive plant which is still legal in most of the U.S., is
characterized as "the most powerful natural hallucinogen known." From
there, Salvia use is tied (very tenuously, I think) to the suicide of
a teenager.

The second half of the story is closer to fair, with comments from a
person who sells and uses Salvia. He doesn't sound unreasonable, but
he describes a mild experience with Salvia involving "fairy-like
beings hovering around the hillside."

A more down-to-earth sounding voice comes, strangely, from the
federal government. The head of Psychoactive Drug Screening Program
for the National Institute of Mental Health says he sees a need for
regulation, but that prohibition would hinder medical research on Salvia.

I appreciate USA Today's attempt to present both sides in its Salvia
story. I doubt that would have happened if the Office of National
Drug Control Policy stenographer who also reports for USA Today ( see
this other USA Today story from the past week
- -http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v06/n419/a05.html - for example ) had
been assigned this story.

While the Salvia article shows why prohibition might be bad in this
particular instance, unfortunately, the broader illogic of
prohibition still isn't challenged.

If prohibition really worked, kids wouldn't use illegal drugs. But they do.

Delaware Sen. Karen Peterson, a supporter of the Salvia ban,
unwittingly explains one of the major flaws of drug prohibition while
trying to make a case for it.

"Kids fall into a false sense of security because it's legal,"
Peterson said about Salvia. If Peterson is right, we only have the
ideology of prohibition to thank. Do we need the government to
outlaw something before young people understand it can be bad for them?

Right now police don't have enough time or resources to consistently
enforce drug laws already on the books. If we outlawed everything
potentially harmful to young people, few activities beyond breathing
would be legal.

Even then, we could still count on a few busybodies like Peterson to
crusade against the dangers of releasing all that carbon dioxide into
the environment, especially too close to the children.