Texas Veterinarian Legislator Goes on Anti-Salvia Media Tour, Calling Himself "Doc"

When a man calls himself "doc" and appears on television wearing a stethoscope around his neck while talking about the health risks of the drug salvia divinorum and asserting that "there is no known medical use" for salvia, people are going to take him seriously. That's why it's problematic that Texas state Representative Charles Anderson fails to disclose in these media junkets that, according to his own biography, he is a "small animal veterinarian," a man who has no particular insight into the health risks or health benefits of salvia for humans.

(Above and Below: Texas state Representative Charles Anderson appears on television wearing a stethoscope, accompanied by a caption that refers to him as "Doc.")

Anderson is supposed to be on "Dr. Phil" today, using that show as a platform to promote Anderson's just-introduced Texas anti-salvia legislation. I wonder if he'll make clear what his medical background is?

Below is the full clip of the NBC segment on which Anderson appeared. After that I've re-posted my own video about the way YouTube clips are being used by politicians such as Anderson to advance prohibitionist policies around salvia.

Comments

[ASmith]

We've seen the success of our nation's prohibition on marijuana. Hey! Maybe if we outlaw Salvia, it too will become a leading cash crop in the U.S.

[ASmith]

We've seen the success of our nation's prohibition on marijuana. Hey! Maybe if we outlaw Salvia, it too will become a leading cash crop in the U.S.

[Mike]

State Rep. Charles "Doc" Anderson goes by everyone on Central Texas as "Doc". I am sure Rep. Anderson can not help the media does not always disclose he is a Veterinarian and a small business owner. The dangerous drug of Salvia has been outlawed in 12 other states and 11 other countries so far. Hopefully the Great state of Texas with the help of Rep. Anderson will make that happen this upcoming session.

[Cordt Hanson]

Please elaborate on how salvia is dangerous in any way at all.

[Alex]

Cordt I'm not sure who your question was directed at. However, I actually believe that salvia, like any psychoactive drug, could be dangerous for some people in some circumstances. However, the existence of some degree of risk around such use doesn't tell us anything about whether we should criminalize the drug unless we also think about (1) how that risk compares to other everyday risks, and (2) how the undeniable harm caused by arresting and prosecuting people compares to the potential harm of the drug. My view is that the potential risks of salvia appear to be quite small compared to legal drugs such as alcohol and tobacco. Given that assumption, I don't believe it makes sense to put people through the wringer of the criminal justice system to "protect them" from this substance.

[kelly]

Doc Anderson has gone by Doc years before you decide to have to drag up stuff to try to make news...you should focus on the issues that need to be focused on and post some real news.

[Alex]

Kelly, I didn't "drag up" the fact that Anderson is a veterinarian. He's the one who made it relevant by going on television wearing a stethoscope and making stuff up about the health risks of drugs. I feel that that is absolutely an issue that needs to be focused on. The policy Anderson is proposing on the basis of these specious medical claims is going to cause people to get arrested, tried and convicted for victimless, nonviolent conduct.

[maryanne]

as someone who tried this once, i completely feel that it needs to be outlawed. this is the worst drug i have ever tried and i have done a few illegal ones. there is no reason any person needs to do this, it is dangerous, i honestly thought my life was over while on it. it only lasts minutes but it felt like hours. luckily, once was enough for me, outlaw it before more people try it and possibly get addicted to it.

[Alex]

Maryanne: so do you think you would be better off if you had been arrested, tried and convicted for using salvia? Would you be better off if you had been convicted for using other illegal drugs? I don't mean those questions in a flippant way: I'm just asking you to consider why *other people* should be arrested for conduct that you yourself engaged in.

[Bruce]

Regarding Maryanne's comment, my opinion is that most of the people who have such horrible salvia experiences were simply exposed to too strong an introductory dose. (Suppose the first time you drank alcohol, you chugged a quart of vodka?) I find a low dose of salvia very helpful in reducing my depression.

[Tom Novak]

Alex! Why does everyone go on about its use by teens, yet never mentions this can be fixed by simply making it an 18+ only drug? Why is it a sudden knee jerk to prohibition? Do you have any insight for me? I'm lost...

Trust me, make it illegal, and it will be just as easy to find as weed. (Well, I'm exaggerating, but...its a plant grown in homes across America already) And I hate to say it, but weed is almost easier for a 16 year old to get than a pack of cigarettes, which is regulated by federal law. Unregulated salvia will get in the hands of minors all the easier when no one can differentiate between a 20 year old user and a 15 year old user on the black market.

And Maryanne - salvia's active component - salvinorin A, has been shown to stop cocaine addiction in studies on mice and all evidence points to it as an inhibitor of opium based drug addictions. And think about it logically - you had such a horrible experience, who would want to continue its regular use then?? And what will you say to the thousands who enjoy the experience? Think first, please.

But yea, let's just pile more nonviolent victims of drug use into our nation's prisons, tie up the court systems, waste the time of over 400,000 officers, spend billions more on prohibition efforts that don't change usage statistics, and deny researchers the chance to develop useful drugs from it. Because our prohibition of other drugs have been proven to be so successful. Wake up people - the war on drugs is perpetuated for the mere fact it makes hundreds of millions of dollars annually in private profits and our Congressman are too frightened to seem like "pro-drug maniacs" and speak up. WAKE UP!

[Matthew Meyer]

Alex, thank you for your, ahem, sober perspective.
I think I may have already written a comment on your blog about the salvia ban passed here in Virginia last July. As I looked into the legislative history of the bill, it was clear that due diligence had not been done. Despite a financial report stating that the impact on the criminal justice system was "unknown"; the fact that board of pharmacy evaluation of the actual and potential abuse of the substance was bypassed; and the fact that the required second reading of the bill from the floor was waived, the legislature passed it by consent. The only evidence of salvia's possible harms was a document the DEA posted online several years ago that stated youths were using salvia in increasing numbers and that drew comparisons to peyote.
Of greater moment, it seems, was the crusade by Brett Chidester's mother to outlaw salvia because she blamed the plant for her son's suicide. (We've seen this before: see "Art Linkletter" and the drug-free movement.)
Completely lacking from Virginia's deliberations on the law was an assessment capable of weighing the drug's risks against the costs and harms of deploying criminal law against it.