Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

DrugReporter

North Dakota Man Facing Years in Prison After Buying Salvia Divinorum on eBay

By Phillip S. Smith, Drug War Chronicle. Posted May 1, 2008.


A North Dakota man with an interest in herbalism and spirituality faces years in prison for $32 worth of salvia leaves he bought on eBay.
Advertisement

In what is likely the first arrest for possession of salvia divinorum anywhere in the nation -- and definitely a first in North Dakota -- a Bismarck man now faces years in prison after he bought a few ounces of leaves on eBay. Kenneth Rau, a bottling plant worker with an interest in herbalism, altered states, and religion and spirituality, was arrested by Bismarck police on April 9 when they searched his home looking for his adult son, who was on probation for drug charges.

Police found a marijuana pipe, eight ounces of salvia leaf, a quantity of amanita muscaria mushrooms, and a number of other herbal products. Rau now faces multiple charges, said Burleigh County States Attorney Cynthia Feland.

"He is being charged with possession of salvia with intent to deliver, as well as possession of psilocybin with intent, and possession of marijuana," she said. Although Rau told the Chronicle he thought he would be charged with a school zone violation as well, which would have made his intent offenses Class A felonies punishable by up to 20 years in prison, that is not the case, said Feland. "He is not being charged with a school zone violation," she affirmed.

(The psilocybin charges could go up in smoke. The amanita muscaria mushrooms that he possessed are not controlled substances under federal law and, while hallucinogenic, do not contain psilocybin. The active ingredient in amanita muscaria mushrooms is muscimole.)

Rau was being charged with possession with intent because of the weight of the leaves, she said. "We look at the typical use quantity," she said, "and it is similar to marijuana, with a typical use dose of .25 grams to .5 grams, and he had significantly more than that," she said.

Salvia divinorum, a member of the Mexican mint family, has been used by Mazatec shamans for hundreds of years. Smoking or chewing the leaves, or more commonly, concentrated extracts, can produce intense, albeit short-lived hallucinogenic experiences. While the plant has become notorious through YouTube videos of young people smoking it and behaving strangely, it is also of interest to "psychonauts," or people attempting to explore consciousness through herbal means.

Researchers say that while salvia's effects on consciousness may be disquieting, the plant has not been shown to be toxic to humans, its effects are so potent it is unlikely to be used repeatedly, and its active property, salvinorin A, could assist in the development of medicines for mood disorders.

There are hazards to messing with hallucinogens, one expert was quick to point out. "It's an hallucinogen, and while its hallucinogenic actions are different from those induced by LSD and other hallucinogens, it has the liabilities that hallucinogens do," Bryan Roth, a professor of pharmacology at University of North Carolina's School of Medicine, the man who isolated salvinorin A, told Drug War Chronicle last month. "When people take it, they are disoriented. If you don't know where you are and you're driving a car, that would be a bad experience."

Still, said Roth, while it may make you freak out, it isn't going to kill you. "There is no evidence of any overt toxicity, there are no reports in the medical literature that anyone has died from it. The caveat is that there have been no formal studies done on humans, but the animal data suggests that it doesn't kill animals given massive doses, and that's usually -- but not always -- predictive for human pharmacology."

The DEA considers salvia a drug of interest, but has yet to move to place it under the Controlled Substances Act. A DEA spokesman told the Chronicle recently that the plant is being reviewed to see if it meets the criteria for inclusion on the list of controlled substances.

But driven by little more than the YouTube videos and the story of one Delaware youth whose parents blamed his suicide on salvia, state legislators have not waited for the DEA's measured considerations to act. Since Delaware became the first state to ban salvia, a handful of others, including North Dakota, followed suit. Moves are currently afoot in a number of other states to join the club.

Salvia became illegal in North Dakota on August 1, after a bill sponsored by three Republican lawmakers, state Sens. Dave Oelke and Randel Christmann and state Rep. Brenda Heller sailed through the legislature earlier this year. None of the three legislators responded to Chronicle requests for comment this week.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: salvia divinorum, north dakota

Philip S. Smith is the executive editor of The Drug War Chronicle.



Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
The Drug War Continues
Posted by: elidude420 on May 1, 2008 3:02 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My hometown recently made public tobacco smoking punishable by a $500 fine.

btw, this is a proudly "liberal" area of Northern California.

The War on Drugs keeps getting crazier. It's not about public safety, it's about the twisted aesthetics of behavior control.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It isn't behavior modification they seek
Posted by: popsicle67 on May 2, 2008 7:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's fiscal modification. The dopers are getting smarter and while arrests and forfeitures are up,
inflation and the price of gas are up higher so a
new illegal drug must be found to make up the shortfall.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Public smoking is a public health issue
Posted by: rational_moderate on May 3, 2008 8:00 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I assume you're referring to Belmont, CA (I looked it up). I imagine that the motives of people who supported that law were varied. But I have a hunch that for the most part it's not the same cast of characters behind the drug war.

I'm in favor of legalizing all drugs. And I would support anyone's right to smoke whatever and wherever they want so long as I can be on my private property or on any public property or quasi-public property (such as grocery stores) without breathing any of their smoke. In practice, that means banning public smoking.

What people label as "common sense" is usually common opinion, but often not sensible. And the passage of time often makes "common sense" look ridiculous to future generations.

I've read that a century ago during the height of the tuberculosis epidemic when chewing tobacco was extremely popular that common behavior was to just spit ones chew out onto the floor of public (even indoor) places. This was a major factor in spreading the disease. I imagine many people of that era reacted similarly to attempts to ban that practice. Today most people look back on that as downright disgusting.

I think the same thing is true of public smoking. Future generations will be appalled that it was an every day affair to be unavoidably subjected to irritating, toxic, and allergenic fumes in public places. Furthermore, the bizarre notion that cigarette butts should somehow be exempt from social morays against littering will someday similarly be hard to explain to future generations.

Non-smokers have gradually gained some rights since the 1970's. This a godsend to those that are extremely allergic to cigarette smoke, but life can still be a challenge. I know as I used to be extremely allergic to cigarette smoke; I would have allergic reactions at levels of smoke less than the level where I could actually smell it. I could have a reaction to smoke from 2 or 3 city blocks away if the wind was in the right direction. The normal reaction from smokers is to think it was all in my mind (I understand how unbelievable it sounds to those who haven't experienced anything like it).

Fortunately (due to a more in balance immune system), I'm no longer violently allergic to trace amounts of tobacco smoke. I'm still irritated by it, but probably more similar to the average person who hates to breathe it.

Researchers are making important breakthroughs in developing medications to nullify chemical addictions. I think most smokers if they could easily eliminate their physical addiction to tobacco, they'd gladly stop. The shrinking of the population of smokers towards a smaller minority will more or less guarantee that laws continue to evolve towards favoring the right to breathe clean air in public places over the right to smoke. Also, cigarette taxes will probably continue to be pushed higher. I vaguely remember reading somewhere that the indirect cost to the taxpayer of cigarette smoking is somewhere on the order of $5 to $10 per pack. And I doubt that includes the cost of cleaning up ubiquitous non-biodegradable (foam) cigarette butts, nor does it assign some economic cost to the environmental damage of all these butts in the bodies of water. Aquatic birds commonly choke on them and die.

Not only do I favor public bans on smoking. I would also favor a law requiring cigarettes to be biodegradable.

As for the public ban on smoking, if you're in a place where nobody else would have to inhale any of your smoke, then nobody (including cops) would see you doing it. So, in practice, people could continue to sneak a smoke in such a way that they don't infringe on others' rights, regardless of the law -- but the burden would truly be upon the smoker (as it should be) to be certain they're not infringing on others.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Vehicle exhaust is a public health issue Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
» RE: Public smoking is a public health issue Posted by: rational_moderate
Tobacco smoke in public is a health issue!
Posted by: wireup on May 4, 2008 2:44 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I do NOT agree with the above poster who seems to think one's rights are infringed when smoking in public is forbidden.

This is a public health issue, not a personal rights issue. Since when do you - or ANYONE - have the right to make it impossible for ME to BREATHE? I'm allergic to tobacco and I happen to have asthma (diagnosed a few years ago).

I have the right to breathe. You do NOT have the right to make it impossible for me to breathe. Neither do you have the right to give me cancer which, as we all know, is a by-product of side-stream smoking.

You want to smoke? Be my guest. I don't care how many cancer nails you smoke in the privacy of your own space. Just keep them out of my space so that I can breathe!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Vehicle exhaust does not harm you? Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
Wtf?
Posted by: meetmeineleusis on May 5, 2008 9:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Salvia is not scheduled, neither is muscimol. Are these assholes just harassing the guy because they don't like the idea of him catching a buzz?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Wtf? Posted by: Anon12
vice criminalization effectively ABORTS representative gov't
Posted by: BlueBerry PickN on May 12, 2008 11:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Vice
.
.
.
Think about it...

The Thieves of Virtue: legislating morality undermines representative government.

really, VICE is contextual:
* gender
* ethnicity
* age
* race...

all pay a part in morals. but VICE, should never be *criminalized*, especially in a nation where PRIVACY has been abolished.

Who is PERFECT ENOUGH to represent THE PEOPLE or a populist reform when there is neither privacy nor the Will to preserve privacy in society?
...Who stands *for the People* when Money & Power exert corrosive controls to extend their oppression & corruption?

You've been *had*

Nobody is immune to *vice* as VICE is about how ONE PERSON privately & personally determines *how to enjoy their own body*...

Naked Truth: Civil Rights & CNN coverage of "F.B.I. biometric database - 'Server in the Sky'"
...& THAT is how THE MORAL MAJORITY ensured Money & Power will kill representative government for The Peoples who seek JUSTICE, Freedom & Human Rights.

"corruption is why we win":
"Yell Fire!": Bush to freeze peace activist assets? - Executive Order to "Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq"

NSA's Domestic Spying Grows As Agency Sweeps Up Data

Diamond Age? - Kids, RFID Chips... & Minority Reporting?!: thoughts on the new US Project Hostile Intent (PHI)

Watching the "Ownership Society": follow-ups on Shareholder Surveillance...


~~~
Spread Love...

BlueBerry Pick'n
can be found @
ThisCanadian
~~~
"We, two, form a Multitude" ~ Ovid.
~~~
"Silent Freedom is Freedom Silenced"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Has anyone even thought of this ??
Posted by: 7 Levels on May 16, 2008 7:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Whatever you buy online is being policed and watched over and this is proof.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

crime process initiated, without actual crime *occurring*
Posted by: BlueBerry PickN on May 20, 2008 3:04 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
yes, you heard me.

Scalia's recent ruling...


that the presumed
impartiality
integrity
insightful

subjective opinion of a THIRD PARTY's interpretation of a communication, is sufficient to **warrant a criminal act** process of police action.

Think about that.
===

"In overturning the appeals court, the high court said, "The Eleventh Circuit believed it a constitutional difficulty that no child pornography need exist to trigger the statute. In its view, the fact that the statute could punish a 'braggart, exaggerator, or outright liar' rendered it unconstitutional."
...
Scalia said the 11 Circuit's reading of the law would forbid the government from punishing fraudulent offers to provide illegal products. "We see no logic in that position; if anything, such statements are doubly excluded from the First Amendment," he writes.

Responding to Souter's dissent, Scalia says the high court's holding does not overrule a 2002 decision in a case called Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition.

In that case, the court ruled that Congress could not ban virtual child pornography in an attempt to stamp out actual child pornography. "According to the dissent, Congress has made an end-run around the First Amendment's protection of virtual child pornography by prohibiting proposals to transact in such images rather than prohibiting the images themselves," Scalia writes.

He says an offer to provide or a request to receive virtual child pornography is not prohibited by the PROTECT Act and continued to have First Amendment protection. "A crime is committed only when the speaker believes or intends the listener to believe that the subject of the proposed transaction depicts real children," Scalia writes.

Souter and Ginsburg say the statute must be based on more than mere belief by a speaker or the speaker's desire to foster a belief in another.

"First Amendment freedoms are most in danger when the government seeks to control thought or to justify its laws for that impermissible end," Souter writes, quoting from the court's 2002 Free Speech Coalition decision."
===

REPEAT: THE ACTUAL CRIME NEED NOT TAKE PLACE IF SOMEONE DETERMINES EITHER THE SPEAKER OR RECIPIENT MAY HAVE 'BELIEVED' A CRIME IS DISCUSSED.


consider.

carefully.

what
this
means.

Can you say Thought Crime?

no physical manifestation of a crime. merely the subjective opinion that someone MAY have believed a crime existed.

┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄
BlueBerry Pick'n
can be found @
ThisCanadian com
~~~
"We, two, form a Multitude" ~ Ovid.
~~~
"Silent Freedom is Freedom Silenced"
┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]