Home » Blog » 2011 » Should Salvia divinorum be banned?

Should Salvia divinorum be banned?

Wednesday, 02 March 2011 18:33

Todd's Blog - 2011

Two days ago I received notice that the Canadian government wants to place the herb Salvia divinorum as well as the isolated trans-neoclerodane diterpenoid salvinorin A in schedule III of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, essentially making illegal for personal use. Although I use other Salvia species in my practice, including Garden Sage (Salvia officinalis) and Dang Shen (Salvia miltiorrhiza) I have never tried Salvia divinorum so I can't claim to have first-hand experience of its effects.

It has a long history of among the Mazatec shamans as an entheogen, and upon ingestion provides for a short-acting, non-addictive hallucinogenic experience. While I can see the concern over the free availability of salvinorin A, as I do with any highly purified chemical extract, what concerns me as a herbalist is when any government wants to restrict access or criminalize the possession of medicinal plants, regardless of its properties, whether anti-tumor, sedative or hallucinogenic. We are all born on this earth as free-living creatures and it is our inherent right to have access to all the plants that arise from the earth.

What follows is my letter to Ms. Carol Sabiston, Director General of the Controlled Substances and Tobacco Directorate. Please read and pass along to your friends, family and other concerned citizens.

Re: Proposed addition of Salvia divinorum and salvinorin A to Schedule III to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act

Monday, February 28th 2011

Dear Ms. Sabiston,

I am writing to express my concern with the proposed addition of Salvia divinorum and salvinorin A to Schedule III to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (1). The Government has not demonstrated that any significant harm comes from smoking or ingesting Salvia divinorum and salvinorin A. Reading through the proposal, the only detriment that can be determined is that the effects may be "unpleasant". Health Canada should ask itself if protecting Canadians from unpleasant experiences is part of its mandate, or if the personal decisions that arise from one's conscience are not enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There is no published evidence that demonstrates addiction or harm from ingesting S. divinorum or salvinorin A. The proposal claims that Salvia is a hallucinogen similar to LSD, and offers this as a reason why it should be regulated, but research suggests that the effects of S. divinorum or salvinorin A are not the same as LSD and cannot be placed in the same category (2, 3). The proposal cites statistics published in the Canadian Alcohol and Drug Use Monitoring Survey (CADUMS) claiming that up to 7.3% of young Canadians between the ages of 15-24 have used S. divinorum or salvinorin A at least once in their lifetime, but over all, demonstrates a very low use among Canadians in general (0.5%) (4). Despite the fact that S. divinorum or salvinorin A are currently unscheduled, the rates of use (and hence abuse) among young people are lower than for either Cannabis (10.6%) and alcohol (75.5%), two substances that are otherwise illegal or restricted to youth (5). Very clearly, creating legal impediments to recreational use has not effectively diminished the consumption of either marijuana or alcohol, and my concern is that once S. divinorum and salvinorin A are placed in Schedule III and hence become restricted substances they will acquire greater notoriety among youth, and more importantly, will be distributed by criminal elements, putting our youth at greater risk not just from criminal activity but from adulteration. If it were Health Canada's intent to remove all substances that youth consume recreationally, then perhaps Health Canada might consider banning petroleum distillates and solvents, since this represents a greater danger, with upwards of 5% of Canadian youth at risk from inhalant abuse (6). Compared to the "unpleasant" effects of Savia divinorum or salvinorin A, inhalation of petroleum distillates and solvents leads to very real medical and health issues, and yet these substances remain widely available without restriction. Based on the balance of evidence I strongly urge Health Canada to withdraw this proposal and focus its energies on more meaningful enterprises including education and harm-reduction. If we expect youth to be responsible and mindful about their recreational choices then let's avoid these sorts of paternalistic, heavy-handed measures to criminalize personal choices. Let us create an informed and intelligent society.