I called Judd's kava bar last night and spoke to "Chris". He said they were offering K@ in-house only, as a "tea or infusion". He said they had been offering it for about three weeks, and that it was "relaxing and similar to kava", that it "bonded to opiate receptors but is not an opiate", and "could cause withdrawal problems". He admitted he knew very little about the product, and seemed to view it as just another menu item. I expect it will not take long before this kava bar is transformed into something entirely different, whether Judd realizes this or not.
How this should affect our view of BKH may be controversial, but I can at least give my opinions...
Kava is marketed in the US largely in the same context that it is used in the South Pacific - a relaxing social drink with potentially medicinal benefits. This marketing and promotion model is completely supportable both legally and scientifically.
K@ is marketed in the US through two venues. The first is the "botanicals" approach, where it is sold either separately or alongside similar products, and promoted for a wide spectrum of use ranging from traditional medical to "legal high". This is a variably supportable position, and closely mirrors the traditional Oriental use of the substance, i.e. a medicine with potential for abuse.
The second venue of K@ is the most unsettling and dangerous for us. This is where the kava marketing model is literally hijacked and applied to K@. This "virtue by association" model is totally illegitimate, and damages the reputation and the defensible position of both substances. Kava is a South Pacific social drink; K@ is an Oriental medicine.
Debating the usefulness of K@ is an interesting topic, but is has absolutely no bearing on the situation at hand. Is anyone honestly proposing that since K@ is useful and kava is useful, they should both be offered through the same venue and in the same light? This is clearly ridiculous, yet this is how conversations often digress. The real issue is those who usurp the reputation and tradition of kava and use these as a marketing tool for an utterly unrelated and addictive substance, which I personally find reprehensible. There are no "K@ nakamals"; this is a USA phenomenon instigated by merchants who are at best ill-informed and at worst totally deceptive.
Garry