Is the disclaimer a legal precaution?

[slinginsage]

I have purchased leaves, and extracts many times.  On everything except for Salvia Zone products, I have encountered the all too familiar label "For Incense Use Only, Not For Human Consumption."  Or some variation of this disclaimer.
My question is why is this necessary, I understand the parties who are selling the salvia are using it as some from of C.Y.A. however, I do not understand why.  The reason I am asking is because I have been selling my own brand of standardized extracts locally without such disclaimer, and am wondering if it is something I should begin to include.

Thank you very much, in advance, for any and all input.

~Slingin'

[Arcygenical]

Yeah... It's just a way to protect your ass if something goes wrong. Technically, it holds no real legal weight, but it's a deterrent against legal persecution. I include one with the stuff I sell locally too.

[slinginsage]

Now out of curiosity, do you think that precaution would be null and void if accompanied by the guidelines I already include on the back of the packaging which contain information such as how to get the most out of it.  Sub-lingual verses smoked, and how not to abuse? 

It would appear a "Not for human consumption" disclaimer would be negated by the fact that I have included guidelines on how to use it safely.

I'm not 100% sure if I should slap that label on there or not.  I felt the guidelines are a must, such as using a sober sitter and not operating any heavy machinery including motor vehicles, but are they enough?

[MstryShovel]

alot of states have special permits or requirements for a "store" to sell "consumable" products. this could be a reason. my aunt owns a craft store in penncilvania and cannot sell this herb-infusion olive oil because its obviously for cooking.

[Paradoxic]

Well when it comes to substances that have not been approved by the FDA, I believe it is illegal to sell them for human consumption. Right now Salvia divinorum is an unapproved substance, so technically it is illegal to sell as something to be consumed. I doubt the penalty is very severe, probably a small fine. But whatever it is you might as well just sell it as incense to be on the safe side.

[DrYRHead]

At this point it is still an FDA issue. Thus, SD is sold as an incense. 

[JD1stTimer]

Right, it's an incense meant to smell in a very concentrated area.  I think that just means you can't quid it, cause that's not how you use incense.  I put my incense in a tiny bowl, then light it while breathing in the smoke directly off of the burning material instead of letting it dissipate into the air.  The odor is really too faint to smell any other way.   One thing I'm curious about... which amendment gave the FDA the power to ban any items it wants from being sold as consumables?  I understand truth in advertising law, such as if meat is spoiled it's false advertising to sell it as an edible product, or sell styrofoam as crackers, but that's not what the FDA currently does.  One thing I do know, and it's that only Ron Paul will do anything to try to return the government to it's properly authorized roles of making mail delivery possible, protecting our coastlines and borders, regulating weights and measures, enforcing contracts, keeping the free flow of resources between states, manufacturing precious metal coinage of specified weights and alloys, and preventing enactment and enforcement of any laws on the federal, state, or local levels that distinguish classes of people or that regulate certain types of activity (speech, writing, religious practice [as long as it doesn't involve physical coercion or serious injury to any practitioner {presumably}], association, owning firearms for defensive purposes, and keeping papers and belongings private unless a warrant is signed by a justice.).  Our government isn't just permitted to do these things, it's REQUIRED, and it's actually PREVENTED from doing ANY MORE THAN THAT, leaving the remainder to each state and community.  That is of course if this is actually the United States of America that I live in, and if the government has maintained continuity since the Union was founded.  Oh and also wars have to be declared by the Congress, and only the President can sign treaties.  And the constitution can be changed by a very difficult process which if carried out properly can only be achieved when a large majority of the voting population agrees that the change is necessary.  That's basically the whole constitution in a nutshell, besides the terms of office, leadership structure, criteria for government offices and other administrative items.  RON PAUL GETS IT, NO ONE ELSE DOES!

[SynapticFlatulence]

Is smoking considered consumption? 
I associate consumption with intake of food or beverage, am i mistaken.
do people consume cigarettes?
  jc
im sure "legally" it covers anything entering the body orally, inhaled, intravenously, or rectally for that matter..
as aside, I once heard a friend of mines GF accuse him after smoking some mj of "taking joints"
  lol

[JD1stTimer]

LOL, it's funny that it's legal to market cigarettes for human consumption.  They are certainly not GRAS (Generally Recognized As Safe).  But of course, the big two health-damagers, with all the big corporations behind them, get a free pass simply because of how much money they give to Congress.  That's all it is... the salvia companies don't have billions in their bribery funds.  And that's just what all those donations which come from "Trade Associations" should be called.  There's no way you can tell me that the Retail Tobacco Dealers Association doesn't exist just to keep their products on store shelves.  I wonder why all the Alcohol associations are on the state levels... could it be because the 21st Amendment already guaranteed that only the States would be able to make laws about alcohol?  BTW, almost every other federal regulation SHOULD technically be under state and local control.  It's only the treasonous actions of the Supreme Court in 1942 which made it possible for the Federal government to regulate anything and everything which can possibly be bought and sold.  The Fed could outlaw prostitution in Nevada if it wanted to, since people hiring hookers in Nevada cause a decline in hooker employment in surrounding states.  They just don't because Nevada would see that Gambling is also in danger and the State of Nevada would sue the U.S. Government using the kind of high-profile lawyers regular joes can't afford, and then using Regulation of Commerce as an excuse for every unconstitutional action would be over.  That's the only thing keeping prostitution legal in the U.S.  Actually I think that's funny... they keep prostitution legal so they can keep drugs illegal.  I wish the ACLU would help a drug crime defendant go to the Supreme Court and attack the ruling in Wickard v. Filburn, although Angel Raich's attorneys already tried it.  That decision gave the government such a stranglehold that even a supposedly "distanced" judiciary will never overturn it, regardless of the absurd obviously excessively broad scope it defined for the Regulation of Commerce clause.  Read about that case and you will see that even a layman can tell how warped the ruling was.