| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Salvia divinorum article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | Salvia divinorum was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small} | Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
 Archives (Index) |
|
This page is archived by ClueBot III.
|
 |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
Mdx92129 (talk) 16:56, 13 February 2022 (UTC)== S. divinorum growth legalities, a perspective ==
I have recently been speaking to my ethno/botanist friend who I would consider a near-expert in Salvia divinorum. As per usual with psychoactive drug laws, it is ambiguous and misleading. This can be highlighted in legislation surrounding the growth of Salvia divinorum. He provided me with his thoughts on why the growth of S. divinorum is not strictly illegal, or moreso why 'possession with intent to supply' is the most ambiguous term used in drug legislations. I have attached it here, if someone who understands the Law better than myself could please contribute to this discussion. I would like to revise the 'Legal Status - UK' of this article to fit with current consensus.
Follows is his discussion:
"Here is the link to the legislation: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2016/2/contents
I the clicked on "Offences" which took me to: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2016/2/crossheading/offences
We will look at the 1st part of this section, called... "4 Producing a psychoactive substance"
"(1)A person commits an offence if— (a)the person intentionally produces a psychoactive substance, (b)the person knows or suspects that the substance is a psychoactive substance, and (c)the person—
(i)intends to consume the psychoactive substance for its psychoactive effects, or (ii)knows, or is reckless as to whether, the psychoactive substance is likely to be consumed by some other person for its psychoactive effects."
- I think* that all 3 parts of this need to be met for it to be considered an offence as at the end of point (a) there is a comma, at the end of point (b) it says and.
Part (c) does not apply to growing and selling plants which contain psychoactive substance, as long as they aren't grown for consumption, and not supplied in a reckless way in which its likely someone else might consume them. And so its legal
On the Gov website they give guidance on selling products which contain Psychoactive substances here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/psychoactive-substances-act-guidance-for-retailers/psychoactive-substances-act-2016-guidance-for-retailers
On there, if you scroll down (or search the page for "seeds"), you will find an example:
"Case study: plants and seeds A shop selling a range of products stocks a particular species of plant and seeds. It has sold these for a long time. The plant and its seeds are supplied to the shop with no warnings from the supplier and were not covered by the ISSA. Evidence later comes to the attention of enforcers that this plant has psychoactive properties. The retailer won’t have committed an offence by supplying the plant because they did not know nor should they have known that the substance they sold was psychoactive. But once the retailer receives this information they would be expected to take reasonable steps as a result. In practice this would be to agree processes to ensure that the products are only sold for legitimate usage and not for consumption for psychoactive effect."
- So, plants and seeds with psychoactive substances can be sold for legitimate usage, and not for consumption legally, but reasonable steps would need to be taken for this to be allowed.*
- Directly underneath the part I just quoted above it goes on to say about in person sales...*
"How can retail staff ensure that they are not accused of being reckless? This will be similar to the way they assess transactions under ISSA. Whether a person is reckless is subjective and comes down to the following: is the cashier aware of a likelihood that the product in question may be consumed for its psychoactive effect would it be reasonable in the circumstances for them to supply the product to the customer While the new legislation does not target sales to people under the age of 18 in the way that ISSA did, retailers might want to maintain the same controls they did under ISSA and give updated training to staff to prevent those at highest risk from gaining access to psychoactive substances. Where adults buy products containing psychoactive substances, retailers can consider whether they are being bought for human consumption by assessing various factors, including:
- What is the substance? Is it something that has been flagged high risk before, eg a substance covered by ISSA, or something that the Home Office has identified to retailers as being of concern? If not, it is unlikely to be high risk. - How much psychoactive product is the customer is purchasing, eg a can of deodorant, or a number of canisters of nitrous oxide? - What else they are buying, eg is this part of a weekly shop or a single purchase of high risk substances? - What is the time of purchase? A purchase during unsocial hours might be more likely to be high risk. - What is the physical or mental state of the customer? Are they already drunk/intoxicated, do they have physical symptoms of intoxication such as bad skin, weeping eyes, rash around the nose? - Is the customer known to the store as having abused substances or been intoxicated before? - If the cashier has suspicions, they could ask the customer why they are buying the product. Does their explanation sound reasonable?"
- So as long as this is followed, and it absolutely can be, then any sales can be done in a non-reckless way, making it legal. That would be for example, setting a limit on the number of plants that can be purchased in one go, the fact that its being sold within a plant nursery, and not some headshop, and then the other points are obvious. Also Salvia divinorum plants are not flagged by the ISSA.*
- A little further down on the same page it goes onto say about online sales...*
"What about online purchases? Businesses should take all reasonable steps to discharge due diligence in selling online. This could include considering as much of the context of a purchase as possible, eg: is the address for delivery credible, eg if a large quantity of nitrous oxide is being delivered to a catering company then suspicions are likely to be minimal; but if it is to non business address such as student university halls of residence), they may be raised what else is the purchaser buying, eg consumption paraphernalia such as balloons with nitrous oxide canisters or crackers, particularly in high volume monitoring customer feedback of high risk products (such as nitrous oxide) and taking appropriate preventative action where this suggests misuse"
- So again making sure large quantities arent ordered, any maybe avoid university addresses*
- And so this is all to say, selling plants and seeds which contain psychoactive substances can be sold legally, if not done for the point of consumption, or if sold recklessly, Salvia divinorum plants included*
Back to the legislation, still on "Offences"
When reading all the other sections... 5 Supplying, or offering to supply, a psychoactive substance 6 Aggravation of offence under section 5 7 Possession of psychoactive substance with intent to supply 8 Importing or exporting a psychoactive substance ..... etc
We can see that they are all already covered above using the guidance on the Gov website.
Theres a lot of information there, but when looked at it is clear that Salvia divinorum is only illegal in relation around consumption, and its fine for growing for legitimate purpose
What do you reckon, is that good enough for any justifications needed for an edit on the Wiki pages?
- (The Wiki pages currently list it as illegal under the psychoactive substance act 2016, which is what I just dispelled in regards to growing and selling plants for legitimate growing purposes. There are no other laws anywhere on the Wiki or in the actual law which states Salvia divinorum as a plant is illegal. Whoever wrote the Wiki entry originally made a mistake or didnt look into the law fully in regard to Salvia divinorum in the form of a plant. It was looked at in the way of being a substance, which is why its currently incorrect information on the Wiki)*"
End quote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdx92129 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 1 February 2022 (UTC)