Almost three years ago, several research efforts were launched at the University of Florida to investigate the buzz around Salvia divinorum.  The inquiry was catalyzed by a few students asking questions about the (then) obscure psychoactive plant in one of the researcher’s Drugs, Alcohol, & Society course.  At that time, the media was only beginning to increase their coverage on the derivatives and products of this plant; the tipping point seems to be when the recreational use of a Internet product containing Salvia divinorum extract reportedly caused the death of a teenager - Brett Chidester - in 2006.

Salvia divinorum is a species of plant in the mint family that is somewhat new to the western world.  Commonly addressed in pop-culture and media by its genus name - salvia - it was discovered for its psychoactive properties in the middle of the 20th century along with other substances from the Americas such as psilocybe mushrooms (magic mushrooms) and peyote/mescaline.  This happened just before the era of Timothy Leary and the LSD craze that became so tied to the hippie and 60s culture, only salvia never became popular until much later.  This should not come as a surprise as a stream of literature cites that the active primarily psychoactive ingredient in the plant - Salvinorin A - can produce substantial dysphoria.  Since euphoric experiences - or the avoidance of dysphoric experiences such as avoiding withdrawal symptoms or escaping from a harsh reality - are so key to continuing to use drugs of abuse, it may be likely that salvia never caught on like LSD, mushrooms, and mescaline because of its likelihood of producing unpleasurable effects.

According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMSHA), University of Florida researchers Hayden Griffin, David Khey, and Bryan Lee Miller, and San Diego State University researchers James Lange and his colleagues, it appears that the recreational use of salvia is indeed present at low rates in U.S. teens, young adults, and college students as ascertained by self-report surveys.  No one really knows when this started and how, but what is known is that salvia products marketed for recreational use have been on sale on Internet sites since the late 1990s as shown by researchers looking for products marketed as a “legal high.”  Only in the last few years have researchers put salvia on their watch list to monitor the pulse of its use among youth and college students.  This seems primarily due to the media coverage on the recreational use of the plant.

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has placed Salvia divinorum on its drugs of concern watch list, however the agency has yet to take any concerted action in controlling the plant or products derived from the plant material.  Instead, the DEA has taken the stance that the recreational use of the plant remains limited and is unlikely to sustain continued use among users who dabble in using the plant to get high.  The social scientific investigations by University of Florida researchers support the Drug Enforcement Administration’s stance on salvia.  Only about 20% of the respondents surveyed could even identify what the plant was or heard of it in any capacity and overall, only about 6% of respondents have tried salvia or salvia products in their lifetime.  Interestingly, marijuana use and level self-control significantly predict the likelihood of the recreational use of the plant: being an active marijuana smoker and having low self-control vastly enhances the risk of engaging in this behavior.  Gender also serves to predict use: men are more likely than women to engage in recreational salvia use.  Yet in most circumstances, respondents that tried salvia did not indicate a strong desire to continue using it - many reported that they would never try it again.  The DEA’s assessment appears to be correct - but that still begs the question - why has it surfaced in recreational circles in the first place?

That research is currently underway; however, many gaps in literature exist that are becoming more pressing as states are taking control efforts on themselves given the void of federal regulation.  As of current, 13 states (including Florida) and 9 countries have legal restrictions on salvia and salvia products.  From a forensic standpoint, there does not appear to be any literature on a protocol to identify Salvia divinorum via microscopy or toxicology.  Many law enforcement officers are yet to receive any formal training on salvia and what to do with individuals suspected of salvia possession.  For example, it is unclear if officers should issue a notice to appear / written citation of arrest or take a suspect into custody for a suspected violation of the statute.  This appears to be a non-issue at this point as no arrests, legal cases, or challenges exist to date - at least in the State of Florida.

In Florida, initial findings from ongoing self-report studies suggest the complete ban (Schedule I) on the plant and plant products have substantially stymied the use found in previous research.  While it is far too early to call the measure a success by any means, it seems the impact one year later is being felt among recreational drug using college students.  It appears that the lack of recreational demand for the plant with the added barrier of the lack of availability may have resulted in a drop in prevalence.

Yet the ban has dealt a blow to researchers interested in investigating the medicinal value of salvia in the state.  It is not that it is now an impossibility to study salvia, but its scheduling does place substantial barriers on research projects on Salvia divinorum and the divinorins (the interesting active chemicals in the plant) - especially as the plant and its derivatives are scheduled in the most restrictive capacity allowed by law.  Above and beyond this, the protocol to investigate the plant may be different as it is only scheduled in this capacity at the state level, not state and federal levels.  To date, it is unclear if this law has hindered any research in the State of Florida, but it may have dissuaded anyone for pursuing research along these lines.

The jury is still out, so to speak, on whether scheduling salvia at the most restrictive level was a good idea or not.  One thing appears certain, however; scheduling salvia in this manner has seemed to stamp out the majority of recreational use of the plant in the State of Florida.  This is by no means yet definitive.  More robust research must be done to ascertain this finding.  But it seems that this result could have been achieved with less restrictive scheduling as well, leaving researchers more wiggle room to examine Salvia divinorum.

The National Clearinghouse for Science, Technology and the Law (NCSTL) at Stetson University College of Law was developed to address this problem.

NCSTL is a nonprofit program of the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, United States Department of Justice, Grant #2003-IJ-CX-K024. The group organizes scientific, technological, and relevant legal resources into a comprehensive “one-stop” searchable database.

Specifically, information from multiple formats (such as cases, books, scientific articles, and newspapers) about dozens of forensic subjects is cataloged and summarized into bibliographic records. Topics range from anthropology through voice analysis. Anyone can explore and view these records by simply visiting www.ncstl.org and clicking on the “Search Database” link. Better than a general search engine, the unique website instantly pinpoints focused results.There are no fees and registration is 100% optional.

Visitors to NCSTL’s website can also take advantage of: detailed bibliographies on “hot” forensic topics, training modules with an emphasis on distance education, a hard copy reference collection accessible through interlibrary loan, archived copies of NCSTL’s newsletters, and even webcasts of well-known forensic lecturers, such as Drs. Henry Lee and Kathy Reichs. The site’s “Related Links” page and “Cold Case Toolkit” offer additional research tools.

This kind of unlimited, organized access to forensic materials is invaluable to professionals and students alike, and benefits both the legal and the scientific communities. Learn more about the organization at www.ncstl.org.

– Catherine Guthrie, Research Attorney @ NCSTL

This link kills spam

Looking back, a particular moment stands out in my mind that speaks volumes on the effects of workplace drug-free policies. While taking a break with one of my managers on an uneventful workday, our conversation about the usual monotonous workings of the business slipped into some of our own personal problems – things that were bugging us at the moment. My manager had been seemingly upset for the entire morning and I finally figured out why. On the previous day, she went home from work to find her husband shaved bald – with not only the top of his head glowing from the handiwork of a razorblade – but bald from head to toe. After the dirty looks and shock subsided, she soon learned that her husband, an illicit drug habitué (namely marijuana), had made an attempt to escape the drug-free policies of the company that was buying out his current employer.

He and several of his coworkers in his department had all purchased “detox” products to flush out the recreational “toxins” in their bodies to prevent testing positive for illicit drugs via urinalysis as well as shaved themselves and purchased specialty products to remove “toxins” from hair (for the areas in the hard-to-reach nether-regions and eyebrows) to avoid testing positive via hair analysis. While raising the eyebrows of their employers, the “Mr. Clean” shave-therapy seemed to have worked as none of the bald-brothers-in-arms were terminated for initially breaking the new company’s drug-free policy. Much to the dismay of my manager, who hoped the ordeal would bring her husband – a father of two – to limit his drug use or quit, the new policy only served to change the length of his hair, which he now kept cut very short, and also made him stock up on “detox” products such that they are readily available when he needs to pee clean or appear drug free when one examines his hair using toxicological measures.”

This is an excerpt of a recent research proposal aimed at identifying the incidence and prevalence of dodging drug testing via the utilization of countermeasure products available from local stores or on the Internet. According to the Drug Testing Index, a comprehensive ongoing assessment from the nation’s largest workplace drug testing firm Quest Diagnostics, the amount of affirmed samples utilizing such countermeasures are quite minimal. This contradicts the widespread use of these products as revealed in ethnographies by social science researchers – including Kenneth Tunnell (see “Pissing on Demand“) – and the information available via the National Household Survey of Drug Use and Health. The question remains: How have people adapted to workplace drug testing policies? If they have, how often are they successful?

I would like to open up this topic for debate and guidance for this line of research. At what point in the chain of custody is there a breakdown that allows tainted samples not to appear such official statistics? Is it just that the common result is an “invalid” test that must be repeated at the behest of employers?