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 4 | Archive 5 |
The stem -orum is the genitive plural, so it should be diviners', rather than diviner's. I'll fix it.
Edit: Looks like I can't, as I'm too lazy to register. Would somebody mind? 06:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
GOT it.
Ddrehs (
talk) 23:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
There should be some mention of where Salvia can be purchased or attained in areas where its consumption is legal. Is it available at nurseries/shrubberies, or perhaps organic food stores? For those of you use Salvia, where did you attain it?
Also, in what US states is its use prohibited? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.203.252 ( talk) 18:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
As a Pothead i have experimented with other phsycoactive compound including Salvia as a Resident of southern Ontario Canada salvia is legal where i live and is availible in many corner stores and headshops in the form of extract in the strengths 10x, 20x, and 30x Potheadpoet ( talk) 15:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
over here in texas i can go to any smoke shop and get it. they sell it from 5x to 100x DO NOT try 100x if its your first time —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.199.203.19 ( talk) 08:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I purchused it at a head shop (I live in Louisvile, ky). It comes in 20x, 40x, and 60x, it is of course in the form of an extract. The legal status in quite unknown to me, It is legal to sell or buy, but there is a disclaimer that hints to any kind of consumption to be illegal.-- Frogmaster0989 ( talk) 14:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Why is there a main heading for 'International' and another for 'US law'? Mild case of bias, here; US opinion isn't any more important than any other country's. 81.151.208.35 19:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Note that the main article's Legal status section has been migrated to new Legal_status_of_Salvia_divinorum article -- SallyScot 22:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
The article says that LSD is not found in nature. This isn't really correct since LSD is made from lysergic acid from an extract of Ergot, which is a fungus which grows on grain. Consuming bread made from ergot infected wheat will have the same effects as consuming LSD. Tyrerj 20:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
How many types of salvia are there? I use the root for medicinal purposes, not to get high, and have never had any type of strange sensations. It helps to relax my mind, my muscles and tendons, and also to decrease my blood pressure. But it is Salvia root, and not even sure if it is the same plant. I would be upset if it DEA could control my rights to use an herb that is therapeutic and keeps me off of harder meds that never worked to begin with! Rebecca Willis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.55.208.10 ( talk) 04:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC) In response to the above post: LSD isn't found in nature. LSA is, which is like it but not LSD. That's like saying furnaces are found in nature, just because they are like fires. LSA can also be found in morning glory seeds and Hawaiian baby woodrose seeds. It has never been proven that consuming ergot bread will have these effects. Most ergot-bread eaters suffered from ergotism, a disease. LSA effects aren't identical to LSD effects either, although similar. (Mack, July 24 2007)
It was just passed 40-0 that it is illegal to sell Salvia Divinorum in Kansas. http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/story/498613.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.22.231 ( talk) 02:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Indeed it was. The national persecution will soon be in full swing. The first felony arrest was made in North Dakota on April 9, 2008: "Kenneth Rau, a bottling plant worker with an interest in herbalism, altered states, and religion and spirituality..." now faces years in prison. He bought $32 worth of the previously legal herb on eBay. Here's a link to the article, should anyone be interested: [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.224.216.28 ( talk) 01:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Thats sad. His life was wrecked because other humans think salvia is "dangerous", but that is incorrect, it's like saying cannabis can cause death, and we should all know that's not true. America's treatment of the "Drugs!" issue reminds me of some form of neo-nazism.-- Metalhead94 ( talk) 11:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
A section within chemisty reads:
"When considered by mass alone, salvinorin A is the most potent naturally occurring psychoactive compound known.[24] It is active at doses as low as 200 µg."
The second half of this statement is correct, and seems to be proving the first half. It is not however, upon reading this I was pretty sure it was wrong, as I'm sure chemicals such as LSD and Nicotine are also active at such low doses, and checked the LSD article.
"Generally, the dosage that will produce a threshold psychotropic effect in humans is considered to be 20 to 30µg.[17][16] "
- Copy and pasted from LSD article.
I can't remove the false sentence from the article myself (no account), so could somebody do it for me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.82.152 ( talk) 20:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Personally I believe that the intro to this article is too long, unfortunately I'm not well educated on this subject else I'd shorten it myself, if anybody else agrees with me I'd like to see the table of contents on the same page as when I open this article. Ghyslyn ( talk) 08:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
The controversy section is incredibly POV, and reads like a direct refutation of critics problems with the drug. Instead of balance and neutrality, it seems written as though the purpose of the article is to present an opponents argument as a straw man fallacy, and then argue against it. It desperately needs to be re-written. 69.137.233.3 ( talk) 04:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
This article talk page was automatically added with {{ WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot ( talk) 06:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm copying the following back in to current Discussion, originally posted by Rcharman 19:38, 12 November 2005 (UTC) in Discussion since Archived
On that basis I've reverted the edit which switched the literal translation of Salvia divinorum from "sage of the seers" to "Sage of the gods". It now says "Sage of the seers" again. I'm not claiming to be an expert on Latin myself, I'm merely requesting some exposition if "gods" is in fact felt to be more accurate than "seers".
-- SallyScot 16:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
If my Latin is correct then salvia deum would be 'sage of the god(s)', or a plural genetive form based on the root deus, 'god' rather than the root divinus
firstfox (
talk) 15:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
"LSD is a synthesized drug not found in nature whereas salvinorin occurs naturally in plant form." Yes, and so do a multitude of extremely toxic substances. The argument that "if it's found in nature, it's good", is entirely misleading and quite irresponsible. Stassa ( talk) 15:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)S
Quotation marks can be used in many different ways. Stick to the business at hand and leave the misunderstood misunderstandings for elsewhere please.
The fallacy that "natural is good" does indeed exist and it is irresponsible to ignore it on a wikipedia article (or anywhere). The article points out that Salvia is found in nature while LSD isn't. Why is that difference important in the context of the article or the section? The media are reporting clearly that it is a plant ("Dangerous Herb"), which must make it obvious that it grows in nature. So why even mention such a factoid, unless there is some implication- the usual one, that its natural occurence makes it more safe than the media suggest?
Moreover, the media compare Salvia to cannabis ("the new pot") If you insist that there should be a reminder that the media are mistaken that Salvia is like LSD because LSD is artificial, I must insist that there should be a reminder that they are right to say Salvia is "like pot" because cannabis occurs in nature. Salvia is just as "like cannabis" as it's "unlike LSD".
I understand that you wish to see the hysteria raised around Salvia quelled, but weak arguments like "Salvia is a plant" aren't going to do the trick- as I said, cannabis is a plant and the same people who worry about Salvia think pot is the devil. So really, you have to do better than that.
On the other hand, I think you will not find the new edit objectionable. Salvia is indeed "like cannabis" for a certain type of user. If they read this article, they will be pleased to know there is a natural high that they can enjoy without fear of prosecution. So we can all be happy, yes? Stassa ( talk) 14:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
--
You started your first talk post with a quote from the article, which was then juxtaposed with your own paraphrasing. You went on melodramatically about "a multitude of extremely toxic substances", claimed the article was "quite irresponsible" and made an article edit suggesting salvia was "just like hemlock". I don't really see your grounds for complaining about being misunderstood.
In any case, the point of Wikipedia isn't for editors simply to war over what they personally believe is or isn't true. The idea is for articles to reflect noteworthy opinions as they stand. For example, here is a quote from Daniel Siebert reported in today's Miami Herald:
Now, whether or not you personally subscribe to this view is not the crucial issue. The point is it represents a view strongly held by some Salvia advocates. If, on the other hand, you find noteworthy opinions to the contrary, which you feel ought to be included for the sake of balance, then that's fine. Only, from what I've seen so far, you've seemed rather quick to include your own analysis in preference to finding better alternate sources. In that respect I feel that your remark "Salvia is indeed 'like cannabis' for a certain type of user" suggests that you're still shooting from the hip in this way.
I've changed the article to say "Salvinorin occurs in nature, whereas LSD is a synthesized drug." This is in the context of media stories with headlines such as "DEA Warns Over-The-Counter Drug Is Like Acid".
-- SallyScot ( talk) 20:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, let's compromise. I'll remove the part about Salvia being a natural plant as opposed to LSD and you find another way to show why it is not like LSD. I think I explained very clearly why the fact that Salvia occurs in nature says nothing about how dangerous or not it is. It is, therefore, not much of a rebuttal of the claims by the media that it is a dangerous substance and that its use is risky, so it is irrelevant in that context in the article. If you think that the line "Salvinorin occurs in nature" is a useful bit of information, find another section to put it in. Perhaps under "Botany" or "Chemistry"?
Btw, I don't get why you're quoting the "opinion" of Daniel Sibert. His is a blatantly biased and clearly unscientific opinion (a "crime against nature?" Is that as bad as a "crime against god?"). Do you mean to say that "some Salvia advocates" ("some", who?) believe that Salvia's "natural" status makes its use risk-free? So what? That's their POV. If you're using it to defend Salvia against the media hysteria, then you're being biased too. Stassa ( talk) 22:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
While we're on the subject, who the hell is Daniel Sibert and why is he quoted twice in this article? On what grounds is his opinion important? Stassa ( talk) 22:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
From what I can see, the only reason the word "natural" enters the discussion is to make the distinction that salvia divinorum is the 'most potent natural hallucinogen', clarifying the statement as expressed incorrectly by omitting the word 'natural', since LSD is more potent but does not occur naturally. The ' "natural means good" ' argument appeared from out of nowhere when Stassa formed it on this page. Any indication that I'm wrong? Candyhammer 20:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
This ridiculous argument has been used for decades, most notably in relation to LSD prohibition in the late 1960s. Leary put this line of reasoning to rest when he pointed out tongue-in-cheek, that since more than 1000 college students commit suicide on campus annually, we should make college education illegal. The lengthy reference to Brett Chidester in the lead section reads as undue weight and lacks a global perspective. According to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, in 2006, 1.8 million Americans had tried Salvia at least once; No deaths or serious injuries have ever been reported. Viriditas ( talk) 13:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Compared to the vast majority of illicit psychedelic & hallucinogenic substances, Salvia is not really considered "powerful." I suggest removing this vague and non-objective adjective. 68.101.130.214 ( talk) 08:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I have withdrawn a FAC nomination initiated by someone who had never edited the article and didn't follow WP:FAC instructions about consulting significant contributors. Independently, I see a lot of MoS issues in the article, and suggest a peer review before bringing it to FAC. There are good tips at WP:FCDW/March 17, 2008 about how to get an effective peer review by inviting volunteers to comment. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 11:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to let everyone know that the information on the etymology of the genus name Salvia, which User:Cacycle rightly removed from the intro, was added to the Salvia article, along with the supporting reference. So the information has not been lost; it has just been moved. I decided to post this quick note to try to pacify people that would like to object to the change. -— Pie4all88 T C 05:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Just a thought, but it seems like the intro goes far, far too in depth into the history. The first paragraph is beautiful, but everything after (in the intro) seems non-NPOV, and goes too far into the history//etc. Just a thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.156.81 ( talk) 17:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
---
The article had a peer review on 26th July 2007. The first point made was a request to expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. And so this was done (i.e. the lead was expanded as a result).
WP:Lead says - "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any."
I'd say the fact that most articles don't contain a lead capable of standing alone as an overview of the whole article isn't a particularly good reason to cut one down that does.
-- SallyScot ( talk) 18:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
This analysis of anonymous edits follows from Salvia divinorum article's semi-protection status being removed at 07:21, 12 August 2008 by User:Tiptoety, thus allowing anyone to edit the article without registering.
The table above is intended to include reference to all anonymous edits made from 12th August 2008 onward. I'll continue to update it, which will hopefully be useful for any further decision on the article's protection status. It would be good if others could add to it too, in order to share the workload.
In arguments given generally in support of allowing anonymous user edits it is claimed for the average Wikipedia article that somewhere around 75% - 80% of anonymous edits are made in good faith and intended to improve the encyclopedia (see perennial discussion topic).
-- SallyScot ( talk) 23:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I edited the headline from "Diviner's Sage ska Maria Pastora" to "Diviner's Sage aka Maria Pastora"
Thank you Wikipedians for your noble work! Long live the Free Encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.224.74.250 ( talk) 20:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
My rule of thumb for semiprotection is one vandalism edit per day on largish articles. If no-one objects, I would semi this one, unless you guys wanna keep watching it. Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 04:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Regarding Salvia divinorum health risks, I have witnessed some ill effects. I am an ER nurse in a Southern California hospital. Several months ago, we had some patients with very serious complications secondary to smoking Salvia. The first, a 22 year old male who, after smoking Salvia, began to have a seizure. That seizure progressed, and developed into Status Epilepticus, a condition of continuous seizure activity. That young man ultimately died due to this complication. The very next night, we received another patient, this one a seemingly healthy 18 year old male who had developed sudden onset chest pain, and admitted to smoking Salvia. Upon obtaining an EKG and lab studies, it was discovered that the patient's cardiac enzymes were elevated, and he was in the process of a STEMI, or ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction, a particular type of heart attack. Thankfully, that young man survived following an immediate cardiac catheterization. In both instances it was reported that the only substance ingested was Salvia. Drug screening confirmed this to be true. Amanda.minyard ( talk) 14:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Just a note: on The Doctors TV show (CBS network), Monday 4-6-09, they performed an experiment in which a doctor smoked a bit of salvia while connected to an EEG machine. The results were interesting, and he described the experience while it was happening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maryd02893 ( talk • contribs) 14:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
This substance is on the list of 18(?) Substances soon to be delegalized (criminalized) in Poland:
Argyreia nervosa - Hawaiian Baby Woodrose, Banisteriopsis caapi - Ayhuasca, Calea zacatechichi - Dream Herb, Catha edulis - Khat, Echinopsis pachanoi - San Pedro (cactus), Piper methysticum - Kava Kava, Leonotis leonurus - Wild Dagga, Mimosa tenuiflora - Jurema, Mitragyna speciosa - Kratom, Nymphaea caerulea, Peganum harmala, Psychotria viridis, Rivea corymbosa, Salvia divinorum, Tabernanthe iboga - Iboga, Trichocereus peruvianus, Benzylpiperazine - BZP, JWH-018 - Spice
the bill (author of the bill: Grzegorz Sztolcman?) was accepted by Polish Sejm (for - 404, against - 5, and 2 abstent) [4] [5], Polish Senat [6] and the President of Poland [7].
Ttg53 (
talk) 14:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Nowhere in this article is there any mention of whether it is an annual or perennial plant. The Salvia article lists 36 Salvia species. It also notes, in the Description section that the Salvia genus includes annual, biennial, or perennial herbs, along with woody based sub-shrubs. Of those listed, some species articles state whether they are annuals, biennials, or perennials and some don't. If one were to attempt to use Wikipedia to check whether a particular species was an annual, biennial, or perennial one would have to sift through the sources to learn that, if indeed there were even sources included. Why should one have to do that when we could just add a single word to the intro or description section of the article?
I see two ways of solving this problem.
First, the Salvia page could include such information. I don't think that this is the best way to solve this problem. Doing so would needlessly clutter the page.
Second, each individual species' page could include such information. I think that this is the best way to solve this problem. Doing so would require only a minor change to each page.
I recommend adding the word perennial to the intro section, preferably in second sentence. It should read like this: It is a perennial member of the sage genus and the Lamiaceae (mint) family. I'm not too familiar with how to do this on protected pages, so if there is anyone who agrees with me on this and can help, I would appreciate it. Bowenj10 ( talk) 18:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
The article states that S. divinorum "is considered to be a true cultigen, not occurring in a wild state" and "The ability to grow indistinguishable plants from seeds produced through self-pollination also weakens the hybrid theory of origin", yet the source that references those statements (Marushia 2002, p. 3 and p. 6.) states the following, from the expert that has done the most research on the plants parentage:
The abnormalities of S. divinorum seem most closely aligned to characteristics of hybridity; however, no two Salvia species have been found that show an obvious affinity to S. divinorum (Reisfield 1993). S. cyanea may be one potential progenitor (Epling and Jativa 1962), but this has not been tested, and no other Salvia species appear to be likely candidates. Reisfield concludes that S. divinorum may be a hybrid or an inbred cultigen, but asserts that the origin of S. divinorum is still a mystery (1993).
I would like to add that information (summarized), but it seems to contradict what is currently sourced to the same article. Maybe I'm missing something?
Ott also quotes Reisfield directly as saying ""Hybridity is suggested, although intermediacy between two known species has not been recognized". And Rovinsky (The McNair Scholarly Review 1998. Volume 3: 142-156.) says "It is assumed to be a hybrid, although its two parent species remain mysteries." First Light ( talk) 01:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
This article is a bit long, so I propose we split it into the entheogenic/traditional uses article under Ska maria or some other common name, and another more botanical and overall more quantitative article under the latin binomial Salvia divinorum so that each article will be more navigable and user-friendly. Apothecia ( talk) 07:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
While no doubt well-intentioned, I think there are a number of issues with the inclusion of this diagram in the salvia article.
Salvia divinorum's effects are primarily psychological; this begs the question as to what real value is added to the article by the inclusion of a largely anatomical diagram.
It's basically a list of effects down the left-hand side under the heading Psychological, with a pointer to, you guessed it, the brain.
The psychological effects are selectively listed, and not listed in the same order as the Baggot survey. The most commonly reported effect 'Increased insight' is relegated to fifth position on the image while 'Increased self-confidence' is placed at the top, when it appears much lower down in the original source. 'Improved mood', the second most common reported effect from the survey, also appears well down the list on the image.
On the right-hand side there are some more tenuous links to other parts of the body.
The image is supposed to include common effects of Salvia divinorum, but some look rather shoehorned. The Baggot survey for example suggests only 5.4% of respondents reporting watery eyes; does this really merit the diagrammatic inclusion of "Increased tear production" and a pointer to the eyes?
Yawning isn't a particularly commonly reported effect either; here it's linked to the lungs and indicated as a respiratory effect, which I find at best fairly unenlightening and at worst rather misleading. Likewise for the association of lack of coordination, indicated as a muscular effect.
Overall I don't find this anatomical dissection and categorisation of salvia's effects particularly helpful. It looks rather like original research, and regardless of arguing that particular case, I think that the visual implication is anyway somewhat misleading and distracting.
-- SallyScot ( talk) 22:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I have heard of genetic lines from different accessions of S. Divinorum from Mexico, i.e. the Blosser and Hofmann ("palatable") strains, if we can find citations regarding this, would it be of value in the botanical sections? Apothecia ( talk) 07:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
"Medical experts as well as accident and emergency rooms have not been reporting cases that suggest particular salvia-related health concerns, and police have not been reporting it as a significant issue with regard to public order offences."
Later in the same paragraph there is pretty un-artcile-esque writing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.141.225.168 ( talk) 07:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
---
Dealt with, principally by the addition of this reference:
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)Reference quotes John Mendelson, a physician and pharmacologist at California Pacific Medical Center Research Institute, who says there have been no reports nationwide of trips to the emergency room by users, no traffic accidents as a result of Salvia reported and no overdoses. "We don't have a lot of evidence that Salvia is harmful".
Also refers to Lexington police department spokesman saying they had not recorded any complaints about Salvia. Further circumstantial support perhaps with references the likes of:
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)I've seen a few reports of similar ilk which could be added. And, it's also fair to conclude that, if Medical experts as well as accident and emergency rooms had been reporting many cases that suggest particular salvia-related health concerns, then the media wouldn't be at all shy about reporting such.
-- SallyScot ( talk) 12:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I have been growing Slavia Divinorum for about 4 years now, so I can clearly tell you that some large leaves in heathy plants do always have hairs on them. The article says the opposite. I have a photo, where it is clearly visible - you can tell from the reflection. I will perform a microscopic study, but please consider this fact. http://hclivess.rajce.idnes.cz/Rostliny%26houby/images/DSC02837.JPG you see? It's Hairs! -HCLivess —Preceding unsigned comment added by HCLivess ( talk • contribs) 19:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
R 191443Z MAY 09 ZUI ASN-A00139000011 FM COMDT COGARD WASHINGTON DC//CCG// TO ALCOAST BT UNCLAS //N05355// ALCOAST 297/09 COMDTNOTE 5355 SUBJ: BAN OF SALVIA DIVINORUM PRODUCTS A. MILITARY JUSTICE MANUAL, COMDTINST M5810.1 (SERIES) B. CG PERSONNEL MANUAL, COMDTINST M1000.6(SERIES), CHAPTER 20.A 1. EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY, ALL COAST GUARD ACTIVE DUTY AND RESERVE MEMBERS ARE PROHIBITED FROM POSSESSING, SMOKING, INGESTING, OR OTHERWISE USING SALVIA DIVINORUM OR PRODUCTS CONTAINING SALVIA DIVINORUM. AS USED HERE, SALVIA DIVINORUM PRODUCTS INCLUDE SUBSTANCES CONTAINING MARIA PASTORA, SALVIA, SALVINORIN A, OR DIVINORIN A. 2. THE DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY (DEA) REPORTS THAT SALVINORIN A IS THE ACTIVE COMPONENT OF SALVIA DIVINORUM. OTHER PLANTS WITH SIMILAR PROPERTIES INCLUDE CANNABIS SATIVA, WHICH CONTAINS TETRAHYDROCANNABINOL, THE PRIMARY PSYCHOACTIVE COMPOUND IN MARIJUANA. UNLIKE MARIJUANA, SALVIA DIVINORUM USE PRODUCES HALLUCINOGENIC EFFECTS SIMILAR TO LSD AND PCP, WHICH MAY LAST FOR ONE HOUR. AT THIS TIME THERE ARE NO ACCEPTED MEDICAL USES FOR SALVIA DIVINORUM. 3. IN ORDER TO ENSURE MILITARY AND OPERATIONAL READINESS, POSSESSING, SMOKING, INGESTING, OR OTHERWISE USING SALVIA DIVINORUM OR PRODUCTS CONTAINING SALVIA DIVINORUM IS PROHIBITED. THIS ALCOAST CONSTITUTES A LAWFUL GENERAL ORDER, AND FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS PROHIBITION IS PUNISHABLE UNDER ARTICLE 92 OF THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE (UCMJ). 4. COMMANDS CONCERNED ABOUT SALVIA DIVINORUM USE AT THEIR UNIT SHOULD CONTACT THEIR SERVICING LEGAL OFFICE FOR GUIDANCE BEFORE OBTAINING A URINALYSIS SAMPLE, THEN CONTACT TRIPLER ARMY MEDICAL CENTER TO REQUEST SPECIAL TESTING. A MEMBER MAY CONSENT TO, OR BE ORDERED TO SUBMIT A URINE SPECIMEN IN ACCORDANCE WITH REF A. ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE TO INCORPORATE SALVIA DIVINORUM TESTING WITH THE COAST GUARD RANDOM URINALYSIS PROGRAM IS BEING EXPLORED. 5. THIS POLICY WILL BE REFLECTED IN A FUTURE CHANGE TO REF B. 6. RELEASED BY ADMIRAL T. W. ALLEN, USCG, COMMANDANT. 7. INTERNET RELEASE AUTHORIZED. BT NNNN —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zingo250 ( talk • contribs) 00:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, coast guarde shouldn't be using psychedelics when piloting heavy machinery, esp. the gunboats ;) Apothecia ( talk) 04:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Is this the same for the red variety ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.148.210.93 ( talk) 16:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Apparently this does cover the red variety (assuming you're thinking of Salvia miltiorrhiza or S. splendens), as well as culinary sage and all other species. It does after all say that "subtances containing...Salvia" are prohibited. And what's with the comparison to THC? I'm assuming it's because (unlike most psychoactives), divinorin and THC are non-alkaloidal. That's like saying that squid are similar to whales since (unlike most aquatic animals) they aren't fish. What an incredibly poorly written regulation. 192.104.39.2 ( talk) 21:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
This review is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps, a project devoted to re-reviewing Good Articles listed before August 26, 2007.
Salvia divinorum has been banned in Germany since March 2008. It has now the same legal status like cannabis or heroin there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.224.140.51 ( talk) 00:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
{{
Editsemiprotected}}
should say "a psychoactive herb which can induce strong dissociative effects at a potent dose."
So Measles has tagged this article as being too long, and I agree that the article must be made more navigable. Whether sub-articles would be best is up to discussion, but I would propose as a simple logical start that the article be split effectively in two; one article would deal with effects, legal status, and other issues related to Salvia in modern culture, the other article being a botanical and taxonomic description of the plant itself, including growth information and other details related to the plant itself as a species. Any thoughts? Apothecia ( talk) 06:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
-- SallyScot ( talk) 08:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ownership_of_articles
--
I've considerably shortened the Legal status and Opinions and arguments sections with some recent edits and consequently removed the too long tag.
-- SallyScot ( talk) 22:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
According to lead standards:
"Alternatively, if there are more than two alternative names, these names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section; it is recommended that this be done if there are at least three alternate names, or there is something notable about the names themselves. Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line. As an exception, a local official name different from a widely accepted English name should be retained in the lead "(Foreign language: Local name; other names exist)". Apothecia ( talk) 01:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
if you go to: http://www.sagewisdom.org/jep.html; you can search 'There are two methods of ingestion traditionally employed'; this will show that in the 1994 J. ethnopharma article by Siebert, that quid chewing and/or juiced leaf ingestion is a traditional method. Apothecia ( talk) 21:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
--
The reference you gave said, "fresh whole leaves are masticated and swallowed", and that leaf must be chewed "well enough to be easily swallowed and so spend quite some time in contact with the oral mucosa". So we evidentially have mention of the leaf being swallowed, and chewing done to facilitate this swallowing, with nothing to suggest traditional knowledge of sublingual absorption. Pendell says, "I still prefer chewing and swallowing, if only from a sense of tidiness and tradition." And does not say the option of spitting out the chewed leaf is traditional. I can't see anything to contradict this in Valdes either. Thus far I think the misreading is on your part.
-- SallyScot ( talk) 20:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
--
Right, we don't have evidence that traditional knowledge includes knowledge of the chemical structure of DMT, but that they devised effective extraction and ingestion methods (along with MAOI potentiators), or that they understood base extraction when taking lime with coca, but here we are to say that the traditional people cultivated a plant, named it and used it in a shamanic and quasi-religious manner, and YET, they had no clue that holding the leaf in the mouth would yield psychoactive effect. Please.
Try chewing a dozen pairs of bitter leaves down to mush that you can easily swallow without taking enough time to ingest it intrabucally (sublingual means below the tongue by the way.)
I just think it is ludicrous, and maybe even a bit naive, that you are convinced that there was no knowledge on the part of traditional practice. Apothecia ( talk) 08:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
--
Apologies for the long post (excerpts cut and paste) that follows, but it may be worth it for further consideration and discussion of the issue. It's more detail from Jonathan Ott.
Foster [1984] described his ingestion of 20 leaves:
This comment, and María Sabina’s dismissal of the leaves as feeble compared to her preferred entheogenic ally teonanacatl (María’s biography was translated into English in 1981, noting “Of course the Shepherdess doesn’t have as much strength.”) (Estrada 1977), have seemingly informed modern consciousness of this little-known entheogen, which acquired a reputation as being weak and second-rate (tacitly assumed of any plant our governments have not deigned to prohibit). Reviewing entheogens in a widely-read anthology, botanical expert Richard Evans Schultes commented (Schultes 1972):
Another more recent source echoed this theme of surrogate or second-rate entheogen (Rätsch 1988):
[...]
I first encountered Salvia divinorum in 1975, when I moved to Mexico to collaborate with the Díaz group. I observed that young Mexican users of Cannabis and entheogenic mushrooms, who were wont to engage in mushroomic tourism to Huautla de Jiménez to obtain psilocybian mushrooms, which had become articles of the tourist trade there (Ott 1975), would return to Mexico City with dried leaves of Salvia divinorum, which they would smoke in ‘joints,’ like marijuana. I verified that the dried material was, in fact, active and effective when smoked, in contrast to the Mazatec belief that drying the leaves destroyed their potency. This observation was first reported in the literature by Díaz, in his first paper dealing with ska Pastora (Díaz 1975). Smoking dried Salvia divinorum leaves surprisingly became the preferred mode of ingestion among certain users in the United States (Pendell 1995). By the summer of 1993, Salvia aficionados in California had discovered that by far the most potent means of ingesting the fresh leaves was the so-called ‘quid method,’ chewing the leaves well and retaining the leaf mass and juice in the cheek, in the manner in which coca (Erythroxylum coca LAM.) is typically chewed, swallowing neither the leaves nor their juice. Valdés, with whom the ‘basement shamans’ communicated this finding, later mistakenly reported that the Mazatecs so use the leaves:
In fact, this method was discovered by non-professional researchers in California, again besting the Mazatecs, who failed to discover this most effective method of ingestion, just as they failed to discover the activity of dried leaves or their activity when smoked.
[...]
...salvinorin A is at least an order of magnitude more potent than any other known natural entheogen, such as psilocybine from María Sabina's mushrooms (oral threshold of psilocybine in human beings is about 2 mg (Fisher 1963)), and is within the range of activity of the semi-synthetic ergoline compound lsd. To think María Sabina had characterized ska Pastora as lacking strength compared to her beloved mushroomic children (Estrada 1977), while the crude mouse assay employed by the Valdés group had suggested that salvinorin A was of the same order of activity as mescaline, a compound which is in fact more than 1000 times less active (Ott 1993)!
[...]
...all of the ethnographic reports describe making an infusion of the 'rubbed' fresh leaves in water, which is simply swallowed, with no emphasis on retaining the material in the mouth as long as possible, and only Wasson described the alternate method of simply chewing the leaves, although American anthropologist Bret Blosser independently documented this ingestion method among contemporary Mazatecs (Blosser 1991-1993), as did Mayer (1977) (Blosser added the detail that the stack of pairs of leaves was rolled into a taco or cigar to facilitate chewing the leaves). On the other hand, it is a noteworthy fact that, as Siebert's experiments with a marginal dose of 10 leaves blended in water did show conclusively, buccal absorption is the more effective method of ingestion. To be sure, in the course of chewing 20-80 pairs of fresh leaves, the leaf matter would needs be in contact with buccal mucosa for an extended period, allowing buccal absorption ... but why did the Mazatec Indians fail to discover the obvious advantages of the quid method? This question is especially pointed in that, as Pendell noted: "by the eighth swallow of the leaves the gag reflex becomes overwhelming" (Pendell 1995).
[...]
...I would like to list my reasons for regarding the shamanic use of this drug to be a post-Conquest innovation in the Sierra Mazateca. I had previously mentioned the lack of a truly indigenous name for Salvia divinorum among the Mazatecs. It is suspicious that the Mazatecs associate the plant with the Biblical Mary, and with sheep, both post-Conquest introductions to the Sierra Mazateca, and Valdés documented remedial use of infusions of 4-5 pairs of Salvia divinorum leaves to treat a disease called panzón de barrego (sic), 'big lamb's belly' (Valdés et al. 1983). We also have the precedent of the mushroom Psilocybe cubensis (Earle) Singer, introduced to Mexico by Europeans along with the cattle in whose dung it grows. Some Mazatec curanderos have come to ultilize this mushroom as a shamanic inebriant, others eschew it (and, tellingly, those who do use it hold it to be the 'least esteemed' species). This is exactly what we find with Salvia divinorum--we have seen that María Sabina held it in low esteem. Like the leaves of Mary Shepherdess, P. cubensis lacks a truly indigenous name, being known prosaically in Mazatec as the 'sacred mushroom of the bull's dung'; or in Spanish as honguillo de San Isidro Labrador, the 'mushroom of St. Isidore the Plowman,' patron saint of Madrid! (Wasson & Wasson 1957). The fact that the Mazatecs put Salvia divinorum in the same 'family' as two species of Coleus known to be post-Conquest introductions to Mexico is further evidence for this hypothesis. What clinches the argument for me, however, is how little the Mazatecs seem to know about using the drug. They believe the leaves to be inactive when dried, but this is not true--the dried leaves preserve their activity indefinitely and salvinorin A is highly stable. Valdés suggested the dried leaves were unsuitable for preparing the aqueous infusion, but Pendell has shown they can be successfully rehydrated for oral ingestion, one way the Mazatecs have been documented using the fresh leaves. Valdés saw in the strange method of preparing an infusion of the fresh leaves: "a pharmaceutically elegant way of preparing a microsuspension or emulsion of salvinorin A," while Wasson dismissed this as "certainly an inefficient method." Siebert's studies showed it to be indeed an inefficient method--a marginal, low dose which provoked no effects in an imitation of the Mazatec technique (and the same dose which was all but inactive for Albert Hofmann, even when prepared under the supervision of María Sabina) was "consistently effective" at evoking "definite psychoactive effects" utilizing the simple quid method, readily discovered by American 'basement shamans,' but not divined by the Mazatecs. Far from being an 'elegant way' of ingesting the leaves of Salvia divinorum, this seems rather a crude adaptation of the standard Mazatec (and other Mesoamerican Indian) technique for preparing the psilocybian mushrooms and the entheogenic morning glory seeds, which are traditionally crushed on a metate and infused in water (Wasson 1963). It is as 'though the Mazatecs had adapted this standard technique for processing entheogenic plants for ingestion, which is indicated in the case of the mushrooms and seeds, but barely effective in the case of the leaves ... as 'though they had learned comparatively lately of this drug, which was given a name inspired by the religion and economy of their conquerors, and to process which they simply adapted their existing technique for processing entheogens, despite the fact that it hardly works in this novel case. So ineffective is this adapted processing, that the leaves of Mary Shepherdess have the reputation among the Mazatecs of being much less powerful than the psilocybian mushrooms. Even Valdés' informants regarded Salvia divinorum to be weaker than the morning glory seeds or the mushrooms (Valdés et al. 1983). Hofmann found 0.2% psilocybine (dry weight) in cultivated Psilocybe caerulescens Murrill from a strain collected in July 1956 in Huautla de Jiménez (Heim & Hofmann 1958), while Valdés isolated 0.18 % salvinorin A from dried leaves of Salvia divinorum--making the leaves, gram per gram, nearly 10 times as potent as the mushrooms (since salvinorin A is roughly 10 times the potency of psilocybine)! If the Mazatecs have a long familiarity with the leaves, if in reality they have developed a 'pharmaceutically elegant' way of processing them for ingestion, then why do they fail to perceive them as being far and away the most potent entheogen available to them?
- Ott, J; (1995) Ethnopharmacognosy and Human Pharmacology of Salvia divinorum and Salvinorin A, Curare, 18(1):103-129.
-- SallyScot ( talk) 19:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
The lead is a bit on the long side, WP:LEDE recommends three to four paragraphs. Does all that detail on Brett Chidester need to be in the lead, for example? Gabbe ( talk) 23:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the DEA paragraph seems unnecessary in the lead as well. Apothecia ( talk) 04:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
--
When previously unprotected this article suffered a great deal of vandalism. The subject's controversies will doubtless attract similar reaction again if made susceptible to anonymous edit. A previous analysis of anonymous edits was done following the article's semi-protection status being removed on 12 August 2008. The table includes reference to all anonymous edits made from 12th August until 29th September 2008. - Archive link to table of anonymous edits
In arguments given generally in support of allowing anonymous user edits it is claimed for the average Wikipedia article that somewhere around 75% - 80% of anonymous edits are made in good faith and intended to improve the encyclopedia (see perennial discussion topic). - It can be seen that previous anonymous edits to this article fall well short of that.
See also the archived discussion Talk:Salvia_divinorum/Archive_4#Analysis_of_anonymous_edits
-- SallyScot ( talk) 16:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
The section Legal status seems to be in violation of the Point of View policy. The section seems to be biased toward legalization. Cocoaguy ここがいい contribs talk 16:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Salvia and Salvinori A-F has been banned in Romania. It would be a good idea to add it to the list. The modifications to the law can be found here (Romanian) http://www.legestart.ro/Ordonanta-de-urgenta-6-2010-modificarea-completarea-Legii-143-2000-prevenirea-combaterea-traficului-consumului-ilicit-droguri-completarea-Legii-339-2005-regimul-juridic-plantelor-(MzQ3MzAw).htm
To get a translation just paste the link into translate.google.com. You can also do a text search on the web page for saliva. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiggalicious ( talk • contribs) 15:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}} Under Academic discovery please connect to wiki page for Jean_Basset_Johnson. Thank you. Edlemons ( talk) 21:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}} Please add the following images of S. divinorum clones and mother plants, respectively, to the "Propagation by cuttings" section:
The Art of Activism ( talk) 09:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Not done
I see. I'm new here and open to suggestions. I think it would be valuable to illustrate the process of propagation, if there's a way to make it work. The Art of Activism ( talk) 16:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
This section is ridiculous. Online polls are in no way scientific, nor do they offer any sort of objective, fact based information about anything at all. For all we know, a salvia website could have posted a link asking their readers to go vote in a poll. Or maybe Brett's mother, who runs an anti-salvia campaign, did the same.
Going to remove Noformation ( talk) 19:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
--
The section removed already included a disclaimer (highlighted bold below):
In Maine, Bangor Daily News ran an online poll in March 2007 posing the question: "Do you think the state should outlaw the sale of the drug salvia?" to which approximately 70% of respondents answered no. While they had over 300 reader responses, the poll itself notes that it is: "not a scientific survey and should not be used as a gauge of public opinion. It reflects only the opinions of bangordailynews.com readers who've chosen to participate".
A similar online poll was conducted by Indianapolis news channel's story in November 2007, asking the question "Do you believe Indiana should regulate salvia divinorum?". 76% of the poll's respondents were opposed to prohibition (59% preferring age regulations, and 17% no restrictions at all).
In March 2008 the Miami Herald ran an online poll in connection with its news story asking the question "Should Florida lawmakers place restrictions on salvia?". Out of over 670 respondents a majority of 79% voted No, against 21% who voted Yes.
Perhaps it's better to include them for what they are, disclaimers and all, and let the reader decide.
-- SallyScot ( talk) 10:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
--
I agree the polls would be unsuitable in support of a contention such as:
But please bear in mind that wasn't the edit, and it isn't what's being argued for.
It's reasonable to include reference to the polls while indicating that they reflect only the opinions of those who've chosen to participate and are not scientific surveys. Make them aware, qualify by all means, but allow the reader draw their own conclusions. Suppressing all mention seems editorially arrogant by comparison.
-- SallyScot ( talk) 23:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
The related Category:Salvia divinorum has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming . You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. |
First Light ( talk) 03:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I've changed the lead, where it says "it literally translates to "diviners' sage" or "seers' sage"" to "it is usually translated as "diviners' sage" or "seers' sage"". First of all, a full 'literal' translation would not say 'sage', but would use salvia's literal translation 'to save'. Secondly, there is some dispute about the translation by one of the discoverers, Albert Hofmann, who implies that it's not a 'literal' translation but a bad one, or a colloquial one (the linked article is interesting):
It was determined at the Botanical Department at Harvard that it was a new species of Salvia and it got the name Salvia divinorum. It is a wrong name, bad Latin; it should be actually Salvia divinatorum. They do not know very good Latin, these botanists. I was not very happy with the name because Salvia divinorum means "Salvia of the ghosts", whereas Salvia divinatorum, the correct name, means "Salvia of the priests", But it is now in the botanical literature under the name Salvia divinorum. [8]
An online Latin dictionary (I don't know Latin) seems to support Hofmann. The 'literal' translation of 'soothsayer' into Latin is 'divinator'. One could add Hofmann's version to the lead ("Salvia of the ghosts"), where it says 'literal', but I think that 'usually translated' better serves the reader. First Light ( talk) 16:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
It's worth noting that very recently salvia was outlawed first in Allen and McKinney, then Plano, and a few weeks later the remainder of the DFW area. I don't feel suited to pen a decent/accurate section for this and don't know all the details, but it seems to me like this could be an important event and influence other areas to do the same in the coming future. --3 September 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pixel Eater ( talk • contribs) 19:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
"Media reporters rarely venture to take salvia themselves, but one firsthand journalistic account has been published in the UK science magazine New Scientist: The salvia took me on a consciousness-expanding journey unlike any other I have ever experienced. My body felt disconnected from 'me' and objects and people appeared cartoonish, surreal and marvellous. Then, as suddenly as it had began, it was over. The visions vanished and I was back in my bedroom. I spoke to my 'sitter'—the friend who was watching over me, as recommended on the packaging—but my mouth was awkward and clumsy. When I attempted to stand my coordination was off. Within a couple of minutes, however, I was fine and clear-headed, though dripping with sweat. The whole experience had lasted less than 5 minutes. —Gaia 2006-09-29 (UK Media)"
This section makes no mention that this trip was a low-dose trip. This is very different than what can be expected on an average trip, and to present this as the primary anecdote is really dangerous. If you take this chemical you will usually experience MUCH more than some "conciousness-expansion". You will f*cking break the matrix. A *friend of a friend killed himself after taking this because the world became much too intense for him. Please explain that that media report was on a LOW-DOSE. 38.112.4.154 ( talk) 16:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
The statistic under note 7 at the end of the article pertaining to the relative toxicity of alcohol is irrelevant; the comparison is invalid as alcohol is much more accessible throughout the world, and much more commonly consumed, than salvia. I'd suggest removing it unless it can be suitably qualified, but even then the information would be essentially useless to the article. 58.7.142.62 ( talk) 14:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
'visionary state' is an irresponsible and less than precise phrase. This plant induces a hallucinogenic state is a far more direct and responsible phrase.
Please don't use soft phrases such as visionary state to hide the facts. There is nothing visionary about drug use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.134.133.50 ( talk) 02:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Having tried salvia myself I would say 'visionary state' is an apt description, a more than 'responsible' description for a drug legal in most countries. 'There is nothing visionary about drug use' is a sweeping statement and suggests a degree of bias on your part. Flappychappy ( talk) 10:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Anyway this plant was used by the shaman to induce what they would call a visionary state. 24.103.207.172 ( talk) 11:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Visionary state is a very accurate description. 38.112.4.154 ( talk) 16:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
"Visionary state" doesnt sound terribly NPOV. "Hallucinogenic state" sounds more descriptive, as well, since Im not entirely sure what a "visionary state" constitutes. Are there hallucinations? Then say so. 63.139.142.114 ( talk) 02:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Actually "visionary state" is merely "hallucinatory state" combined with a feeling of "mystic powers of interpretation". That is to say if one believes in mystic religion then it is correct to say "visionary state". However, an agnostic would point out htat the feeling of having "mystic powers" could potentially be another aspect of the drug's mind alterning power -- in specific inducing euphoria and inducing echoing self-awareness that might seem like a second presence or spirit guide (which might while be delayed/interference in right-left brain hemisphere communication). A modern mystic might in turn point out that this experience of revealing hidden left -right hemisphere thoughts might well be a valuable insight suppressed by the normally dominate hemisphere.
Bottomline: neither term is incorrect but the dispute highlights the need to define ELSEWHERE the mechanisms by which mysticism contributes or distracts from the most staid and ploding advancement by pure physical science. Objectively mysticism has been both gift and curse to society with leaps in ethics, morality, psychology etc but also leading to some ruly appalling cults and anti-social behavior at times. 66.196.3.12 ( talk) 06:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)