Jump to content

Talk:Legal status of Salvia divinorum in the United States

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Another article needed?

[edit]

I think there is room for another article. The hierarchy is:

Salvia divinorum -> Salvia divinorum in the United States -> Legal status of Salvia divinorum in the United States

It seems that the topic is notable and there may already be enough info on WP to create the Salvia divinorum in the United States article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

West Virginia

[edit]

Salvia has been illegal in West Virginia since 2010. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.189.41.53 (talk) 07:19, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia

[edit]

In the chart and map of this article Virginia is labeled as having Salvia as being legal; however, later in the article's Virginia section it states that Salvia is illegal. I think that either the information in the chart needs to be cited or changed to match the article. (P.S. sorry if I formatted/wrote this request wrong. I'm not familiar with wikipedia's formatting for this sort of thing.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.23.14 (talk) 21:22, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now the map shows it as illegal in VA, but the article specifically says "As of December 11, 2023 Salvia divinorum is legal in Virginia." Additionally, that section seems to be incomplete; it ends with the single word "As" without anything more. Sparkette (talk) 00:10, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Salvia is definitely not legal in Virginia as of 2024, and hasn't been since 2008. The only confusion is the law as enacted classifies "materials ... containing Salvinorin A" but does not specifically list "Saliva Divinorum", but since all Salvia Divinorum contains Salvinorin A, this is a distinction without a difference. Risacher (talk) 22:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant, slanted info under Illinois

[edit]

"Alcohol related financial contributions featured highly for Representative Dennis Reboletti's 2006 political campaign. According to the National Institute on Money in State Politics, 'Beer, Wine & Liquor' was his seventh highest industry contributor."

This sounds like a half-conceived attack on Reboletti's role in scheduling salvia. Opinions? 108.66.54.67 (talk) 08:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Legal status of Salvia divinorum in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decriminalized on the map

[edit]

It lists Tennessee and Wisconsin as states that have decriminalized use. There's no indication in the article that either State has done anything to decriminalize the use. Every indication is that there first and only actions were to criminalize the use. While the penalties may be lesser than other states nothing indicates any decriminalization. Decriminalization defined as lessening the criminal penalties for certain actions.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 09:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Legal status of Salvia divinorum in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:53, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Legal status of psilocybin mushrooms which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:45, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 8 June 2017

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Redundant. See Talk:Legal_status_of_psilocybin_mushrooms#Requested_move_8_June_2017 where this proposal was covered В²C ☎ 21:17, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Legal status of Salvia divinorum in the United States → Legality of Salvia divinorum in the United States – Several different formats exist for the titles of articles regarding the legality of a particular thing. I believe that all of these should be consistent with each other and that that format should be "Legality of X" (instead of "Legal status of X, Laws regarding X, etc.) Others have noted that "legality" is a more common term when referring to whether something is legal or illegal than "legal status". Michipedian (talk) 01:45, 8 June 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. SkyWarrior 14:30, 15 June 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Anarchyte (work | talk) 14:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Legal status of Salvia divinorum in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:39, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Washington D.C.?

[edit]

What is the status of Salvia divinorum in Washington D.C.? Laws applicable there affect more people than live in Wyoming, not to bad-talk Wyoming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.125.237.94 (talk) 15:11, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Greetings:

It appears that the information about Tennessee is incorrect. TCA 39-17-438 specifies that it is a Class D Felony, rather than a Class A Misdemeanor. Since this is a legal question, and I'm not a lawyer, I thought it best for the issue to be discussed rather and simply making the edit myself. CSBurksesq (talk) 17:59, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If no one gives any objections by Monday, 10 May, I will make the appropriate edits. CSBurksesq (talk) 23:10, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Virtually unsourced

[edit]

Almost nothing in this article is sourced. Other than a few properly cited news articles and such, virtually everything is sourced in one of two ways: defective links and primary sources.

The defective links (e.g. #1 "Siebert 2002.") attempt to link to sources named elsewhere in the article that are not named elsewhere in the article. This style is typically used when one source is used repeatedly, but citing different page numbers. So, if you are repeatedly citing different pages of Thompson's Analysis of Moby Dick, the individual cites will show as "Thompson 1910. p. 1,112." with "Thompson 1910" linking to a full cite for that work elsewhere in the article. In this case, the full cite is missing. Most likely, these sections were copied from another article without copying the cites. Hopefully this copying was done with attribution or this will be a hell of a mess to clean up.

The primary sources are links to legislation, links to bills or links to searches of legislative databases. Most of these sections will need either secondary sources or will have to be deleted. Primarily, the sections tell us what the editor believes the legislation does (or would do) or says what they found when searching for bills/legislation. Those are both no-nos. - SummerPhDv2.0 20:07, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

There is no mention of the law in Washington State. Washington State is not included in the list of states. It is in the upper left corner of the contiguous USA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.113.247.23 (talk) 10:40, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Legal_status_of_Salvia_divinorum_in_the_United_States&oldid=1234741605"