I have been reading some of the things posted on the DEA's website about Salvia Divinorum. One thing I found interesting is that they already classify it as an abused drug and describe the places that sell it as if they were criminal despite the legality of Salvia Divinorum. The other thing that I found interesting is that they claim it can cause flashbacks and schizophrenia similar to the use of LSD. I have been using it for a few weeks now. I smoke it a couple of times during the weekends. My wife has smoked a few times already. All the information I had seen up to this point had stated that there are no known harmful side-effects (besides the ones caused by inhaling smoke. I am not to worried about this as the cigarettes I smoke are much more harmful I am sure.) So, how much validity should I contribute to these reports?
//http://search.usdoj.gov/cgi-bin/simple.cgi?scope_0=salvia+divinorum&scope_1=%3CAND%3E+%28+URL+%3CCONTAINS%3E+dea%2F+%29
It seems like they merely cut-and-pasted propaganda used to describe the evils of other psychedelics. The DEA has nothing to gain from telling the truth, so they don't. Shit, if they claimed the sky was blue, I'd want to check for myself.
That's not to say that salvia isn't some powerful medicine, and people with latent or manifest mental illness might trigger something with a salvia experience. But I kind of doubt it.
The DEA lies so much if they ever do have anything useful to say, nobody will believe them.
I have heard of sort of salvia memories. Don't think we are talking the same thing as "flashbacks" caused by LSD (if LSD can really cause such things, thats probably a lie also). More like when a person is meditating deeply, they can recall some of the same feelings they had on salvia. This is usually a good thing from the persons perspective and ends easily by breaking concentration. I have had dreams were I took a substance and felt the effects in the dream. I don't consider this a "flashback" just a good imagination.
Haven't heard of anything like schizophrenia. It has struck me that salvia should be useful in the research of schizophrenia and other mental illnesses.
How can they say it is "illicitly distributed over the Internet" to "abusers" right above where it says it is completely legal? I don't know any "abusers" of salvia. Most people seem to try it a few times and don't go any further.
its funny how if you want to combat the DEA and provide evidence that a drug isn't harmful you need huge research studies, peer reviewed, with sources and all the other excellent finery of science. And all they need is their opinion. AND they always win.
These symptoms were pointed out by someone on a forum I post on. You can see my reply to them here:
http://www.scenenetworks.com/forum/inde ... ntry775095 (http://www.scenenetworks.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=38053&st=20&p=775095&#entry775095)
I think any psychoactive has the potential for triggering latent mental problems, but I haven't heard of salvia doing such. Don't pay attention to anything the DEA says, get your information elsewhere.
How much pull does the DEA have in getting a substance scheduled?
quote]How much pull does the DEA have in getting a substance scheduled?[/quote]
haha way too much
They basically have no oversight in what they're doing...they decide to schedule or not to schedule whatever and whenever they like..
i might be wrong, but i believe marijuana is still under emergency schedule...
you'd think the emergency scheduling would be over once they find out if a substance is harmful or not, but its not.
In fact the DEA controls research on emergency drugs that are supposed to be pending scientific research. They basically tell a researcher that yes or no he can have access to a scheduled substance for testing...
From things i have read there is no doubt in my mind that if the DEA reads the proposal and it hints at researching dangers, they grant the study. If it looks as though the research is going to negate some dangers they refuse to allow research...Its fucked up...the basic argument goes something like:
Researcher: i'm requesting acces to *scheduled substance* because initial reports from *some other country* suggest that *scheduled substance* may not be as harmful as thought, and that some medical benefits from *scheduled substance* may exist
DEA: *scheduled substance* is schedule I because research has shown there are no medical benefits.
Researcher: Yes i know. But its seems that the first analysis was wrong.
DEA: i'm sorry but the substance you are requesting is schedule I because it contains no medical value
Researcher: WEll how do you know it contians no medical value if you won't allow this research.
Dea: We're sorry we cannot allow you access to this substance because it is schedule I meaning its risk of abuse is high and there are no medical benefits
at which points the naive researcher usually realizes exactly how much science and rational goes into political decision, becomes bittered and suddenly starts thinking geoge orwell was one of the greatest predictors of all time...if you give or a take a few years.
Thats not to say EVERYTHING the DEA suggest is a complete lie, just blown out of proportion to the point that it doesnt even relate to the truth anymore.
I have a friend who has permanent tracers from LSD.
He doesn't mind them though :P
They also tend to contradict themselves, I looked on the DEA website for 2 seconds and found this...
"Ecstasy could lead to depression, say scientists
Scientists have warned that taking just one or two ecstasy pills could cause long-lasting brain damage leading to depression.
...
Psychologists from London Metropolitan University found individuals who had tried ecstasy on only a few occasions had depression levels four times higher than those who had taken a range of other drugs but not ecstasy.
Although they did not qualify as clinically depressed."
I thought it was already a known scientific fact that Ecstasy temporarily lowers serotonin levels of the brain mimicing depression for a short period of time? Just more propaganda. I mean come on, they even say themselves... "Although they did not qualify as clinically depressed".