From an editorial in Regional Edition of the Washington Post on September 22nd:
"Given the rapid rise in its [salvia] use, the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Food and Drug Administration should conduct a formal review to determine whether access to it should be restricted or banned.
"But the federal agencies should consider the 5,000 or so salvia videos posted on YouTube, many appearing to show disturbing effects, as a spur to take this substance seriously."
Really? That's the level of inquiry that should be used? Videos posted on YouTube, which cannot account for any controlled measures?
I mean, we don't actually know that salvia is being smoked. We don't know if they're pranks being pulled. They could be smoking tobacco for all we know.
I don't know what I should find more shocking: that a news outlet is calling for action based on unsubstantiated evidence (in the form of amateur media), or that even if substantiated, action is being called for to "protect" people, when
not a single emergency room visit or overdose has been reported with salvia use. I mean, come on, don't we have more important stuff to worry about, like a
crashing economy or
murderous drug cartels along our southern border?
Or is the goal of the Editorial Board of the Washington Post to waste more money in our economy enforcing prohibition laws against people making YouTube videos? Better yet, is it the goal of the Editorial Board to make yet another black market for these murderous cartels, which will increase their income? It's not like they use that money to buy grenades and guns or anything, do they?
Washington Post: if you're not trying to make things worse, then stop printing such garbage. It's a waste of ink, raises hysteria, and does nothing to help reduce the harms of drugs and drug policies.
Posted by Malakkar Vohryzek