Talk:Salvia divinorum/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Translation

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)

Availability

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)

Heck, don't try 30x if it's your first time. Note that there can be a big difference between the stuff you find in head shops labeled "20x" and stuff you can get online called "20x". I think the brands you find in a store, like "Salvia Revolution", are much less powerful than they should be...so don't underestimate the potency of a 20x extract that is well-made and actually 20x! --pie4all88 (talk) 16:46, 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)

The article mentions that the rise of the Internet since the 1990s has allowed for the growth of many businesses selling live salvia plants, dried leaves, extracts, and other preparations. It wouldn't really be appropriate for the article to mention specific suppliers beyond this. Apart from anything else it would just encourage a general spamfest. --SallyScot (talk) 16:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Legal status

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)

True; that part should be put with the rest.--cloviz 16:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it had anything to do with any particular opinion. More likely the separation was merely to delineate the national / cultural legal differences in regard to Salvia. It might have been clearer had the International and US content come under one main heading (eg, Legal Aspects for example). JimScott (talk) 07:50, 5 November 2008 (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)

And yet the Legal Status section remains in the Salvia divinorum article duplicating a sizable portion of the content of the Legal_status_of_Salvia_divinorum article. I think that the Legal Status section in the Salvia divinorum article should be reduced to a link to the other article. It is only a matter of time before someone updates one and not the other and then we have conflicting information. JimScott (talk) 07:50, 5 November 2008 (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)

I would like to think that everyone experimenting with, or already addicted to, any sort of mind-altering drug (regardless of the permanence of it's affects) would have the decency and moral responsibility to refrain from operating power tools, motor vehicles or any other equipment where they might pose a hazard to their fellow human beings while under the influence; however short that time might be. Doh! BTW, Rau's life was "wrecked" because he broke the law. Better he should have gotten involved with the process and sought the enactment of exclusionary clauses that would have exempted [his] religious and/or cultural usage. Then he would have been fine. As Winnie often says while poking his head, "Think, think, think!" Speaking of which, cannabis use apparently can cause death; consider Lee Maisey or this pro/con commentary. Whatever. JimScott (talk) 07:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand how law plays any role with a religious entheogen in the USA, can someone enlighten me on how law can dictate religious practices and make such entheogen illegal to possess? I can understand restricting who can obtain it, but making it 100% illegal is illegal in itself.DiscoElf (talk) 09:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

This article, Entheogens and the Free Exercise Clause, copied from the Entheogen Law Reporter (Issue No. 4, 1994), is quite interesting. I like the idea of a personal declaration articulating religious motivation for entheogen use (see the end of the article), but unfortunately, as the Entheogen Law Reporter says (in note 4), the ultimate value of such a declaration has never actually been tested in a court. --SallyScot (talk) 20:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

False Information

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)

Good thinking, but the key word in the quoted sentence is "natural". LSD is not a natural substance; it was synthesized by Albert Hoffman back in the late '30s. I believe LSD is considered to be the most potent psychoactive compound known to man, but Salvinorin A is the most potent naturally occuring psychoactive compound known. LSA, a naturally occurring chemical that LSD is "based off of", is 1/10 to 1/30th as potent as LSD, according to Erowid. That page also claims that "Hofmann later reports that the active oral dose of LSA at "2 to 5 milligrams"." Wikipedia's LSA page states that "The effects of the Ipomoea seed can be noticed after ingesting 50 seeds. 200 to 400 seeds is a standard dose, and there are reports of strong hallucinogenic side effects after ingestion of 400 to 1,000 seeds...[LSA] is found in the seeds of several varieties of Morning Glories in doses of approximately 1 µg per seed." As for Nicotine, the Wikipedia page says that "an average cigarette yields about 1 mg of absorbed nicotine." I wish it was more specific, but I'm nearly certain that dosage doesn't compare to LSD or Salvinorin A. Maybe we should explicitly state how Salvinorin A compares with other potent psychoactives in this article, since I'm sure it would avoid confusion and would be informative. --pie4all88 (talk) 21:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

This page on Erowid somewhat deals with this question, though it doesn't use the adjective "natural". Also, instead of saying LSD was "based off of" LSA, I should have said LSD is a more potent variation that is chemically and structurally related to LSA. --pie4all88 (talk) 21:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Intro too long

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 length is fine; what concerns me is the amount of detail. I don't think we need two long sentences about a controversial suicide, for example. Viriditas (talk) 13:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Controversy section

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)

I've removed the POV tag added by GambitMG on 11 June 2008 following Sugaki's re-write of 12 June 2008. For a "straw man fallacy" criticism of this section to stand it really ought to suggest exactly how the media or others positions have been misrepresented. I've been following salvia related media stories for some time now. I've read many of them, and I'm quite confident in saying that issues and concerns raised about Salvia divinorum by the media are not generally well substantiated with supporting evidence.[2] I don't agree that the referenced stories have been cherry picked or that the media's overall position has been misrepresented in the article. --SallyScot (talk) 19:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

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)

Latin translation of Salvia divinorum

I'm copying the following back in to current Discussion, originally posted by Rcharman 19:38, 12 November 2005 (UTC) in Discussion since Archived

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."

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)

Comparisons with LSD etc

"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

Re. "if it's found in nature, it's good" - I think if you read the original text again, you'll find no such argument was actually made. You've misleadingly put quote marks around something which isn't a quote from the original text. The points are in the context of media stories drawing parallels with LSD. By contrast your "just like hemlock" parallels are your own analysis. I've consequently reworded. The new form does not use the phrase "occurs naturally" in case that was problematical. --SallyScot (talk) 19:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

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:

Daniel Siebert, of the Salvia Divinorum Research and Information Center, a website Siebert maintains out of Malibu, Calif., said he has devoted 20 years to studying the plant. He said that salvia shouldn't be available to minors, but that responsible adults should be allowed to use it.

"Plants are part of the natural world that we are born into," Siebert said. To ban salvia "seems to me to be some sort of crime against nature."[3]

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)

Daniel Siebert is an ethnobotanist who probably has more experience with Salvia than anyone else in the world. As for Salvia being like LSD, they are very different substances, and affect different receptors in the brain. Salvia is a strong dissociative (more akin to Ketamine or PCP) -- putting the user into a trance-like state, disassociated with their environment. LSD is a psychedelic (similar in effect to mescaline or psilocybin), and one can interact with and be aware of their environment while experiencing its effects. --Thoric (talk) 02:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so he's someone who's taken a lot of Salvia over the years. Not a reliable source, by any account if you ask me. Certainly not an unbiased one in any case. Stassa (talk) 21:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how having used Salvia detracts from one's expertise. That's like saying that someone who has only studied surgery, but never performed one is more qualified that an actual surgeon. Daniel Siebert is an ethnobotanist, and he was the first person to discover that Salvinorin A was the psychoactive part of the plant. He isn't just "someone who's taken a lot of Salvia". He is the utmost authority on this substance. --Thoric (talk) 22:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I feel like I should butt in here. Thoric is correct that Daniel Siebert found the active ingredient—something not even Albert Hoffman was able to do—and is generally considered to be an expert on it. You say that he's used salvia, so he's inherently unreliable...well, if he hadn't used it, the much stronger argument that he does not have any first-hand experience to base his claims and political position on could be used. It's a catch-22, really, when it comes to people petitioning for drug law reform. As for the LSD vs. salvia debate, it is important and reasonable to mention that LSD is not naturally-occurring, but salvia and LSA are. Looking at the article, I don't see where it is even implied that salvia is safer to use because it occurs in nature—I just see the information used to differentiate the two. Is there a specific section we are talking about here? —Pie4all88 (talk) 05:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah. After spending some more time looking at the article's history, I now see what section you are specifically talking about. I still think this information is useful, but Stassa, you're right that we have to be careful to avoid implying that salvia is much safer than LSD because it is naturally-occurring. I see you removed the sentence that labels LSD as synthetic and salvia as natural. Might I suggest replacing the sentence "The two substances are not chemically similar or related." with "The two substances are not chemically similar or related, as Salvinorin A is found naturally in a single plant while LSD is generally synthesized from ergine." I don't believe that this sentence has the connotation that salvia is safer. If we combine the sentences in that section into some comma-separated lists, I think the tone will be less confrontational and refuting. What do you think? —Pie4all88 (talk) 05:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I haven't heard any objections to this proposal, so I put it in the article. The sentences there have been changed from being short and choppy—probably meant to stress the differences between LSD and salvia—to longer and more languid. I believe this change to be informative and unbiased; I think the connotation that a natural drug is safer than a synthetic one is not present. Feel free to remove the change if you would like to discuss it more here first. -––Pie4all88 ^{T C} 03:51, 7 August 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)

Actually LSD is semi-synthetic, as it is derived from a chemical found in nature, rather than fully synthetic.--Metalhead94 (talk) 11:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Good point; I wasn't aware this type of synthesis was distinguished from full synthesis. I've updated the article to include this in a sentence under Media Stories. Thanks! —Pie4all88 ^{T C} 20:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Suicide

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)

You're right; those two sentences can be trimmed down to one, especially since we have generic requests on this talk page to shorten the intro. I've changed the article and ended up leaving out that Brett Chidester's parents blame salvia for his suicide because it seems to be implied and its inclusion (without a restructuring of the statement) would make the sentence unwieldy. Feel free to edit it if you would like it phrased differently. Cheers! -––Pie4all88 ^{T C} 03:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Not really "powerful"

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)

Try reading the section labeled "Cautionary notes" and pay close attention to the words "high strength extracts". Viriditas (talk) 10:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's really the Salvinorin A that is powerful, not salvia divinorum itself (which, I would argue, is rather weak, since people need 20x extracts to really trip out). The first sentence currently reads "Salvia...is a powerful psychoactive herb which can induce strong dissociative effects." I don't believe the meaning is dumbed down at all if the word "powerful" is removed, as it still claims the dissociative effects are "strong". It is also simpler, clearer, and more objective, as the anon noted above. I've been bold and removed the word; go ahead and alter my edit if you would like. If you would like the word "powerful" to remain, I think it should be mentioned in the context of extracts, so they should be mentioned too. Right now, extracts are referred to later on in the intro, and it seems to be fine as is. Cheers! -––Pie4all88 ^{T C} 03:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Premature FAC nom withdrawn

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 see some problems with it as well; I've been meaning to read through it and make minor changes throughout for a while now. Hopefully I'll get around to this in the next couple of weeks, but don't let me hold up any proceedings. -––Pie4all88 ^{T C} 03:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Salvia Etymology

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)

Article needs a bit of reorganizing?

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)

Analysis of anonymous edits

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.

Archive link to table of anonymous edits

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)

Interesting project. I didn't expect this much vandalism to pop up after the semi-protection was removed...not that there's an enormous amount now, but there was next to none before. I'll try to keep an eye out for vandalism and help update this running log, but I worry that the results won't be representative of an average article. A topic such as this doesn't always attract the most intellectual and unbiased minds, but then again, I suppose it's no more controversial than many of Wikipedia's other articles. Anyways, I'm sure this data will prove to be useful. —Pie4all88 ^{T C} 06:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this a bit more, and the data would also only be representative of a developed article (seeing as how this is a good article)—which is fine for the purposes of this study. I noticed that there is a WikiProject Vandalism studies, so you might be interested in listing it there or expanding this project to include vandalism from registered users. Just a thought. —Pie4all88 ^{T C} 18:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, just to clarify. I wasn't intending to suggest that this article was necessarily widely representative at all. I'm not trying to blow out of the water the claim that somewhere around 75% - 80% of anonymous edits are generally made in good faith. I don't know enough about that. I was thinking more if we could indicate, for this Salvia article in particular, that the anonymous edits are, for example, >75% vandalism rather >75% good faith, because of its controversial subject matter, or for whatever reason, then perhaps that's an argument to consider reinstating its semi-protected status. --SallyScot (talk) 20:56, 19 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)

ska Maria Pastora is correct, the leaf or herb of Mary, the Shepherdess. --SallyScot (talk) 21:15, 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)

I support semi-protection here, preferably long-term. I have better ways of spending my time than fixing petty vandalism. The salvia article is in a mature state. Anonymous edits which aren't vandalism or spam tend to be only minor grammatical tweaks anyway, so the potential gains from good faith edits don't seem to out way the damage done by vandals. --SallyScot (talk) 18:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

done. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

many thanks --SallyScot (talk) 22:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Health Risks as seen by an ER nurse

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)

With out reliable reference(s) adding anything you mentioned to the actual article would result in failure to comply with the no original research policy. This also tends to push on neutral point of view policy in my opinion. Regardless, I am most certain if anyone has died due to such a complication, especially within Southern California it would have been covered by at least one major media outlet. You know the hospital, and the patients info, thus finding supporting evidence should not be very difficult. Please reference your claims. Best regards.--Astavats (talk) 20:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Obvious troll is obvious. Coolgamer (talk) 17:12, 17 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)

Soon to be delegalized in Poland

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)

Annual, biennial, or perennial

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)

Good point. I've added 'perennial' to the lead, along with some information about the plant's discovery. This type of information is standard for the lead of plant articles, so it seems appropriate here also. There are actually about 170 Salvia species articles now (see here), and nearly all of them mention in the lead whether they are annual/perennial and their botanical desription and/or discovery. First Light (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Cultigen/hybrid discussion

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)

I've consolidated the story of the description and naming, plus the question of 'hybrid or cultigen' under a new Taxonomy section. Many other GA and FA plant articles follow this format. The question of 'hybrid or cultigen' is left open in this section, which is how reliable sources have left it. The only botanists who have tried to make a weak declarative statement have said 'hybrid' (Reisfield and Rovinsky), but even Reisfield equivocates from "Hybridity is suggested" to "The Mazatecs say that "La Maria [S. Divinorum] speaks with a quiet voice," which may explain, in part, why many issues concerning this enigmatic plant remain unsolved. Whether of hybrid origin or an inbred cultigen, questions regarding taxonomic affinities, fruit abortion, native distribution, and pharmacology are yet to be conclusively resolved." First Light (talk) 22:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Splitting into two articles

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)

I would lean against splitting, since the botany/taxonomy backstory is so woven together with the history of its use as an entheogen. The Chemistry is also completely tied to its use as an entheogen, even though some people might expect to find that at the 'botanical' article. And the binomial name is far and away more commonly used than the 'common' names, even for the entheogen use. "Ska maria" gets 18,600 Google hits, vs. 824,000 for "Salvia divinorum", and the vast majority of the latter appear to be for its use as an entheogen. At this point, the article prose is 63kb long, which is not outrageous. The lengthy footnotes, references, and further reading account for the other half. When article length is considered as a criteria for splitting, it's only the readable prose that is counted. On the other hand, I see that Cannabis (drug), Spiritual use of cannabis, Hemp, Medical cannabis are all split from Cannabis sativa. But in that case, there are some serious length issues involved. First Light (talk) 15:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting arguement regarding common usage of S. divinorum v. ska maria (et al), however:

1) google hits are not regarded as a source for making such distinctions, interesting though the results may be. Especially with the arguement that searching 'salvia' on google gets top hits for S. divinorum, while a person may simply be looking for genera info, 10 years ago this would have been the case, but the genus name supercedes google-hit arguementation.

2) I do not see how you are making the case that entheogenic use is inextricable tied to botany, I invite you to take a peek at how this issue is handled at: Cannabis (drug) vs Cannabis, and you can see that though there is overlapping information, the focus of the articles is clearer when split in this way.

I also agree that my use of the word long can be interpreted the way you did, (by length), but I meant to address the multitude of sections and subsections that exist in a sort of clutter that I am seeing. There may not be a considerable amount of prose, but that which is here is halting and not well-connected under this fused format between S. divinorum as a drug and S. divinorum as a plant.

Perhaps the ska maria idea was a bit much, so I propose a split between Salvia divinorum (drug) and Salvia divinorum in following with how cannabis has been treated.

I'm sure there is a wiki-formatting standard which is to be pulled out in these cases, but I would rather discuss it further and keep the dialogue going.Apothecia (talk) 08:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Häggström's diagram

Common effects of Salvia divinorum.

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 agree with your points, the effects are mainly psychological, and if the inclusion criteria were narrowed down to "bodily effects", or perhaps even "most common bodily effects", then there would be so few entries in the diagram that it wouldn't really be of very much help to the reader. Mikael Häggström (talk) 05:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought the block of 'brain info' on the left was a bit unwieldy as well, but it could be improved with a 2nd or 3rd diagram with pointers to the specific parts of the brain that are being affected; perhaps even a crude diagram including the k-opioid receptors' locations as well? Hopefully you're feeling ambitious.Apothecia (talk) 07:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of 'strains'

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)

Sure! I've never heard of these strains—though I'm not surprised they exist—and so long as there are reliable sources, I see no problem with including information on them. —Pie4all88 ^{T C} 10:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Citation needed

"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:

• Honeycutt Spears, Valarie (2009-02-09). "Proposal would outlaw hallucinogenic plant salvia". www.kentucky.com. {{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:

• Mason, Edward (2009-01-30). "City politician seeks to snuff out fad". The Boston Herald. Archived from the original on 2009-02-06. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

- a Boston Police Department spokeswoman said the Hub "has not experienced widespread usage of this substance"

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)

Botany

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)

BAN OF SALVIA DIVINORUM PRODUCTS

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 Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Salvia divinorum/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

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.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Introduction could be longer, but it is three paragraphs which is still a pretty good length (WP:LEAD).

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Many of the older links are dead, see here.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I'm going to put this article on hold, and see if someone fixes it. Otherwise I will see what I can do about fixing the dead links. If it is not fixed within seven days it will be delisted and reassessed as B-class. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 23:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

1A (introduction): I browsed down the list of sections on the article, and most of them seemed to be covered (in suitably summarized form) in the introduction. I suppose there should be something about the 2005-present legal/political topics.

2A (dead links): Most of the dead links seem to be news articles. Are they from the "News references" section (as opposed to footnoted references)? If so, I think they can just be deleted. Kingdon (talk) 17:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes I noticed that. If you can attempt to fix what works (I tried the archive url for two of them and one was good and the other was broken), and delete the ones that don't technically need a url, I can pass this one. The intro is not a big deal, just my opinion. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 19:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, at least some of them are footnoted (and are, at least in some cases, there for a hard-to-avoid reason: to illustrate what the news media was saying). I've made a pass through them, ignoring the ones which aren't really broken and fixing or adding {{dead link}} to the others. Maybe someone who understands WebCite (which is used extensively here), or who has a bit more time than I do, can help out as well. Kingdon (talk) 20:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I was going to go add something to the introduction, but I see it already has "While not currently regulated by USA federal drug laws, several states have passed laws criminalizing the substance and the DEA has listed Salvia as a "drug of concern"" which actually might be a pretty good summary. So I guess I'll leave improving that to someone else as well (if anyone wants to do anything with it). Kingdon (talk) 20:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I fixed a lot of the broken links. Of the three that are left, one is just a external link, and the other two are news sources which technically don't need links, so I left them as is. This is a massive article, I might suggest a content fork, but that is another discussion. Article kept. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 18:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Legal status in Germany

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)

sorry, but that is some bs. canabis not allowed to be sold and in some parts of germany it is ok to smoke it openly. while with heroin you DO have massive problems with the police. while SD is just "not to be sold" in germany. (IANAL) 217.227.31.81 (talk) 12:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

{{Editsemiprotected}} should say "a psychoactive herb which can induce strong dissociative effects at a potent dose."

Article length

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)

I've moved the "too long" tag to the end of the article as it's overbearing as heading; telling the reader that the article's too long is off-putting at the start. That's not to say it's not a valid topic for discussion of course, but I would suggest a few counterpoints that perhaps should be taken into consideration.

• If the article is broken up this will not make the subject easier to navigate. The reader will have to click back and forth between additional links to get the detail. As it stands the reader can skip over, for example, the Chemistry section if not particularly interested in that level of detail.

• Splitting the article will likely introduce duplication and make the detail more difficult to maintain.

• The article's comprehensive citations and references should not count against it lengthwise. They should be considered as appendix not the main body text.

--SallyScot (talk) 08:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Being off-putting is not the point of the length tag; the article IS simply too long, you can debate about that if you wish, but the tag notes specifically that it isn't to be removed until such a debate.

Skipping over a section is beside the point, that you must do so is the off-putting part of the article, not length tagging.

It seems that you've taken some level of ownership of the article, please see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ownership_of_articles

I do believe that the article is steadily improving, and that part of that process is to redirect certain sections to a new article, including and especially legal status. Duplication is not a problem for other articles on WP that are split, so I don't see why that shouldn't be the case here.Apothecia (talk) 01:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

--

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)

Alternative names

According to lead standards:

• Separate section usage

"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)

Quid chewing

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)

That ref supports the fact that chewing and swallowing (i.e. eating) the leaf is a traditional method, but this was never really in contention. The point about including quid chewing under modern methods is that the Mazetec chewing and swallowing of the leaf was relatively inefficient. Jonathan Ott notes that a group of modern Californian "basement shamans" established that the whole leaf was far more active via the "quid method", that is, chewed and held in the mouth like coca with no swallowing, rather than chewed and swallowed as the Mazatecs do. --SallyScot (talk) 20:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you're having a misreading, the reference says that they chewed and held the leaf in their mouth before swallowing. Pendell also describes the process, with the swallowing being optional or ritualistic, but not the end in and of itself. Chewing and swallowing has no qualitative/quantitative difference to chewing without swallowing, other than those in the GI tract, both seem to involve more of a protracted chewing period than is evoked by simply calling it 'chewing and swallowing'. I can see from your reference where you would get the idea that they simply chewed and swallowed, though it does not seem to be so according to the Valdes references, which were more ethnobotanical in nature. Apothecia (talk) 01:55, 16 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:

“leaving me with an upset stomach, a dry, acid mouth, and a great respect for Mazatecs who can work their way through a hundred! For me the leaves produced hardly noticeable effects. Craig Dremmond (sic) suggests that plants cultivated outside of Oaxaca may not develop the active constituents, and I predict that Salvia divinorum will never become a popular subculture euphoric.”

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):

“In Oaxaca, Salvia divinorum seems to be utilized only when supplies of the mushrooms and morning-glory seeds are short”

Another more recent source echoed this theme of surrogate or second-rate entheogen (Rätsch 1988):

“Mazatec shamans use its (S. divinorum’s) leaves when they are unable to obtain magic mushrooms (Teonanacatl).”

[...]

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:

“Some Mazatecs, as well as nonnative experimenters, chew a cocalike quid of the fresh leaves that induces strong and persistent visions ... Mazatec informants made a quid of four to five pairs ...” (Valdés 1994b)

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)

Lead too long?

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)

I've removed reference to DEA from the lead section. Their term "Drug of concern" is rather meaningless. We could equally say DEA have been aware of Salvia divinorum for many years and haven't really come up with anything substantial in terms of evidence to support its prohibition. --SallyScot (talk) 18:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I've combined some related paragraphs to bring the total number down to the four as suggested by WP:LEAD. The lead still could use some trimming, though. Gabbe (talk) 12:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree; maybe we should also un-protect the article as it seems to have stagnated following the protect.Apothecia (talk) 23:28, 18 January 2010 (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)

Neutrality of section Legal status

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)

That seems to be a large claim, considering the amount of content of this section and its subsections. Specifically what pops out at you as non-neutral? --Notmyhandle (talk) 20:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Salvia banned in Romania since Feb.

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)

Edit request from Edlemons, 6 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Under Academic discovery please connect to wiki page for Jean_Basset_Johnson. Thank you. Edlemons (talk) 21:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done  fetchcomms☛ 21:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Artofactivism, 19 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Please add the following images of S. divinorum clones and mother plants, respectively, to the "Propagation by cuttings" section:

A rooted Salvia divinorum cutting about 4 weeks after being cut from the mother plant and placed in tap water

Salvia divinorum mother plants next to some of their smaller daughter plants (clones)

The Art of Activism (talk) 09:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I cannot, because they do not fit - the section is quite short, and there are already many pictures. It is against standards to have text 'squashed up' between images (if I put one on the left), and on the right, it will cause bunching.

It is possible that, through discussion, perhaps some other images could be removed or moved; we would need to see a consensus. Sorry I couldn't help immediately.  Chzz  ►  11:24, 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)

That type of plant propagation is well described at Cutting (plant), and is certainly not unique to S. divinorum. So there is no need to describe it at all the articles on plants (hundreds or thousands) that can be propagated with vegetative cuttings. Also keep in mind that Wikipedia is not an instruction manual (see WP:NOTAMANUAL). First Light (talk) 17:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Online polls?

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)

I agree, and support removal of any so-called 'poll'. First Light (talk) 20:14, 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)

If there is a poll carried out by a national reputable, neutral, and professional polling organization, and published in a reliable source (mainstream newspaper or academic journal), then I think such a poll could be considered for inclusion here, since it would be reliable and notable. Online polls like these are so unreliable that they don't mean anything at all. That's just my take on it - the Reliable Sources Noticeboard might be the best place to get other opinions from people used to seeing this kind of thing. First Light (talk) 15:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, such criterion must be met in order to exclude biased poll results from special interest groups. --Notmyhandle (talk) 18:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

--

I agree the polls would be unsuitable in support of a contention such as:

The majority of ordinary people do not support Salvia prohibition.^{<pollRef1><pollRef2><pollRef3>}

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)

But those 'polls' don't say anything. They are just the opinion of some people in Bangor and Indianapolis. Those things aren't even polls - they are 'call us or click here if you have an opinion'. So to say in an encyclopedia article that 'some people in Bangor, Maine who called up the local newspaper think that ...." is really giving undue weight to something that is unencyclopedic and not notable. First Light (talk) 00:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I've started a discussion at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Salvia divinorum and online polls - reliable, notable? to solicit neutral opinions. First Light (talk) 01:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Nominating Category:Salvia divinorum for deletion

First Light (talk) 03:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The category discussion was closed as delete, but one of the !voters had a good suggestion: "Convert to a navbox -- The articles need to be formally linked, but a navbox will do it much better." If someone has the interest to do that, it would help tie together this article with Salvinorin A and Legal status of Salvia divinorum. First Light (talk) 14:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

'Literal' translation of Latin name

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)

Hofmann's translation and notes should be added to the article. --Notmyhandle (talk) 20:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Rather than having all the various (mis)translations in the lead, I think "Seer's sage" should be added to the other common names at the very beginning, and the discussion of the 'translation' of the latin name should be in an Etymology section, or in the Taxonomy section. "Seer's sage" and "Diviner's sage" are really used more often as common names after all, which should simply be added in bold right after the scientific name in the lead - as in other plant articles. First Light (talk) 22:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I decided to also be bold and make the changes, adding an Etymology section with Hofmann's interesting comment. First Light (talk) 02:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I hope I can put all this Latin translation BS to rest. Latin allows for substantive use of an adjective as a noun. Thus a divina is a female prophetess. The dictionary entry for divinus is here.[9] Divinorum is plural, masculine and in the genitive form, most likely the genitive of possession. Thus "of the diviners" or "of the prophets" or "of the soothsayers" or "of the divine ones." As you can see, divinus has a general meaning rather than a specific one. Salvia is even easier. It does not mean "to save;" it simply means "the herb sage."[10] The verb salvo, infinitive form salvare is a late Latin word according to the dictionary.[11]. This means that the word salvia is older than salvo and did not come from it. Now, the article makes an even greater error by stating that the verb salvere instead of salvare means "to save." Salvere means "to be in good health"[12] and was used as greeting in ancient Rome in the imperative form salve. In Italy today, salve is still used infrequently as a greeting. To make this article accurate, all quotes or speculation on the meaning of the name should be removed except for the translations "seer's sage" or "diviner's sage." It should not say "literally translates to" or "usually translates to" or "loosely translates to" but simply salvia divinorum, Latin for "seer's sage" or "diviner's sage" with a link to the dictionary entries in a reference section. I'm not sure where the "ghosts" and "priests" is coming from. He must be making this stuff up. 24.38.31.81 (talk) 20:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Please note that "Sage" is not a "translation" of Salvia. The dictionary definition you give only points out that the Latin Salvia was used by Pliny as the name he gave to "the herb sage". Since many plants in the Salvia genus are also called by the name "sage", it's not a translation, but simply a wider common usage of Pliny's naming. Regarding Salvia as being derived from "salvere", that's attributed to a reliable source. You could help the article by giving a reliable source that disputes that claim. Note that the dictionary definition you link to for "salvere" gives "God save you" as the very first definition, so the conclusion that Kintzios (a leading Salvia expert) came up with is not wholly unreasonable (or simply "BS"). Regarding Hofmann's "ghosts" and "priests" comment, I think it adds some interest to the article (even if inaccurate), since he brought the plant to the West's awareness, and was notable in it gaining popularity. If others disagree with its inclusion, do speak up please. First Light (talk) 01:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Legal status in DFW

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)

Serious need of explanation

"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)

I added a note about the unknown dosage. You're basing "low-dose" on your own or someone else's experience(s). Don't. Dose is highly specific to each person, and visions, although containing archetypes, is not particularly dose dependent (although I would agree, remaining worldly or breaking through are significantly different). The author fails to detail his experience or its intensity, but that is beside the point of its inclusion in the article. Again, a notice has been added. Thanks. --Notmyhandle (talk) 06:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Note 7 irrelevance

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)

The statistics for alcohol given in the note, which should also contain the statistics for "nicotine" (cigarettes), are given because the preceding sentence implies that salvia has an unknown amount of problems associated with it whereas more hazardous substances, with research backing them, are more legal (this applies to places where salvia is banned but alcohol/tobacco are regulated). The death statistics, which definitely carry a biased weight under certain circumstances, are a way to support the statement, "pointing out inconsistencies in attitudes toward other more toxic and addictive drugs such as alcohol and nicotine." Again, this is a focus on the fact that unknown salvia = banned, whereas dangerous but known alcohol = regulated. There is probably a better way to phrase that sentence and remove the statistics. I agree, they are not necessary, but I understand why someone added them. If you could, try modifying the sentence. --Notmyhandle (talk) 11:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Irresponsible word usaage

'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)