I noticed that there seems to be much more effort (per head of community population) going into researching alternative (not currently in popular useage in the west) entheogens in Australian based communities such as the Coroborree, than there is at eDot or TheNook ( at least until recently). European enthnonbotay sites such as Psychonaut.com have virtually no knew research done by members.

Now there are a number of viable explanations I'm sure.

But here is what I think: Australia had Salvia Divinorum and Kratom made illegal first, and has more restrictions on what can be openly traded. In the US, Salvia is still legal in most states, as is Kratom.

Having Salvia and Kratom legal has caused the US communities to rely on them, and having no reason to research alternatives, they didn't. We on the other hand, have had years of incentive to search for alternatives.

I believe the current increase in interest in alternatives can be mapped against the beginning of the state by state legislation to criminalise Salvia Divinorum, and too a lesser extent Kratom.

Hypothesis: Hostile legislation drives innovative enthnogenic grassroots research.

If his is true, then as Salvia and Kratom (in particular, but not exclusively) are legislated against in more states of the US, more people will put effort into finding alternatives. More people looking equals more potential finds.

A good sociologist should be able test this, especially in retrospective.

It's interesting to note that in countries where salvia and other entheogens are more widely available commercially, this commercial activity does not seem to drive innovation, but often the opposite. If vendors can keep selling Salvia d and Kratom, then why would they bother doing research, other than to find ever stronger extracts. This strikes me as particularly harmful, as the stronger extracts make easier targets (ironically) for hostile legislation.

Therefore I'd further hypothesise that commercialisation of trade in ethnobotanicals can have an adverse effect on their legality. Bt this is a bit more complicated. A better way of putting it might be: Commercialisation of trade in ethnobotanicals can have an adverse effect on their legality, in the absence of research aimed at laterally diversifying the range of species and products available, and a willingness of the vendors to embrace this diversification.

If you chase two rabbits, you will loose them both (Hopi proverb?) The anti-drug/anti-entheogen movement is part of the establishment, and can chase a lot of rabbits at once. In the pat we have given them too few rabbits, now we must endeavour to give them more than even they can chase.

So where does that leave us in term of what to do next. The first step is to avoid despair. A researcher at my uni just finished his PhD on how innovation drives sustainability at a systemic level. Well, if he is right the legislation is forcing us to become more sustainable. Essentially what we nee to do is this: Research, and lots of it. There are bound to be many more plants out there that are useful to us, and even if they are not, our speculations will make good reading for the people watching us, and they might well spend (waste) some time figuring out that we are barking up the wrong tree.

Vendors and customers need to increase the breadth of what they sell and what they buy (respectively). This will make it more difficult for the authorities to pick out an easy target.

Sadly, the hardest thing that we need to do, and this is a lesson that the US community is having a hard time learning, is stop making our activities so media accessible. Without this the previous two suggestions will be less effective, though I believe that they will still work to some extent.