Log In | Register
On July 1st, 2008, it became illegal to sell, use, or possess the plant known as Salvia divinorum in the state of Florida. Salvia divinorum contains a psychoactive ingredient known as Salvinorun A, which induces visual and auditory hallucinations in humans when absorbed into the bloodstream. The consciousness-altering effects are usually described as extremely intense, and typically last anywhere from five to fifteen minutes before rapidly wearing off. For obvious reasons, including its widespread legality in most countries, Salvia has become somewhat popular as a recreational drug. Many states, over the past few years, have taken steps toward making the substance illegal. I have a simple question: Why?
I have never used Salvia, and don't much care to ever try it. Hallucinogenic drugs have never been very appealing to me, because I prefer to maintain a certain level of control over my consciousness and the reliability of my senses. An experience which takes me "out of body," as it were, or severely impairs the normal functions of my brain, is entirely unappealing to me. But who am I - and more importantly, what is the government - to tell others that they shouldn't be allowed to have such experiences if that is their choice? If it causes no harm to others and does not infringe on the rights of anyone else, why should it be illegal?
In Roe v. Wade, the United States Supreme Court made the controversial decision that the right to control what occurs within one's own body - specifically, the development of an embryo or fetus in a woman's womb - is protected by the Constitutional right to privacy as dictated by the Fourteenth Amendment. This decision made the act of aborting a pregnancy a legal and protected right in all 50 states. I'm sure you can see the parallel I wish to draw with this analogy. If controlling the functions of one's own body is a Constitutionally protected right, up to and including the termination of a developing human life, does it not logically follow that the act of introducing a substance to one's body with the intention of temporarily altering one's state of consciousness should also fall under the Constitutional right to privacy?
And then, of course, there is the often-stated hypocrisy of the American War on Drugs. In most states in the U.S., it is perfectly legal for an individual 21 years of age or older to consume alcohol for recreational purposes. Likewise, it is legal for anyone over the age of 18 to use tobacco products for the same reason. In justifying the decision to outlaw certain substances, legislators often make the argument that the substance in question is "dangerous," has a high potential for addiction, and in many cases that the use of such a substance makes an individual dangerous under certain conditions (such as when operating a vehicle) to those around them. Let's look at some facts.
Is It Dangerous to the User?
Alcohol:
- Heavy, continuous long-term alcohol use has a significant negative impact on the liver, contributing to three separate liver diseases, the complications of which can be life-threatening.
- Alcohol is considered to be a contributing factor in about 100,000 deaths in the U.S. every year.
- Alcohol poisoning is relatively common and can result in death. A blood-alcohol level of .55% is fatal in half of those affected.
Tobacco:
- 445,000 deaths in the U.S. each year are attributed to tobacco use.
- Tobacco use has been scientifically demonstrated to be a primary cause of respiratory and oral cancers, and can be a contributing factor in pancreatic, liver, bladder, kidney, stomach, colon and rectum cancers, as well as some forms of leukemia.
Is There a High Potential for Addiction?
Alcohol:
At least one symptom of addiction is reported in 14% of alcohol users, and 48% of daily users.
Tobacco:
Do I even need to quote the statistic here? 75% of cigarette smokers and 91% of daily smokers report at least one symptom of addiction. When nicotine enters the bloodstream, nicotine molecules attach to receptors in the brain, triggering the release of dopamine, giving the user a pleasant sensation. As the brain builds a tolerance to nicotine through continued use, more of these receptors are created, and higher levels of nicotine are required to trigger the same levels of dopamine release. When use is discontinued, dopamine levels become unnaturally low, causing the individual to feel unpleasant and experience "cravings". Scientists generally regard the addictive quality of nicotine as equal to or greater than that of cocaine.
Is It Potentially Harmful to Non-Users?
Alcohol:
About 40% of motor-vehicle fatalities in the U.S. are alcohol-related. Many of those killed in alcohol-related car accidents are individuals not under the influence of alcohol.
Tobacco:
Secondhand smoke is often implicated in the development of asthma in adolescents, and smoking while pregnant is known to cause complications such as birth defects and low birth weight.
The Bottom Line
As I've demonstrated, both of the most common recreational drugs in the United States have been scientifically and statistically shown to match all of the criteria for being classified as Schedule I Controlled Substances, and yet they both remain legal in all 50 states, while common illegal drugs such as cannabis, Salvia divinorum, LSD and MDMA have been demonstrated to be less harmful to the individual user, much less addictive, and less likely to pose a threat to non-users. But more importantly, the same Constitutional right to privacy which grants women the ability to legally terminate a pregnancy can be easily logically extended to the right of an individual to possess and consume psychoactive substances for recreational purposes. So, why the hypocrisy? Why are the alcohol and tobacco industries two of the largest and most profitable ventures in the United States while thousands of individuals are sitting in jail cells across the country on simple possession charges? That, my friends, is the $64,000 question.
