This whole thing sucks. Do they really base their argument only on salmonella? How would that hold up at all?
I think it's more because they think that herps in general are dangerous...I personnally think that some restrictions (ie. licensing or something to show that they have the time/money/space) should be put on owning huge snakes, like retics, to keep people from buying them when they're small and then dumping them when they realize what they've gotten themselves into, unpopular as this view might be....
But banning herps altogether just because of the slim possibility of salmonella or the stupidity of a few people who don't look before they leap would be equivalent to banning dogs because they can transmit parasites/rabies or because people buy them and then realize the huge commitment required and dump them at the aspca...and I don't think the banning of dogs would go over well with anyone.
Not to mention that there are a lot of sickos out there that buy dogs for fighting (or just abuse them), and an uncontrolled, aggressive dog is much more dangerous to the public and it's keepers than even the crankiest retic. And if the humane society has evidence for the banning of any pet, it would be dogs and cats due to the huge numbers that are dumped everyday at shelters everywhere. But nobody would ever suggest that because doggies and kitties are cute and furry.
I hate it when ignorant people get up on their soapboxes and preach the evils of something they've never experienced.