37 Comments - Patriot - Monday, Aug 20, 07 @ 8:12 am: Banning controlled substances is a never ending battle, but it has to be done. The “druggies” will alway find new ones. - Rich Miller - Monday, Aug 20, 07 @ 8:35 am: I’ve deleted two posts so far. Stick to the question at hand, please. - Hidell - Monday, Aug 20, 07 @ 8:58 am: Banning use and distribution of drugs has long been seen as the way to stop people from using drugs. However, those laws will never work and money spent on the problem is always wasteed. As long as people want drugs, they’ll get them. I’m just amazed that we don’t attack the need. Find out why people want drugs, and attack that problem. Until that happens, drugs will always be a problem. Same goes for this dumb “fence” idea to stop illegal immigration. People who want to come to America will always climb that fence no matter how high it is. To stop illegal immigration, we need to find out why people want to come to America and then address those reasons in their own country. - Ghost - Monday, Aug 20, 07 @ 8:58 am: it seems a bit extreme, but I do not know how the classify peyote. I would say it belongs in the same catagory. - Cassandra - Monday, Aug 20, 07 @ 9:01 am: How many more of these types of obscure hallucinogenic drugs are out there? I suspect, lots. And if it is sold over the counter, where is the FDA? Wouldn’t a federal ban be more efficient. Will we be seeing an endless list of Blagojevich-signed laws and endless list of obscure drugs. Probably. You just know he’s running for re-election. Here we go again. - RBD - Monday, Aug 20, 07 @ 9:05 am: The right kind of legislation. Based on what I’ve read (via the links), it sure appears to be a plant/substance that will cause harm. From one supplier’s website: ”like alcohol it interferes with the ability to drive, produces incoordination (ataxia), and may produce slurred speech.” Also: “one remains conscious but completely enters an inner realm and loses all contact with ones actual surroundings.” I found nothing that indicated that the plant has beneficial properties for homo sapiens. We need to resurrect those “your brain on drugs” advertisements. - Diamond Dog - Monday, Aug 20, 07 @ 9:07 am: If you need a defenition for “Knee-Jerk Reaction”, this is it. Salvia is a small plant of the mint family, that SOME people say can give you LSD like halucinations. Science, on the other hand, is not so sure about this. I tried it in college. I got a headache and a terrible cough, thats it. Its no different from catnip, banana peels, apples seeds or the many many many other things people will put in thier body on the false assumption it will get them stoned. Salvia is sold in gas stations and head shops. The only crime is that those who buy it get ripped off. - daytripper - Monday, Aug 20, 07 @ 9:20 am: Sounds like the flashback I was promised years ago. A Schedule 1 controlled substance seems a bit extreme. - Muskrat - Monday, Aug 20, 07 @ 9:22 am: This is government by Church Lady. I see no stories that show any serious medical research about the plant’s supposed harms — anecdotes from frightened parents are not usually accepted as peer-reviewed scientific studies. The main talking point seems to be “It’s like LSD, and we all know LSD is bad.” Even if you agree LSD is bad and should be illegal, the chemical differences between the two are apparently significant. If there was real evidence the plant carried a significant risk of physical or psychological harm, that would be one thing. But this is just hysteria. - Gene Parmesan - Monday, Aug 20, 07 @ 9:31 am: RBD, thank you for protecting me from possibly having slurred speech. Your dedication to protecting me from myself is wholly appreciated. I don’t know what I would do without you; I’d probably end up a drug-fiend. Folks, Patriot said “Banning controlled substances is a never ending battle” and Patriot’s half right. It’s a battle that will never end because it’s bad policy and a battle that can’t be won. Whether you believe citizens have rights to ingest drugs or not, we’ve seen a whole lot of drug legislation wasting billions of dollars on ineffective programs. I have no problem with regulating the drug and making sure it’s not sold to minors, but I think we’d do a lot better with our regulation of drugs with more education and funding for the root causes of addiction/drug abuse. There are lots of things that “cause harm.” RBD, alcohol certainly has those same side effects. Let people make their own decisions about using or not using drugs. - Wilson - Monday, Aug 20, 07 @ 9:51 am: Too harsh. First, this is a plant, something given to us by the Almighty. As this law will lead to the destruction of plants and punishment of anyone associated with it (presumably including seizure of land), there will be a strong incentive for individuals to destroy this plant. It is in direct contradiction with the environmental and conservation movements. Second, it grows in the wild. All of natures creatures play a role in disseminating seeds. Woe to the unfortunate landowner to whom the animals bring these seeds. Third, the plant “allegedly has hallucinogenic properties”. What if it doesn’t? (I was going to say that any legislator who voted for this was a crazed lintic, but I tempered my remarks.) - Booker - Monday, Aug 20, 07 @ 9:56 am: Yes, this is excessive. Local elected officials have admitted to me privately that they do not support much of our currrent drug policy, but they don’t dare declare this, because they’re sure that they will be attacked by their political opponents. The result is policy panders to the fears and misinformation of the general public. Socioligists studying drug policy have observed that it is not science that determines our policies, but the most powerful interest groups. Perhaps a test for all of us, when considering laws against the use of chemicals would be…If we learned that our children were violating such a law, would we turn them in to law enforcement? If not, are these laws for everyone else, but not for our own? It is widely accepted that alcohol kills 4 times as many young people as all illicit drugs combined. Are we willing to advocate for a return to the prohibition of alcohol…or just some addictive and dangerous drugs? - ex-ILL-er - Monday, Aug 20, 07 @ 9:59 am: Weird. We had to amend the US Constitution to ban alcohol because it was a substance people put into their own bodies without harming anyone else. So why didn’t we have to amend the Constitution to ban the rest of the stuff that is banned now? Oh yeah, Americans have become too ignorant and apathetic to care about their rights and the principles of our Constitution. The “buzz” from this Salvia lasts about ten minutes but more like 5 minutes, which is conveniently missing from the drug warriors fear mongering. Similar to nitrous oxide. LSD lasts for 8 hours, so that’s hardly an apt comparison. The Washington Post today has a great article today about the failed drug war and the fact that the war on drugs is actually creating more terrorists in Afghanistan, where poppies are the main agricultural product. The Taliban is using America’s drug war to recruit peasant farmers there to fight against UN troops, and it’s working like a charm. The drug war has failed miserably and is doing more harm than good. Locking people in cages for ingesting stuff like marijuana and mushrooms and coca leaves and Salvia doesn’t work and will never work. It just creates more violent criminals and more crime and harsher drugs. More people would be chewing on coca leaves instead of snorting cocaine if it were legal, for example. Much less harmful. But what about the Presidential candidates position on this? We know what Barack Obama would do based on his previous efforts to lock up even more young black men for taking ephedrine, which was ruled unconstitutional. Obama doesn’t care about the Constitution evidently as much as he cares about putting an even higher record number of Americans in jail for doing something he did himself. Illinois should be de-classifying marijuana. They could save $1 billion in law enforcement costs and gain another $1 billion from tax revenues if they legalized pot. There’s your budget fix right there. The day will come soon when we have to choose between locking up 15% of our population for smoking some weed or paying for things like education and health care for those who need it. We can not afford to do both. Look no further than our failed drug war and the largest prison population in the world for the real cause of these “budget crisis”. - Enemy of the State - Monday, Aug 20, 07 @ 10:11 am: This is an outrage! I am in favor of any substance that promotes abuse and death for the user. This is the best way yet to eliminate people who are so unhappy with life that they have to alter their perceptions with chemicals. - zatoichi - Monday, Aug 20, 07 @ 10:24 am: Better make room on that list for the hundreds of other possible hallucinogenics that have been in use all over the world for the last several thousand years. Lick a frog, smoke banana peels, drink ground up leaves, snort fumes, Mentos and Diet Pepsi, whatever. As Patriot says “druggies” will always find a new buzz. Some are truely dangerous and stupid. Some are placebo nothings. Others are a buzz that has existed in some part of the world and has just been “discovered” by a traveler. There is no way to keep up with them. Nice photo op for the Gov and, unfortunately, probably PR for someone looking for the next “cool” thing. Regulating is often a good thing that has many positive outcomes particularly if it keeps others safe from stupid stuff I could do. It never really stops anything until the person decides to simply stop ingesting whatever substance they are using, simply cannot physically do it, or dies. - pickles!! - Monday, Aug 20, 07 @ 10:29 am: Guess i’ll have to go back to licking toads, until they ban those. - Undercover - Monday, Aug 20, 07 @ 10:44 am: I agree with Hidell. These types of “quick fixes” (I hesitate to even classify this as such) are not the solutions to widespread drug abuse. We must attack the root of the problem rather than the symptoms. This is ridiculous and I agree with Cassandra who thinks Blago is running for reelection (or perhaps higher office). He’s trying desperately to leave a quantifiable legacy. I suppose “tough on drugs” will fit on his resume nicely. - Objective Dem - Monday, Aug 20, 07 @ 10:44 am: It is way too harsh. First off, it is not addictive like heroin. Second, the drug is still legal in numerous states. And because it is so severe, I doubt that it will really be enforced. - Former State Employee - Monday, Aug 20, 07 @ 10:51 am: If you poll the drug treatment providers across the state, you’ll find many of them with a blank stare when you mention this “horrible, addictive” new substance on the street. Let’s get real. Heroin, cocaine, and meth are bread and butter of drug cartels, and the drug addiction that kills or put folks into treatment. How about more $’s for research and treatment instead of deeming this plant a one way trip to prison. - Muskrat - Monday, Aug 20, 07 @ 10:52 am: Re: Undercover’s comment, it just struck me that “He’s tough on drugs” can be read two ways– that a person is strongly opposed to drugs, or as similar to “he’s a mean drunk.” “Blago is tough… when he’s on drugs” would explain a LOT about the budget mess. - Aquanet+ - Monday, Aug 20, 07 @ 10:59 am: While Blagojevich is at it, he should ban the Kool Aid he’s drinking and serving up to his blind troops. But this is more important than HB0001. - pickles!! - Monday, Aug 20, 07 @ 11:00 am: But at what point are we going to far? people inhale common chemicals and things, such as paint thinner, every day to “get high’ How much more things can we ban and outlaw before enforcement starts becoming ridiculous? - Poolside from Hotel Ibiza - Monday, Aug 20, 07 @ 11:03 am: How bout we ban Blagojevich’s hairspray. - RBD - Monday, Aug 20, 07 @ 11:05 am: We need a new legal category: Things you can consume/inhale after age 50—when you’ve probably got a mortgage and kids to put some perspective in your decisions. - The Government Nanny - Monday, Aug 20, 07 @ 11:07 am: Prohibition did not work. People did not stop drinking. The mob found a whole new means of making fortunes. We have merely substituted “drugs” for alcohol (as though alcohol is not a drug) in our on-going battle against the human desire to enter altered states of consciousness. Prohibition did not work, but we keep trying the same costly “solution” with the same results - organized crime makes a tidy profit. No one wins, except politicians, organized crime, and the prison and legal “industries.” Until we give up Puritan notions that we can legislate morality, we will continue to create lucrative markets for organized crime and fill our prisons. - 312 - Monday, Aug 20, 07 @ 11:24 am: Too tough. I wonder how many “druggies” will start searching their / their parents backyards for this banned plant??? Next thing will be mushrooms, toads, AC coolant, white-out, anything from an aerosol spray can — that’s if they’re not banned already. Of course, they couldn’t ban aerosol hairspray, GRod would be ferklempt. “Tough on Drugs?” sure…… - Carl Nyberg - Monday, Aug 20, 07 @ 11:29 am: Is there any evidence of the plant being connected with crimes beyond the crimes against getting intoxicated by certain methods? Is there a compelling public interest in making this plant illegal and incarcerating people possessing the plant for long periods of time? - Jaded - Monday, Aug 20, 07 @ 11:31 am: Until this year I had never heard of the plant. From what I just read the law sounds a little harsh to me. We could probably use a little more uncontrollable laughter and improved moods in the world today. Instead of signing this bill, maybe Blago should serve it at the next leaders meeting. Then they could all sit around and giggle a while and then come together with their improved insight and moods and solve the state’s problems. - Silly and Stupid - Monday, Aug 20, 07 @ 12:13 pm: Too harsh seeing as tho we don’t have a budget yet but the Constitutional Officers have gotten raises. - Diamond Dog - Monday, Aug 20, 07 @ 12:18 pm: Lets go ahead and stop calling it a “drug” during our converstaiong. Penecillin is a drug, this is a small flowerless plant, not a bag of pills. - John Bambenek - Monday, Aug 20, 07 @ 12:20 pm: Re: “the dumb fence idea to stop immigration” Nuclear power plants have fences around them and other security measures… should we get rid of them because it’s not going to keep people out? - so-called "Austin Mayor" - Monday, Aug 20, 07 @ 12:48 pm: The criminalization of drug use has yielded nothing but unmitigated success for the last 50 years, so I see no reason to doubt the effectiveness of this measure. – SCAM - A Citizen - Monday, Aug 20, 07 @ 12:49 pm: Flower children always ticked me off - bunch of liberals having more fun than me. Except for the hardcore narcotics such as morphine, opium, etc. it should all be legalized and taxed to the max like tobacco. The prisons are filled with the result of criminalizing relatively harmless substances. The extraordinary high percentage of minorities caught up in the war on drugs is proof it is more a war on minorities. Far too much money is wasted on these ill-birthed programs and their enabling legislation both at the state and national levels. Time to end it! - SeerSucker - Monday, Aug 20, 07 @ 2:05 pm: If it’s such a terrible thing, why not make it effective immediately? Apparently we can go online, order all the salvia divornum we want just as long as it’s all smoked, eaten, whatever before the end of the New Years party. Now that’s responsble drug policy. Hey kids, you’ve probably never heard of this, but it’s really bad and you can get it online. We need to make it illegal, but not for another four months. - way northsider - Monday, Aug 20, 07 @ 3:59 pm: Many many plants affect people when ingested in various ways. It’s not a good idea to start banning them one by one. Many medicines are plant based. They can be used or abused. This is a solution in search of a problem. Bad idea. - Belle - Monday, Aug 20, 07 @ 4:33 pm: No politician will vote against making a drug illegal. The science does not matter. The class of drug it winds up in doesn’t matter. All the public will see is that ’something’ is being done and sleep all better at night. The fact that nothing actually was done at all won’t be brought up. Politicians like to have a few ‘I voted to make/toughen/create laws against these vile drugs…’ in there pack of quotes. It’s meaningless really. - Papa Legba - Monday, Aug 20, 07 @ 4:42 pm: I’ve heard that ingesting nutmeg, snorting quite a bit of it, will give you a buzz. But I think if you ingest enough to be altered you would probably hurl. Is banning nutmeg next? Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.