It's both, we are not going to go hunt down vendors but if we are made aware of a vendor doing so, they will be moved.
Discussing other herbs and their synergy or lack thereof with kava isn't promoting kava as a legal high. My point was that there are going to be more people as time goes that will be interested in adding kava to their regimen and apparently if they are not going to use kava and kava alone, they are not going to be able to benefit or contribute to the conversation. Example: someone using K@ to treat a chronic illness wants to use kava to enhance sleep and relaxation at night. That's not legal high discussion. Censoring any posts that aren't horror stories or factually inaccurate information about K@ also does not help in converting people from K@ to kava. People using an herb medicinally aren't going to consider switching to something else if they can't ask honest questions and get honest answers.
I'm not sure about this decision. Considering much of the discussion has been whether a kava only bar can survive long term on only kava sales. I don't see this as being a good thing for the community because it will isolate vendors and reduce content shared about them. Until recently, I didn't even know N@H sold K@ at their kava bar but regularly have purchased from them over the years because they have had consistently strong kava. Now that they are relegated to a subforum that few people frequent it will become harder to find information about their products -- good or bad. On the other hand if a vendor who runs a kava bar wants to be featured on kavaforums.com so badly that they stop selling K@, then end up going out of business, then that is less options available for kava consumers.
The goal with these vendor rules are to set an example going forward that we as a kava community will not stand for kava bars that sell K@ on the coattails of kava. This does not prevent a member from talking about K@ and kava in a positive way. Either they made the switch or use them together. However, posts dedicated to K@ alone will likely be deleted because this is not a K@ forum. There are plenty of sites dedicated to that subject so there is a difference there.
That's a fair assessment but kava is not suffering from being sold by K@ as much as K@ has the potential to suffer being sold in a kava bar. Kavas legal future is not currently in question whereas kratoms is. Serving K@ in a bar type environment gives the image of recreational use which uninformed people will associate with the legal high crowd. The sudden panic that kava is somehow going to be damaged by the presence of K@ just seems kind of ridiculous. IMO what should be promoted is botanical freedom and proper marketing of them so consumers can make the right decisions.
It's perfectly legal to purchase and consume K@ unless you live a handful of states that banned it (where local politicians were convinced its a synthetic, etc).
I probably should have stated that I posted my previous interjection after deleting a post that was only being supportive of K@ and directing folks to research the plant.
The answer is obvious. Fortunately we aren't dealing with anything of that nature. I've said many times that I prefer that kava bars not sell K@ but whether I would continue to support them would be evaluated on a case by case basis. If they sold K@ on their website, in a responsible manor, I really wouldn't care at all. I only buy kava from dedicated kava vendors and K@ from dedicated K@ vendors, though.
Have you forgotten what kicked off this discussion?
Lets separate pro-K@ and pro-synthetic drugs. People who market K@ as a legal high are not helping K@ or the people who need it. We need to identify the enemies of kava and K@, not just blame K@ in an attempt to protect kava.
