Talk:Legal status of Salvia divinorum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of hallucinogens on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Picture of Salvia divinorum[edit]

The picture for Salvia divinorum should be a picture of...Salvia divinorum. Not a packet of salvinorin-A enhanced dried and shredded leaf. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.67.179.31 (talk) 02:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Salvia Argument Overlooked in Main Article[edit]

There is an arguing point not raised in the legal status article.

this plant is a possible link to a cure for Cocaine addiction! citing Salvinorin A: From Natural Product to Human Therapeutics. by Vortherms TA and Roth BL. Molecular Interventions. Vol.6 No.5 (2006). This review article is in PDF format. http://www.sagewisdom.org/vorthermsandroth.pdf

and Hasebe, K., Kawai, K., Suzuki, T., Kawamura, K., Tanaka, T., Narita, M., and Nagase, H. - Possible pharmacotherapy of the opioid kappa receptor agonist for drug dependence. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 1025, 404–413 (2004). http://www.nyas.org/annals/detail.asp?annalID=764

in the "war on drugs" salvia could be our best ally if not banned outright first by ignorant lawmakers. Carl McCall 17:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Your contributions are generally welcome, but may I suggest you check out some of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines first. Have a quick look at the Manual of Style too. For instance, some readers may find your manic use of capital letters rather off-putting. --SallyScot 22:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I've struck through my comments above in view of subsequent re-editing by Carl McCall. Please note that talk page posts should essentially be a transcript - see Editing or Deleting Existing comments.

--SallyScot (talk) 11:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

thanks sallyscot! let's just say it's not a problem when i'm public speaking. :D (chuckles) it's not malice though ... ("never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by stupidity" i have to keep reminding myself of that as i read about new laws being passed.) Carl McCall 14:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Link to California's status update on AB259 is HERE the revised hearing date is 15th of Jan 2008. I didn't know if posting the link in the main article was within guidelines. If the link is required in the main article you may put it there. Carl McCall (talk) 17:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I've updated so the reference link is included in the article. Many thanks. --SallyScot (talk) 21:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Utah: Rep. Paul Ray quote[edit]

"What I am doing is not to protect the morons that use drugs, it is to protect the public from morons that use drugs" [1].

The quote from Rep. Paul Ray is notable. It is highly suggestive and illustrative of his feelings and opinions on the matter. Not including it, or removing it, diminishes and censors the article without reasonable justification. If the justification is with regard to verifiability, i.e. "the reader cannot make such a determination", then I'm not really sure what this means, or that it can be sustained. In order to post comments to KSL's website you need to login, which means creating an account, including the specification of an email address, a postal address, and a contact phone number. - These are all mandatory details. The posts are also moderated by KSL staff. This makes any claim that the post may be merely "hearsay from an anonymous online stranger" difficult to maintain. While the notion of an impersonator might remain as a rather convoluted theoretical possibility, it seems much more likely to me that the quote is actually from Paul Ray. - I would argue anyway that the source is far from dubious and therefore that the quote should remain.

--SallyScot 12:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Anybody can create a fake account on an online comments forum and use whatever alias they want. "Moderated" does not mean that anyone's identity has been confirmed - it simply means they censor postings that don't adhere to their guidelines. What you are asserting is that due to KSL's "moderation" efforts, someone who creates an account on a forum and uses a handle of "Rep. ray" is most likely the Representative himself. That's preposterous, and clearly not a verifiable source per Wikipedia's WP:V. I suppose when someone posts as "Santa Claus", that you believe the jolly old man is real and now chats online? Per WP:BLP (Biography of Living Persons) the standards of verifiability when you attribute this derogatory name-calling quote to the living Representative are even higher, as it can be considered libelous. The burden of proof is on those wishing to include information, not those wishing to remove it, and according to Jimmy Wales, is so important as to constitute an exception to the three revert rule. Reswobslc 16:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Yes, what I'm suggesting in this case is that the "morons" quote is reasonably attributable to Rep. Paul Ray. Paul Ray took his immediate legislative action based on the KSL story. He was speaking to KSL next day (see follow up story [2]). He would have logged on as a matter of course in order to read that story and the responses. If someone had posted falsely in his name, he would have seen it and would have already complained about it to KSL. What you'd be suggesting otherwise is that Paul Ray simply took no further interest in KSL's coverage of the issue (a story with him as the central character) and what people were saying about it (and him) on the website. There's no reasonable comparison with someone posting as 'Santa Clause' in this case. - To suggest that there is completely spurious and suggests a failure of common sense. I'm hoping this is temporary and that we can try to engage in a more reasonable discussion.

I should also point out that I have not made 3 reverts with regard to this section. The edit of 23:17, 18 December 2006 was not a revert; it was an attempt to move things forward by changing the original wording. My edit of 12:29, 19 December 2006 could be considered a revert, but did also include a justifying Talk entry (my post above) and invitation to further discuss. And that of 16:34, 19 December 2006 was simply in response to Nwwaew's - who's justification I found nonsensical. - If anything Reswobslc is more the 3RR offender here. But anyway, no matter, I'm happy to discuss further and try to work through the issues.

--SallyScot 20:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, but per Wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:BLP Wikipedia cannot attribute quotations, particulary defamatory ones that allege he called a large group of people "morons", to living people based only on a reasonable probability that the person may have said that. Period. WP:V and WP:BLP are policies - not guidelines, and there's no sense in arguing them. As for 3RR, you certainly have reverted one, two, three - but the blockable violation isn't until the fourth revert, hence the warning. Why this quote anyway? What Rep. Paul Ray did according to the news is certainly notable and short-sighted in my personal opinion - certainly there has got to be plenty of verifiable information on what he did do that can actually go here and make the article stronger instead of detracting from its credibility. Reswobslc 21:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Re 3RR: - I maintain that what you call edit 'one' was a rewording not a revert. - Compare my edit with what you are claiming it was reverted to (not what it was reverted from) like this - and maybe you'll see. I'll listen if you care to explain how I've got that wrong - but simply saying that I "certainly have reverted" - including a link which demonstrates nothing of the sort is not particularly compelling.

And using the following statement "Period." after making a point to emphasise its non-negotiability isn't really too clever either. To quote Rep. Paul Ray on Salvia again "We're basically going to make it illegal to possess or sell. Period." - It may sound like tough talking, but it's actually just being narrow minded, and isn't very persuasive.

Now, the edit I'm arguing for is somehow to say that someone claiming to be Rep. Paul Ray made this "morons" quote on this feedback page on KSL's website. As it stands, with the link, that's simply a fact. Where is the problem with verifiability exactly? I'm not trying to pretend that the source is any more authoritative or anything other than what it is. Personally, I suspect that it is his quote - for reasons given. If other readers are not so sure then I'm interested in how they might support that, but ultimately it's up to them. In any case, I don't see it as a liability issue for Wikipedia. I'm hard pushed to see it as a liability issue for KSL to be honest, but certainly not Wikipedia. We should try and include it if we can. All constructive criticisms, good arguments, suggestions and ideas along these lines would be welcomed.

Why this quote? - Well it may be something of an unguarded comment on Paul Ray's part, but I think for that very reason quite revealing.

--SallyScot 00:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Direct quote from Wikipedia:Reliable sources: "Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as sources. This is in part because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them, and in part because there is no editorial oversight or third-party fact-checking. See self-published sources for exceptions."
Direct quote from Jimmy Wales (posted here), in response to the following statement by an editor: "I'm happy to be corrected, but I was under the impression that as long as we can convey that the information is not guaranteed accurate (by the use of cite tags), then "speculative" information is better than none."
Mr. Wales says:
It is simply not OK for Wikipedia to convey information that is speculative or not guaranteed accurate, particularly defamatory comments about living people, whether or not the presence of that comment on KSL's board is a fact as you say. That's not my rule, that's Wikipedia's rule, whether it represents a legal liability in your opinion or not. If you can find another source for that comment that's reliable, then by all means, put it back in. I assume you're trying to do what's right to the best of your ability - if you think I'm giving you a hard time over nothing, there's WP:3O where you may ask an outside opinion..... Reswobslc 01:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Thanks Reswobslc. Feedback above is an improvement on earlier posts, which is appreciated. I don't mind hearing a good argument, which I don't consider as being a given a hard time. I did object to some of the earlier posts which I considered unreasonable, but I don't assume anything really malicious. - You too I assume are trying to do what you best understand as right.

As I see it, it all boils down to a question of interpretation.

You've referred to and copied a number of Wikipedia policy quotes. These give a 'first glance' appearance of adding weight to your argument, but on closer examination I feel for the most part simply do not apply, are not actually relevant in this case, and/or miss their original intended point.

What, for example, is applicability of the quote "Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words" here?

The sources listed as potentially unreliable mentions a bunch of stuff which doesn't really apply (Bulletin board? Usernet? Wiki? Blog? - n/a) - then gives two reasons, "no way of verifying" and "editorial oversight" - again, which I've countered in this particular case.

I've already offered explanations as to why I think the quote is safely attributable to Paul Ray. But it may help to summarise...

On 27th November 2006 KSL run their initial story [3]. Next day Rep. Paul Ray proposes new State law, with KSL reporting. - KSL and Paul Ray clearly together on this [4]. Story page has link to comments [5]. Paul Ray checks feedback - is "amazed" that not everyone agrees with him (majority disagree with him in fact). Paul Ray posts ill-considered reply to defend his ill-considered position and ill-considered legislation.

Alternate interpretation (namely, that post is not Paul Ray) means that there is instead someone who registers with KSL as an impersonator, that Paul Ray takes no further interest in the story (up to this point in which he's been closely involved), and lets the impersonator go unchallenged, as do all related story reporters, editorial and other KSL staff. - I contend that such alternate interpretation entails the stringing together some pretty far-fetched notions. It doesn't realistically hang together at all.

My proposed wording for the main article would therefore be to append the Utah section as follows...

In reaction to these criticisms a quote, attributable to Paul Ray, stated - "What I am doing is not to protect the morons that use drugs, it is to protect the public from morons that use drugs" [6]

I shan't be posting this just yet though. As things stand it may just start an edit war - which I can't really be doing with (life's too short).

Closing for now though, I have to say that I think what I've encountered here is an understandable, but overly prescriptive, and not necessarily correct, interpretation of Wikipedia's policies, which both misses their point and their intended spirit. However, if it's any consolation, I'll also add that I think you'll not be alone in the stance you've taken so far (another reason for me not re-editing the main article). Prescriptive interpretations are commonly favoured over working stuff out properly; - it's easier. Thus, regardless of veracity, I suspect that I could well find myself defending a minority position.

--SallyScot 22:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's throw out all the discussion about policy and verifiability for a second. When you include the quote saying that Mr. Ray blanketly called all drug users "morons", essentially the message conveyed by the quote's inclusion is Mr. Ray is a short-sighted idiot that doesn't look before he leaps and that he has a fairy tale mental picture of drugs in society. I see it as a covert ad hominem attack on his character, as certainly the bulletin board comment isn't really that relevant to the legal status of Salvia divinorum in Utah. It's just a chance to slam on the guy. Ad hominems are very unpersuasive by their very nature and unappealing to intelligent people, and I suppose the only time they're really acceptable is if they're so funny you can't hold yourself together reading them... this isn't one of those times. Can't an article about Salvia divinorum be informative without having to resort to ad hominems? Reswobslc 07:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Thanks Reswoblsc. But you've lost me again I'm sorry to say. I think I've been developing a consistent line of argument here. - That the quote is verifiably attributable to Rep. Paul Ray. It's a matter of making a deduction. There are only two possibilities. The quote was either made by Paul Ray, or it wasn't. By considering the implications if it wasn't I've put forward reasoning which deduces that it was (reductio ad absurdum). I don't think you've dealt with it. You now sound like you want to throw out that discussion, jump somewhere else, and want me to jump with you.

Well, as it happens, I don't think you’ve here demonstrated a proper understanding of what an ad hominem argument is either. Do you think the inclusion of Mel Gibson's quote "...Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world" is appropriate on his Wikipeda article, for example? I know, you've qualified your accusation with the term 'covert', but you only seem to be able to support your contention by putting words in my mouth.

You even go so far as to conclude, "Ad hominems are very unpersuasive by their very nature and unappealing to intelligent people," which could be seen as ad hominem itself (i.e. at least covertly, by your definition/usage), making your employment of the term somewhat inconsistent, perhaps hypocritical, self-contradictory, and otherwise quite fallacious.

And I don't see how you justify with such certainty that the "comment isn't really that relevant to the legal status of Salvia divinorum in Utah". New legislation against Salvia divinorum in the State of Utah is exactly what Representative Paul Ray is proposing. - Action which will be driven by his conception of Salvia divinorum as a dangerous drug, and his views about the type of people that use drugs.

--SallyScot 20:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

3rd opinion[edit]

  • Find the original source. Mr. Ray must have said this somewhere, someitme, either in print, on the radio or on television. A forum is not the original source and without the original source, you have no way of knowing whether the quote is exactly what he said, or an interpretation of what he said. Also keep in mind that this quote is potentially libelous. I'm pretty sure Mr. Ray would not like to wake up one morning to find that he has been misrepresented on Wikipedia (if he has been), so I can't stress enough, find the original source.TheRingess 07:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

---

I have issue with 3o proclamations when they show such lack of appreciation of detail. "Find the original source. Mr. Ray must have said this somewhere, someitme, either in print, on the radio or on television. A forum is not the original source..." and "I can't stress enough, find the original source" - suggest little understanding of what's really gone on here. The quote is from its original source. My concern is that crude and prescriptive interpretations of what actually constitutes a reasonable source may be all too hastily made. Snap judgements do not change my view of that.

--SallyScot 20:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Should she have then said that forums are not acceptable as original sources? We've already been over that. Wikipedia policy (WP:RS) explicitly states that forum postings aren't acceptable as original sources and explains in clear detail why. I am sure if you post a note to her talk page and argue that the forum is the original source as you say, and that the quote is reasonably attributed to Mr. Ray by the power of deductive reasoning (AKA original research), you'll get a reply. And I am also sure that the reply will invariably state the same thing as the Wikipedia policy page says, which is that forums are not acceptable as original sources, because there is no way to really know who posted the content. Reswobslc 21:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Deduction aka original research?[edit]

Can you show how you equate original research with particular deduction here? Thanks. --SallyScot 21:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure. It's really simple. Where can I find that deduction published by a third party? If nowhere, the deduction is originally yours. Reswobslc 22:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Given the nature of the deduction here (a simple example of logic - where the conclusion is of no greater generality than the premise) can you show me a statement on Wikipedia's NOR project page that confirms your interpretation? Thanks. --SallyScot 02:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure. According to WP:OR, an edit is original research, among other things, if "it introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source". Reswobslc 06:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see references to logical deduction, which of the terms shown are you interpreting as equivalent? --SallyScot 12:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The word analysis, sir. What do you expect to accomplish by arguing this? Do you think I am giving you a hard time for no good reason, or that I'm making this stuff up? Or are you Wikilawyering for sport? Reswobslc 17:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I take the word analysis with regard to WP:OR as meant in the sense of: evaluation, interpretation, judgement. I do not include straightforward logical deduction in this. I do not think the inclusion of straightforward logical deduction is what's meant by the policy, is what's intended by the policy, or indeed is in accord with the principles of the policy.

I wouldn't quite say that you're making stuff up (that wouldn't quite be an assumption of good faith). I do however think that you've simply made your own evaluation, interpretation, and judgement as to what WP:OR policy constitutes.

If the practice of wikilawering includes the assertion of interpretations of Wikipedia policies and guidelines that override the principles they express, then I think I could fairly accuse you of this. However, I don't believe that trading such accusations is really the best way to progress. Instead I've tried to slow the discussion down, deliberately, to ensure focus on areas of disagreement, and to establish on what differences of understanding these are based. I'm sorry if you find this too painstaking.

--SallyScot 21:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

You may be correct in that I have my own evaluation, interpretation, and judgment as to what WP:OR constitutes as you say in this case. But the difference is that I'm quite confident that WP:OR the way I see it is also the same way most of the administrators and other editors see it. And it is my opinion that it is firmly against Wikipedia policy for you to attribute an online forum quote to a living person based on what you call a "straightforward deduction" that the person who wrote it using a handle of "Rep. ray" is in fact the real-life Paul Ray. I don't think you're a crank, even though the article by that name describes a crank as someone who persists in arguing a point contrary to consensus established long ago. If you don't believe what I've got to say... take it up with someone else. If you don't believe someone else either then edit the article as you see fit and let the administrators decide if you know or should know the rules by now. Reswobslc 21:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Re the quote - "I'm quite confident that WP:OR the way I see it is also the same way most of the administrators and other editors see it." - Given your particular confidence here, and given that I have taken particular issue with your inclusion of simple logical deduction into what is meant by the word analysis, I have a particular proposal for you. The WP:OR page currently (i.e. at time of writing) includes a number of terms with reference to unpublished material. Namely it specifies facts, arguments, concepts, statements, theories and analysis. If the inclusion of a number of terms in preference one broad all encompassing term is for extra clarity then it would clarify further if you could get simple logical deductions included in this list. I'd be interested to see how such an edit went. In fact, as long as any ensuing WP:OR discussion is kept general (not specifically involving me or this discussion) then I'd be quite happy to stand back, refrain from posting there myself, and just wait to see how it pans out.

--SallyScot 00:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I've already entertained you enough... so I'll have to pass. Thanks though Reswobslc 01:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

KSL reported quotes[edit]

On 30th December 2006 I included new KSL reported Paul Ray quotes + reference to KSL feedback comments (i.e. that Ray could have responded) but no direct reference to his controversial "morons that use drugs" quote. The edit was completely reverted next day by Reswobslc with edit summary comment - "Revert Utah changes per WP:NPOV. They ad an unacceptable level of bias. Scot just trust me, don't argue, don't revert, get a WP:3O if you disagree. WP:NPOV isn't negotiable either."

It's unclear from this whether the objection was to the edit wholesale, or with elements of it in particular. Reswobslc's stance seems set to stifle further discussion. Despite this, I think it's important to try and progress, so I posted further reworded form (i.e. without strikethrough text) as follows...

On the 28th November 2006, the morning after initial stories were broadcast on broadcast on local news channel KSL [7], House Representative Paul Ray proposed legislation to ban Salvia divinorum in the State of Utah, saying - "It was upsetting to see we have a drug of that strength that's legal." and "We're basically going to make it illegal to possess or sell. Period." [8]. Some feedback comments submitted to KSL , to which Ray could have responded, questioned and criticised his move as perhaps too hasty overreaction to a media "scare story" [9].

Please do not revert the main article if you are not prepared to discuss. Thanks.

--SallyScot 13:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Third opinion[edit]

Quite frankly, I would object to both versions. "Feedback comments" are in no way a reliable source, and mention of them should be eliminated entirely. Seraphimblade 14:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

---

KSL's reader/viewer story feedback may not be a reliable source of expert scholarly research, or 'facts' as such. But this is quite different from the assertion they're not a reliable source of anything. The comments in question are simply, and practically by definition, an indication people's feedback to the KSL story. If you think I've summarised these views selectively and with bias then that's a different matter - we can work on that. Yes, it would be much better if drug laws were fairly, evenly and appropriately based on well researched evidence, but unfortunately I do not believe that this is the case. Regardless of how reasonable or unreasonable they are, opinions, both of politicians who make laws and of people who elect politicians, have a relevant bearing on this subject.

--SallyScot 18:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The issue here is more that they are an unreliable source regardless, and should not be used as part of an article-unless, of course, a secondary source such as a newspaper commented on the incident, in which case that would be. An editor's own summary of the posts (correct or not) would constitute original research. I personally agree on the terribly broken system of drug laws, but opinions of random people on a message board are not reliable in and of themselves-even to use about themselves. There's no idea who's made these posts, and that anonymity destroys verifiability as well-readers should know who their source is, by name, so that they may evaluate appropriately. Of course, if there are reliable reports on the controversy, that could be used instead. Seraphimblade 18:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


I do not agree that a summary of the posts necessarily constitutes original research. To quote from WP:OR - " research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia."

Re your point - "readers should know who their source is, by name, so that they may evaluate appropriately" - the part which I agree with you about generally here is about knowing the source. The article should not mislead in this regard. I don't believe that it does. The source is clearly described as "feedback comments submitted to KSL". In this case I think, rather than for each individual post knowing who the source is, the reader should know more broadly and clearly what the source is, so that then they may evaluate appropriately and make their own determinations. The reader will not be in such a good position to evaluate the comments if, as you say, "mention of them should be eliminated entirely".

Thanks for your points otherwise by the way. The tone is overall thoughtful, relevant and interesting.

--SallyScot 20:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

KSL reported quotes revert[edit]

I noted a while back (on 04:58, 17 November 2006 [10]) Reswobslc made an edit to the Salvia divinorum article which reworded a point about media comparisons of Salvia to LSD. The words about press accounts saying Salvia was "identical to LSD" were changed to say "substitute for LSD". What I found interesting here was Reswobslc's edit summary comment - "whether it's "identical" is a claim that's simultaneously subjective, weak, and implausible". I don't know if this suggests a misunderstanding of NPOV policy, but feel I must now emphasise that NPOV does not mean that we may only include reference to other views that we editorially assess as being in themselves balanced and unbiased. In fact, the policy states - "all significant published points of view are to be presented" and "Readers are left to form their own opinions". Neutral point of view is "not the absence or elimination of viewpoints".

I've therefore put Paul Ray's KSL reported quotes back into the article.

NPOV also "requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly". - This is my reason for also wanting to include reference to the KSL viewer/reader feedback. However, I'm leaving feedback reference out just now. I have the intention putting it back later (subject to any further debate), but leaving it for now may help focus. I want to confirm, identify and deal with the exact nature of Reswobslc's "quotes whose inclusion represent bias" objection first.

Once again, please do not revert the main article if you are not prepared to discuss. Edit summaries such as those saying "don't argue" are not helpful. Thanks.

--SallyScot 21:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion[edit]

Having never laid eyes on this article before, here are my opinions:

  • There are too many requests for 3rd opinions about this article judging by the number of opinions given already above. Go to moderation.
  • As to the 3rd opinion requested of this edit:
    • Most other subsections have quotations supporting them; there is no reason why the Utah section can't if the quotes come from a verifiable source.
    • The source of the quotes is a news article. That seems verifiable enough.
  • I say, leave it in. =Axlq 22:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
That's good enough for me - the news quotes may stay. As for the forum quotes, enough people have told you (SallyScot) that they don't belong because they are against the rules. So if you want to add them knowing that, be my guest. Reswobslc 23:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Salvia in Utah[edit]

How silly it will be
When they ban my sally D
It weighs less than a single gram
They won't find it on me

I soaked my leaves in acetone
What's left is hard to see
500 hits of salvia
Small as a mere penny

Well, just kidding of course, but I guess my point is that Salvinorin can be so easily concealed, I don't see how they'll ever stop anyone with it once people start preparing it in a non-recognizable form. Like blotting it onto plain paper. You can't even see it, but you can still smoke it. Reswobslc 09:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

What about other states?[edit]

I know there's been talk in my state about banning it, but I don't see North Carolina on the list. --24.123.188.12 18:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

---

In connection with a WXII-12News broadcast on May 1, 2007 Sen. Kay Hagan was quoted as saying "Obviously, if this is something that is a hallucinogenic drug that would affect our young people, we certainly don't want to make it available to them" (see the section Media Stories - US). I've searched North Carolina's General Assembly website but couldn't find reference to any Salvia related legislation. I suppose the news story itself could merit mention the main article, but I haven't as yet seen this as being critical without the legislation detail.

Generally, if you become aware of any such proposed legislation for any State, and have a good source for it (not just hearsay) then I'd encourage you to go right ahead and update Wikipedia's details.

--SallyScot 21:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You can but it at Razmataz on Main Street in Kannapolis North Carolina. Is that proof enough that it's legal in NC? --JRTyner 08:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

There have been some changes to http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/billlookup/billlookup.pl?Session=2009&BillID=S138 I am no legal expert so I have a hard time interpreting the changes. Is Edition 1 still active or has it been replaced by edition 2? Is Salvia Divinorum going to be a controlled substance? Edition 2 doesn't mention it being schedule I. Do both edition 1 and 2 apply? We need a clearheaded expert in here to explain the current legal status in North Carolina. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.130.177.51 (talk) 00:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Wisconsin and Sheldon Wasserman[edit]

Re. repeated edits along the lines of...

Sheldon Wasserman, also a licensed physician, researched Salvia from a medical point of view and after learning that this hallucinogenic plant could legally be sold to children, spoke to Fox news in a follow-up report about his plans to introduce legislation to make Salvinorin A a Schedule I controlled substance.[11]

The reference for this does not support the contention "researched Salvia from a medical point of view and after learning that this hallucinogenic plant could legally be sold to children".

The video interview with Sheldon Wasserman is viewable online. I've watched it again, and amended the article, quoting verbatim with what Wasserman actually says in place of the speculation.

--SallyScot (talk) 15:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Article too long[edit]

User Terraxos stuck a template against the article on 17th June 2008 suggesting the article was too long.

Though in this case not itself accompanied by a talk page posting, the template suggests the issue should be discussed.

I think the effect of the message placing at the head of the article is rather overbearing. It could have the effect of discouraging further contributions.

Also, the way the article is structured, the individual American state paragraphs at the tail end can be considered and used like an appendix. For an overall understanding of the relevant issues it is of course not necessary to read each and every one of these state's details from beginning to end, top to bottom. But as it is, their inclusion, with links from the state summary table to the detail paragraphs, allows the reader to jump to and browse through individual detail which may be of individual interest.

I've removed the 'too long' template on this basis. --SallyScot (talk) 21:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging[edit]

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)

  • False positive- salvia is not a food or drink, furthermore this isn't even an article about salvia itself, but about laws.I removed the tag, I don't see how to get the category:salvia divinorum unlisted from the food category.JeffStickney (talk) 18:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Salvia divinorum and other legal drugs[edit]

The states of Maine and California have regulated the sale and use of Salvia divinorum by introducing age restrictions in a manner generally comparable to existing restrictions on the consumption of alcohol and nicotine. Other states like Florida have decided to impose much stricter laws against Salvia, such as making its possession a felony offence and giving it a Schedule I or equivalent classification.

Some may see this disparity as quite sensible and well justified. Others may not. There are clearly differences of opinion. In any case, as they’re in the position of passing legislation on these issues, any politician’s stance on such subjects is noteworthy.

In the interests of transparency it should be left for the reader to decide the relevancy of politicians like Representative Brandenburg and Senator Lynn accepting donations from alcohol and/or tobacco industries while introducing laws against other substances. Not including, or removing, such information from the article otherwise invites accusations of cover-up and censorship.

--SallyScot (talk) 19:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Wrong, having the information in there (about lobbying) creates an artificial and NPOV view that there is a relation between said lobbyists and salvia legislation.--ProdigySportsman (talk) 03:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

On the matter of her legislation Representative Mary Brandenburg said: "As soon as we make one drug illegal, kids start looking around for other drugs they can buy legally. This [Salvia] is just the next one." Including facts about political campaign contributions from beer, wine & liquor related industries simply gives the reader more information. Alcohol remains a legal drug, and, as to Brandenburg's position on this, it's otherwise misleading not to include such information. --SallyScot (talk) 14:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Soon to be illegalized in Poland[edit]

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)[12] [13], Polish Senat [14] and the President of Poland [15].


Ttg53 (talk) 02:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Salvia in the UK[edit]

This section does not actually specify the legal status of the plant. Only some media attention around the issue. 94.192.87.215 (talk) 10:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Argumentative article[edit]

I have no particular axe to grind with regard to Salvia (I'm anti-prohibition, if anything), but this article is rather clearly being used to further an agenda, rather than report on Salvia. There are numerous evaluations of motives and both covert and overt attributions of insincerity or lack of consistency on the part of Salvia opponents. To be clear about why I moved two tendentious *arguments* about the logic of Salvia bans, the problem are:

  1. the statements were both rather obviously there to promote a point of view, not further neutral description of the topic
  2. actual, neither statement addressed the logic of salvia bans themselves but rather were tendentious statements designed to discredit Salvia opponents by accusing them of inconsistency. To spell it out, just because someone does not oppose alcohol (which is, undoubtedly, more destructive by any measure than Salvia), does not ipso facto mean that Salvia should not be banned or that that person is guilty of something for opposing Salvia. A number of possible reasons for the inconsistency could exist, all of which undermine the notion that there is a logical argument at play: To cite just a few, the opponents of Salvia could also oppose alcohol but realize it is a political nonstarter to oppose alcohol; they could honestly (but mistakenly) believe Salvia to be worse than alcohol; they could want to oppose Salvia because they think it's bad but find alcohol OK because it's in the Bible. (Obviously, I'm making possible motives up, but they are all plausible ones that expose the flaw in the "logical" reasoning inserted in the article.)

As another note, when you embed such obviously tendentious and argumentative rhetoric in what is supposed to be a neutral discourse, you usually end up undermining your own argument. I actually think it is rather argumentative to even mention the records with regard to alcohol prohibition, but there you are on solid factual ground and you can argue that the records are relevant and therefore not POV. Letting the reader fill in the conclusion is more effective than spelling it out in rather crude and sloppy terms. If you want to argue that politicians are not particularly consistent and are opportunistic, well, that's not news. But such arguments do not belong in the body of this article.

-Fenevad (talk) 16:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Chile[edit]

Salvia is illegal in Chile —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.214.84.9 (talkcontribs)

Section added. --Notmyhandle (talk) 17:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


Kentucky, USA[edit]

Kentucky Senate Bill 107 passed 97-3 and was signed into law by the governor on April 26, 2010. The bill summary states, in part, to "Create new sections of KRS Chapter 218A to prohibit possession of, trafficking in, and cultivation of salvia and impose penalties". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quillbreaker (talkcontribs) 12:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Legal status in DFW[edit]

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 Dallas/Fort Worth 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. 173.57.44.173 (talk) 20:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Michigan[edit]

Michigan recently changed their laws regarding Salvia Divinorum, listing it as a Schedule I drug per House Bill 6038. I have done a simple edit on the Michigan subsection to reflect this, but there are doubtless errors due to my poor understanding of the methodology of passing the law. Also, I have no idea how to edit the big chart in the middle. If someone could adjust the Michigan section on the chart, it would be greatly appreciated.Dsko stoo (talk) 21:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Illinois - salvia now illegal[edit]

Cf. 720 ILCS 570/204 (d)(10.5)


I'm too lazy to update all the sections referring to this, but someone else please do so.

--Sai ¿? 19:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Why such a complex two-stage reference system?[edit]

This article as a very complex two-stage reference system, which I haven't encountered anywhere else in Wikipedia. If you click on a reference, you are taken to the first level of references, basically just consisting of names. In order to find out what that name refers to, you must click on it, and is then taken to then next level of references - and first here are you able to access any links that take you to the source. Yes, it looks more like books, but it's complicated and totally pointless. It doesn't save space or make life any easier for the readers.
I suggest that the first level is removed, so readers are taken directly to the text containing the link and/or additional information. Wikipedia should always strive to be as simple as possible for users. Thomas Blomberg (talk) 15:46, 7 September 2013 (UTC)