I went to Salem with a friend, Cymon. I had guessed the hearings would be at 9, but they started at 8:30. However, they were hearing another bill for an hour or so first, that had something to do with sexual abuse of kidnap victims, so Cymon and I had plenty of time to whisper to each other about what we were going to say.

First, the sponsor of the bill testified. He cited some articles he had read in the newspaper and Wikipedia. He mentioned the states that have already banned Salvia, and said driving under the influence would be dangerous, and quoted information from the internet about people having frightening experiences or even panic attacks,about how Salvia should be taken in a dark room with ambient music and a sitter, and that the main thing was to keep this drug away from children. Well, nothing there to disagree with.

The committee asked him various questions, none of which he knew the answer to. One of the questions was from a committee member who had a plant called "Salvia" in her yard and asked if that might be the plant and she might have to rip it up. He didn't know.

Then a state policeman testified. He was testifying neither for nor against, but rather testifying at the committee's request so they could find out what the Salvia situation is from the police point of view. Basically he didn't have any information for them. He basically said that since it is not controlled and there is no test for it, they had no idea whether it was a problem or not. The cop said the only encounters the state police have had with Salvia were 5 incidents where they confiscated what they thought was pot and it turned out to be Salvia.

They asked the cop if people driving on Salvia would be considered "impaired." he had no idea. One representative held up a copy of my letter and quoted from it, "'Driving under Salvia divinorum should definitely be illegal.'" She added, "And this is from someone who is AGAINST the bill! They recommend age restrictions and warning labels. Did all of you get this letter? I'll make sure you all get copies."

She actually quoted from my suggestions right in the hearing! With a tone that suggested she thought those were good idea!

It didn't look like much of a case had been made for banning Salvia. The cop seemed to do a good job for us of establishing that there was no Salvia problem.

Then it was my turn. I introduced myself as a teacher (concerned about our young people) and a member of an internet community that studies the therapeutic uses of Salvia (I belong to a private Salvia forum). I only got to testify for about five minutes, but the committee members seemed extremely attentive. I explained the difference between natural leaf and extract. I was able to build on the sponsor's point about people having frightening experiences and panic attacks, because it helped me stress that it was misleading to say that Salvia was "gaining popularity" -- more people are trying it, because of media attention, but many people (especially unprepared young people) have frightening experiences and don't care to repeat it -- I quoted what the sponsor said about panic attacks and said that most people, after having a panic attack, don't care to repeat that experience. I talked about therapeutic uses and need for continued research. And I answered some of the questions the other witnesses couldn't answer: the Salvia growing in one representative's yard was not Salvia divinorum, because it is not hardy enough for Oregon winters, and as far as driving, I said that no one would attempt to drive while under the influence of Salvia, but if someone were to light up behind the wheel they would definitely crash, because that would be the equivalent of blacking out behind the wheel. I said that there should not only should there be an age restriction but warning labels, but if it was made illegal, there was no way to make black market product carry warning labels.

Then Cymon testified. They gave her even less time than they gave me. She introduced herself as a teacher and drug counselor (since she once talked to fifth and sixth graders about drugs) and talked about the fact that making Salvia Schedule One would drive it into the black market, which an age restriction would not.

We left feeling really positive, because the "pro" for the bill was so weak that it could have been knocked down by a feather, and we had more than a feather!

Their decisions haven't been posted yet. They could have more hearings, send the bill to another committee, kill it, or change it. But who knows when.

Unlike the reports on the CA hearings, the Oregon reps didn't seem to have decided beforehand. But in all cases, when it comes to committee hearings, QUALITY matters more than QUANTITY. A few really good, literate, informational letters, a few individuals who look really responsible and professional testifying, count more than a flood of letters repeating the same stock phrases -- when a bill is still at the committee level. When the FULL LEGISLATURE is going to vote, though, that is when numbers count.