This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Note that points nearer the top of the page are more likely to be referring to old edits and/or issues which have been resolved. More recent / ongoing discussion points are generally nearer the bottom of the page.

The article currently states "Others, however, claim that Salvia has a depressing effect." Where are these others? What is the factual basis of this claim? I have read thousands of trip reports, talked to users and read the results of the survey of hundreds of users. In all of that, I have not seen indications of the "depressive" effects. In fact the evidence of Salvia Divinorum's antidepressant properties is well documented. I am going to edit in a comment about the antidepressant effects and will remove the "others claim" comment in 2 weeks unless someone can show evidence to the contrary.

---

I don't like the part "Reports of the drug triggering episodes of depression and schizophrenia have also been noted..." I haven't seen such reports, actually, there appears to be much to the opposite. See Antidepressant Effects of the Herb Salvia Divinorum: A Case Report at sagewisdom.org

The following survey conducted by two researchers, then at the University of San Franscisco, may help provide more factual rather than anectdotal or POV information Salvia Users Survey 199.181.134.220 00:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Stats, especially on this site, need sources. Where did this "10% seem to be unaffected" come from? From all I know someone could've just made it up and posted it here. Please post sources.-- Secret Agent Man 02:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it's probably anecdotal at best. Feel free to remove it. -- Bk0 ( Talk) 03:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. However, since it is certainly true that many who try salvia are unaffected, I am leaving in that piece of information but removing the "10%". -- Muugokszhiion 06:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

There is a certain percentage that aren't affected by it in any dosage, but I don't know where to find any documentation. Erowid doesn't seem to have any statistics. - Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 09:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't have time to check at the moment but it seems like I remember seeing that number at sagewisdom.org . Also when you look at users who are unaffected by it often times it's due to improper administration techniques. davethegnome ( talk)

Yes, it is on sagewisdom.org in the Salvia FAQ, though he doesn't cite anything to support it. - DaveSeidel 14:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Not that it's difinitive or anything, but I smoked the 10x potency of it this past weekend and was disappointed. I think I would have had more luck holding my breath and counting to 10. Not sure how many others are like that, but I tried it with 2 other friends, and nobody felt anything more than foolish for thinking it would be a great experience. Stick with the normal cancer sticks if you need a quick fix... - Unconcerned researcer - 18 April, 2006 2:03(CST)

Try it with a fortified extract (10x or more), from a bong, with a strong lighter, and hold to 20. Smoking a marijuana or drinking a beer before the salvia could help also. Sometimes it really doesnt work, but mostly it does. -- ha-core 14:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it definitely definitely works better from a bong or a bubbler, and you have to hold it as long as you can (not hard since the smoke is not harsh at all in my opinion, though i know some disagree) on the 10% unaffected issue, i definitely know a few kids who really don't get anything from it, and consistently. i don't doubt them, since it would be near impossible to "hold your savlia", ie pretend not to be feeling the effects. 134.174.157.201 19:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

http://www.worksoptoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=741&ArticleID=1229162

also entheogen defense fund website has spoke of it. comments? -- Raddicks 04:39, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I took out the comparisions in duration to DMT. While it is true the duration of effects is similar to DMT, Salvia and DMT are completely different substances. There is no reason to compare them as people could get the wrong impression. Just state the duration.

---

This article badly needs re-writing. It is far from NPOV. -- jaknouse

---

So, would 5x, 10x, etc. extract still need to be exposed to high temperatures from a butane lighter to release the chemicals? -- Staples

I just looked it over again and took out a little bit of non-npov stuff that was left. I think it is pretty npov now... -- kwertii

Exposing extracted plant leaf to higher temperatures is not neccesary to insure a more effective release of the chemicals, any flame would be sufficient.

---

Shouldn't this article be at Diviner's sage? Or is the binomial name used more often than the common name? -- mav 02:02 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Most literature I've seen just calls it "salvia". Google seems to bear this out, with 289,000 hits for "salvia", 29,700 hits for "salvia divinorum", and just 559 for "diviner's sage". 'Salvia' alone is ambiguous, since several other species of sage are also salvias. I think it makes the most sense where it is. Kwertii 06:13 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I agree. I feel that when dealing with plants that the scientific name should be used and that the common names redirect because information on any particular common name usually will give the scientific name.-- Lzygenius 23:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

It should stay right here. Pizza Puzzle

---

The whole Effects bit seems very POV and idiosyncratic. It also verges on being a how-to guide, which is not what Wikipedia is.

• "...the dried leaves may be smoked in a water pipe - three strong hits, held as long as possible within three minutes."
• "This drug is not to party or socialize or get high; in fact, while under the influence most people tend to find external stimuli distracting. Salvia can be a very powerful tool for exploration of spiritual elsewhere and elsewhen."

...elsewhere and elsewhen!?! Common! :) -- stewacide 09:55, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yeah... while I don't think that reporting on such topics is inappropriate per se, the particular writing style used here does seem a bit POV and rather like something you'd read in a pamphlet you received from a guy with a scraggly 3 foot long beard and a mumu who hadn't washed in a month. I'll see what I can do. Kwertii 22:50, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem is with giving usage instructions. Doing so is completely uncontroversial for Tea and Coffee (see Tea#Tea_Preparation and Coffee (drink)#Preparation). Why should it be any different for salvia? noosphere 20:22, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)

The author attempts to make a distinction between recreational drugs, and entheogens such as salvia. There is a significant difference. Mentioning that salvia is not a "party drug" is important. If anything, perhaps more emphasis should be made. For thousands of years, many South American cultures have used salvia as a sacred shamanic tool conducive to introspection and entheogenic voyages. That is definitely not a party drug. I also agree with Noosphere's argument. -- Muugokszhiion 08:10, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

---

Can someone who knows something about this please check the edits made by 69.162.207.79? I suspect on the basis of other edits there may be some issues. Thanks, Mark Richards 23:01, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Although Salvinorin-A has been shown to be a potent kappa opioid agonist, it is too early to attribute the powerful effects to this alone. There are lots of kappa agonists known to science (several of them used in medicine: buprenorphine, butorphanol, etc), none of which show the extreme effects of salvia. This may be similar to the case of LSD being a potent 5-HT agonist with the psychoactive effects being unrelated. Since salvinorin is active at such tiny dosages (similar to LSD), any putative receptor activity may not be relevant. Page edited to reflect this. Bk0 06:04, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

What is the point of this? It has a completely different mechanism and effect than the psychedelics. A brief review of the article revealed many misunderstandings, such as the shamanic use of "salvia tea" (salvinorin is insoluble in water) and the idea that most users would use a hookah or bong (salvinorin will condense when the vapor is cooled). This article needs work. Whig 08:14, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bongs, especially smaller-sized ones, are quite effective. Small bongs allow much less time for the smoke to cool and condense. A hookah would be a lot less efficient. It is true, however, that vaporizing would be, by far, the best method. As for "salvia tea," you're right, that is almost certainly a misunderstanding. Aside from insolubility, I doubt a tea would produce any psychoactive effects, since the salvinorin-A would be quickly broken down by enzymes once swallowed (which is why it is chewed, for absorption through the mouth, and not eaten). -- Muugokszhiion 05:03, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

I just fixed a little spelling mistake, and when I finished, I noticed Skubasteve834's contribution of the 1oz Salvia Bag image was gone from the history! I have no idea why that happened, and I apologize if I somehow inadvertently caused it. He deserves to be credited for contributing that image (and for the sake of good record-keeping) and I don't understand why his name is no longer there. I felt I should mention this because it's a weird occurance, and I don't want him to think that it was intentional. I don't understand what happened. If anyone can fix it so he is shown on the history page again, as he should be, please do. -- Muugokszhiion 15:22, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Unless someone manually fixed it, the error seems to have corrected itself. -- Muugokszhiion 14:51, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

I made a change to the article. It stated that Salvinorin-A was THE MOST potent psychoative compound known to man. Having read enormous amounts of information on almost every psychoactive substance known, I felt fairly confident in changing it. Every chemist and biologist I talked to or piece of work I've ever read will almost always state LSD as the most potent, even active at 25 micrograms.

Note the article says salvinorin A is the most potent naturally occurring compound currently known. LSD is a synthetically produced compound that does not occur in nature. -- Bk0 00:01, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I plead stupidity on my behalf. I did not notice the word "naturally". Sorry.

---

Dead DOJ link (404) removed. -- Cromagnon

---

I beleive that the source on Traditional Use of salvia as "The traditional Mazatec method for ingesting salvinorin involves chewing a ball of 15 to 20 fresh salvia leaves for an extended period of time." is patently incorrect. Can anyone point to a refrence of this source? At Salvia velada in Huautla de Jimenez curandera Gudelia offered me fresh Salvia leaves and indicated that they are to be chewed and swallowed. slavao

can this be cited or something? otherwise it should be removed . . . -- Heah (talk) 15:28, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like original research to me. -- Bk0 15:37, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Removed mistaken statement about dīvīnorum being an inaccurate form. I cite Lewis and Short: "dīvīnus , i, m., a soothsayer, prophet = vates, Cic. Div. 1, 58; 2, 3; id. Fat. 8; Liv. 1, 36; Hor. S. 1, 6, 114; Vulg. Deut. 18, 11 al." The term has nothing to do with ghosts. Rcharman 19:38, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Reverse Tolerance is a layman's "slangish" term that would be more appropriately replaced by the term "Sensitization". This is the technical word used in pharmacological terminology.

I am comfortable with either, although I would agree that "sensitization" is the more sophisticated term. I've modified the page, but noted that sensitization is sometimes called "reverse-tolerance," since linking to the wikipedia sensitization page would have been misleading. -- Muugokszhiion 06:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone considered that some of the reverse tolerance effects may be due to absorbing a higher dose by avoiding administration mistakes? -- Pak aran 04:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

That's probably part of the reason in some cases. However, many users do qualitatively report requiring less of the material to induce a hallucinogenic state. This is especially true when one dose is followed by another. Since few scientific studies involving salvia divinorum have been performed, we can only speculate as to why the phenomenon exists. Nonetheless, I don't believe there's any harm leaving it in the article, since it does occur, regardless of the reason why. -- Muugokszhiion 03:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

There is harm, if it isn't: a) externally verifiable, and, b) from a reliable, notable source. As you say, there are few scientific studies available for these subjects. That does not give us license, however, to relax Wikipedia standards for verifiability and accountability. People can always go to Erowid or their favorite drug enthusiast entheogen message board if they're looking for vague, spurious anecdotal information. -- Bk0 ( Talk) 03:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that our articles should be reliable and cited, of course. However, as a donor to, and frequent reader of, Erowid, I would like to say that I feel that they are very careful to identify which material is anecdotal (trip reports, etc) and which is scientificly proven. -- Pak aran 00:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Although i can say with some certainty that it has very little to do with avoiding administration mistakes, this is of course completely lacking in any sort of reliable verification. So i've edited the text accordingly. -- Heah ^talk 04:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

hey my name is eric and im a student at winnacunnet high school and im doing a project for health about salvia divinorum. I was wondering if anyone out there has tried this product and did you like it or did you have a bad trip?

I'd suggest you check out the lyceaum or Erowid's salvia vault, particularly the "experiences" section there. Otherwise, we tend to deal with verifiable, citable information, and our own personal experiences aren't part of the information we provide. Good luck with your project, there's plenty of information out there for you. -- Heah ^talk 22:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I tried it few times. If you want I can tell you my experiences, or you can use the erowid vault for informations, which is quite useful... Anyway if you are interested in asking me, please do so on my user page's discussion and not here. -- ha-core 11:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

What ha-core said. I've tried it, feel free to drop me a line on my talk page. And Erowid is extreamly useful. AP

I'm not sure whether anyone else has noticed, but there I would be extremely concerned about the amount of bias that has been worked into this page. All actions by authorities to regulate or prevent the use of salvia divinorum seem to have been automatically rebutted in a manner that is not entirely factual and seems to spin the truth. In many cases, it seems dismissive. I could be wrong, but this seems to be the trend here. - Cyril Washbrook 00:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you point out the parts, in particular, you are concerned about? If there is a bias, it should be worked out. -- He ah? 02:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I just read this, and thought it was an excellent pro-salvia editorial piece, but I find myself wondering what the other side has to say on the subject, or even what an encyclopedia article might have to say on it. To put it another way, although it's a nice piece, this doesn't belong on Wikipedia, it belongs perhaps on freenet or something. It's written (very well, really) at first in the style of an instructional piece on use, enjoyment, and spiritual significance of the drug from a user's perspective, and then as a persuasive essay in favor of its use and legality. I don't mean to condemn the use of the drug (hell, I don't even know anything about it), but I looked this up on Wikipedia expecting (and desiring) to read a dry, neutral, scientific discussion, not to be talked into a point of view on something I don't even know anything about yet. Xezlec 02:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you point out the parts, in particular, you are concerned about? If there is a bias, it should be worked out. -- SallyScot 21:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The article has been edited to a degree, but there are a couple of places that I'm worrying about still (these are just a couple of examples that possibly exemplify the sort of angle presented): "The Salvia experience is quite different from that of most other psychoactive drugs and may be overwhelming, even with the correct set and setting. Most practioners [sic] recommend darkness and silence as the best environment, however, minimal, ambient or relaxing music can be helpful." To me, this raises two issues: (1) the reference to that of the "Salvia experience", a use of terminology that reflects a partial view to actually using the drug; (2) would practitioners advise the use of the drug in the first place? By saying "most practitioners", the author of that particular passage suggests (intentionally or otherwise) that practitioners would commonly recommend its use, or at least not have a negative perception of it. If practitioners really believe this to be true, then it needs a source, but in the likely event that "most" practitioners would not endorse the use of the drug itself, I would suggest the removal or adaptation of this passage.

My second example is: "For most regular users growing the plant is considered to be an integral part of establishing a relationship with it." Is this at all relevant to a largely impartial and informative article? It borders on encouraging people to use salvia divinorum. Perhaps even more concerning in this example is the category that it is placed under. I'm just wondering what it's doing under the "Legal Status" category. It has nothing to do with the law, it is not presented in a legal nature or as a legal argument, and would be more suited as an opinion on a pro-salvia discussion forum than in an informative article under a heading discussing the drug's legal status. Cyril Washbrook 02:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I might add that I have deleted the second example cited above. First example pending. Cyril Washbrook 02:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, i think you're conflating original research with bias . . . I don't think it's biased to say that most users consider growing the plant to be an integral part of establishing a relationship with it; that is giving a fact about the users, not expressing a bias about what should or shouldn't be done. But it's highly unlikely anyone has ever done a study on whether or not most salvia users grow their own salvia, and without such a citation, it's an unfounded claim.

A reference to the "Salvia experience" is not in itself an issue. Salvia is a drug, and therefore alters experience; an article that avoids discussing the experience engendered by Salvia is useless, as it would be avoiding a discussion of the one and only thing this plant is used for. If you'll notice, this is actually cited a few paragraphs below- polls of Salvia users have shown that Salvia users consider the effects of Salvia to be different from those of other psychoactive drugs. Again, this is not making a pov claim about salvia, but stating a fact, the fact being that most users of Salvia consider it distinct from the experience engendered by other psychoactives.

Of course, an adaptation may certainly be warranted. The whole claim isn't substantiated- ie, it isn't cited that most salvia users recomend darkness, etc; or that many caution that the experience may be overwhelming, etc.

The problem in this section, as i see it, seems to have much more to do with problems of original research and verifiability, rather than a POV bias. It is- for the most part- worded in the form of "users claim x", which isn't giving a bias, it's stating a fact, the fact being that "users claim x", not that x is actually true. This is perfectly permissable, and is essentially how the Wikipedia NPOV policy is supposed to function- provided, of course, that we keep wikipedia policies of verifiability and no original research in mind, and the failure to do that, in my reading of it, seems to be the main problem with the "effects" section.

-- he ah 04:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

True, but the use of "most practitioners" needs to be reworded - a clear case (personally) of bias through word choice. Cyril Washbrook 13:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I’ve made a number of wording changes to the Effects section including (fixing the spelling of and) prefixing “practitioner” more clearly as “Salvia practitioner”, in case of ambiguity, as it may have taken to infer, say, a medical practitioner, rather than simply “someone who practices something”. -- SallyScot 20:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Brett Chidester was not taking Accutane. He was talking minocycline, an acne medication that does not have very serious side effects.

"Chidester’s parents admitted publicly that their son was also taking a prescription acne medication that has been linked to depression. [...] Chidester’s father, David, said his son had been taking minocycline to treat his acne."

See the complete article at DailyLocal

- The article goes on to say "While the drug itself has not caused death, a report published in the British Medical Journal in 1996 found that five patients out of more than 50,000 have committed suicide because of depression associated with acne, and 51 have been admitted to the hospital with a drug overdose attributed to depression."

From this and many other sources can be established links with acne (i.e. simply in and of itself, regardless of medication) and depression.

Admission that Brett Chidester was taking any kind of treatment at all for acne came only after being pressed on the issue. Early reports on Brett’s suicide simply portrayed him as a healthy, happy, 'straight-A' student.

Senator Karen Peterson, who introduced 'Brett's Law' to make Salvia divinorum illegal (Schedule-1 classification) in the state of Delaware, on 14th April 2006, the day after the bill was signed into law, and nearly three months after Brett's death, announced - "there has never been any mention of Brett Chidester taking acne medication -- and I have spent a lot of time talking with his parents about these issues".

It was only a few days later, after becoming aware of reports raising questions about the acne issue that she clarified there was medication being used, pointing out that it wasn’t Accutane.

the article states that salvia divinorum is the most potent drug, with threshold levels around 100 micrograms, but many many established resources (and wikipedia itself on the lsd page) state that lsd is the most potent drug, with threshold levels ranging form 20-30 micrograms. i didn't make the edit because i'm still pretty new to wikipedia, but i think someone more experienced should verify what i said and make the edit if it's true.-- Wikipedia manic 04:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Note the article says salvinorin A is the most potent naturally occurring compound currently known. LSD is a synthetically produced compound that does not occur in nature. --Bk0 00:01, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

- just copied Bk0’s comment of 27 Jun 2005 here (originally under ‘Comparing salvia to “other hallucinogens”’ discussion section above) -- SallyScot 11:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

This sentence from the article seems, well, unlikely.

With the significant time distortion typical of Salvia, participants may live a lifetime as another person, or as an inanimate object, such as a wall or a piece of furniture.

I can believe that there might be some time dilation, but may live a lifetime as another person stretches credibility. Richard W.M. Jones 14:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the Experience section should only venture fairly commonly reported phenomena, things that a reader might find by browsing a few reports, as opposed, say, to something that only one person has described in one isolated incident. I’ve read many experience accounts, and while temporal phenomena are commonly reported, this “entire lifetime as another person” does seem to be a bit of poetic licence, in other words perhaps a bit of an exaggeration and hence perhaps not suitable for Wikipedia. Strangely, although it might sound just as incredulous, there are quite a few accounts of merging with inanimate objects however. -- SallyScot 10:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

the lifetime as another person is a paraphrase of a quote from Erowid. it's not really made up, though it may be an exaggerated or rare anecdote. I could totally see it happening though. I have only taken moderate to moderate-high doses, and i have felt like i have spent hours seeing the universe as God does, or feeling the arm of time bend back upon me (no joke). I would not doubt that higher doses would do even stranger things. However, it is a bit misleading the way it is phrased, because that implies that the "life4 as a nother person" would be even remotely coherent. anyway, yeah. 134.174.157.201 19:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

---

The wording been changed from "participants may live a lifetime as another person" to "participants may report the feeling of living a lifetime as another person", which is not so literal and should be less contentious.

-- SallyScot 18:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Can someone point me to more information about the "green witch queen" strain? Also can we get more information on these strains?

Holy shit! There were only ~10 strains when I added / reinserted the strain list some months back! I'd like some confirmation that the newly-added strains (the lower ten) actually exist; could someone find some vendors/sites that confirm this (post them here on the talk-page, not the actual article, plz) 71.36.118.253 05:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

EDIT: Okay, found most of them here and added one (B. Blosser #2). Only need confirmation for Green Witch Queen and Resilience now. 71.32.58.100 05:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

EDIT: Me again. Okay, Resilience is also confirmed. Strangely, though, a simple google search didn't turn up any s. divinorum-related results for Green Witch Queen. 65.101.179.56 13:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

---

I’ve moved the list of commercial names to an Appendix at the bottom of the article. I think most of the names that were being added had more to do with marketing ploy than with the formal identification of botanically distinct strains of Salvia divinorum and as such didn’t really deserve to ranked so highly under the Botany section.

-- SallyScot 18:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

---

The suspect list of names was removed by Heah 07:23, 2 September 2006. I have some concerns about people reinserting it again under the Botany section (I saw the Appendix option as the lesser of two evils) – but basically I agree it doesn’t really belong in Wikipedia. We’ll just need to keep an eye out and, unless they’re properly cited true botanical strains, remove them and refer people to this discussion. That said, I see that some of the original entries were in fact clones named by Daniel Siebert – and including a link as such in the Botany section should be alright – just don’t want it to start getting silly with lots of un-cited tom, dick and harry names getting tacked on to an ever increasing list again.

-- SallyScot 13:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Alright, that's much better. I like how it's worded now, too. 65.101.179.56 05:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)