Jump to content

Talk:Salvia divinorum/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Potency?

The article states that Salvinorin A is the most potent psychoactive known, being active at as little as 200 micrograms. 200 micrograms is indeed a very small amount, but nonetheless 200 micrograms is eight times the threshold dose required for LSD, which can be active at as little as 25 micrograms. I see that the claim is referenced, but the reference must have it wrong as well. This sentence needs to be removed. 74.80.58.186 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC).

You misread the sentence. I have added the quotation it referenced. The focus is on the term "naturally occurring." Unlike salvinorin A, LSD is synthesized. LSA/ergine may be more potent, but Wikipedia does not have any specific numbers. --Notmyhandle (talk) 23:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah... indeed. Somehow I completely missed the "naturally occuring" part. Sorry about that. Thanks for the clear up. 74.80.58.186 (talk) 04:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

And here I thought LSD was naturally occuring in ergot smut and only synthesized for ease of production and distribution. ANd I say that knowing that for psychoactive and drug classification purposes there are several slightly different molecules in LSD "family" with checmically insignificant structural or compositional differences (organic chemistry gets complex quick) -- although I am sure purist will point out the single registered and patented molecular structure. I note most are smart enough not to try that technically in court though. Also I tend to disregard such comparisons, as such data is generally not uniformly available but only researched and published for PRO or CON sensationalism. Often the results are marginally true due to the wide variance in human body chemistry and reactivity of personality and perceptions (i.e. some people go nuts on half a beer). LOL although frequently studied under the guise of CON for grant purposes, I got to think either the researchers or sponsors tend to be a bit tongue in cheek --- as young or serious drug users have known tendency to try the most extreme stuff they can find in their chosen category of drug. Strength statemetns are basically an advertisement. 66.196.3.12 (talk) 07:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC) 66.196.3.12 (talk) 07:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Salvia divinorum illegal for US military members

I recommend adding that, although legal (mostly), salvia divinorum is illegal for US military members.

http://www2.hurlburt.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123068724

http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/military-cracks-down-on-legal-highs/19360724 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.107.240.161 (talk) 05:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit Suggestion

I suggest the following be added to the Recent History section:

Salvia divinorum was the subject of the first use of YouTube within drug-behavioral research when scientists at San Diego State University rated randomly selected videos of salvia users to study observed impairment.[1][2] Their findings corroborate reports that the most profound effects of smoking salvia appear almost immediately and last about eight minutes. Effects include speech and coordination loss.[3]

Jlange (talk) 16:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

As much as we all appreciate edit discussions, this is not necessary unless someone opposes the edit. You are free to add it. --Notmyhandle (talk) 21:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Jlange, I guess you're asking because of potential conflict of interest in adding it to the article. I'm all for you adding that info. I think that the studies you link to are far more relevant than all of the other Youtube mentions in the article, and you would have the best grasp of what is most relevant from the study. I even think it could lead off the "Usage shown on YouTube" section. (I think the article gives way too much weight to popular local media coverage, but that's another subject....) Go for it..... First Light (talk) 00:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ “Salvia divinorum: effects and use among YouTube users, Cornell Info 2040 - Networks,” http://expertvoices.nsdl.org/cornell-info204/2010/04/22/salvia-divinorum-effects-and-use-among-youtube-users/.
  2. ^ “Mind Hacks: The YouTube drug observatory,” http://www.mindhacks.com/blog/2010/04/the_youtube_drug_obs.html.
  3. ^ Lange, J. E., Daniel, J., Homer, K., Reed, M. B., & Clapp, J. D. (2010). Salvia divinorum: Effects and use among YouTube users. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 108, 138-140. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2009.11.010

Thanks for the vote of confidence. I'm assuming it would have to be someone with edit rights though. I'm showing the article as "semi-protected." Or am I missing something?

02:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlange (talk • contribs)

Ahh, semi-protection limits editing to registered accounts that are Autoconfirmed, meaning the account is at least four days old and has ten edits. I think if you just make a couple more edits somewhere, then you'll be able to edit this article. Semi-protection is only given to articles that have a lot of IP vandalism or nonsense edits. I've added a welcome message to your talk page with more information about editing here - it includes how to sign messages you add to talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~), which automatically adds your name to the end of your message. First Light (talk) 03:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I (different person from the one(s) writing in this section before this point - I don't know how to add a new section) would like to suggest that you add something else to the effects. Possibly the most interesting and mind-bending experience salvia users can have is that they can perceive themselves to be living an entire life as another being in the span of roughly 5 minutes. I have never tried salvia or any other psychedelic drug, but I read on Erowid years ago that some users with high dosages have reported that they experience the entire life - birth to death - of someone else. From their perspective, it seems to last as long as the being would have lived. In other words, if you perceive yourself to be another person, then from your perspective the trip lasts 70-80 years. If you perceive yourself living the life of a dog, then it lasts 10-15 years. I don't know exactly how to cite this, but I e-mailed Daniel Siebert when I first read this and he confirmed it to me, although I don't think I still have the e-mail. I'm going to include a link to a story posted on Erowid about the author's experience living one or two centuries as an alien; maybe that can be used as citation.

http://www.erowid.org/experiences/exp.php?ID=63900 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.225.164.229 (talk) 15:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Why it isn't more popular?

It is strong, not adictive, leaves no long term effects, and on top of it all it is legal in tons of places; why it is still mostly unknown? --TiagoTiago (talk) 02:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

They don't talk about it in public schools in the U.S., or in mainstream media (there have been only a handful of news broadcasts on the topic, usually from small, local T.V. stations, in all of U.S., ever). Indigenous cultures tend to be unknown to the masses, and that is where this plant originally appeared in ritual use. The ones who use it the most try to keep it somewhat of a secret, because they know it will be "abused." From what I've seen, there have been very few accidents on it. I've seen the occasional YouTube video where someone runs around and knocks into things, but I've never heard of someone being injured (broken bones or cuts), hospitalized, or killed as a result of using it (although I am sure someone who uses it standing up or in a poor situation will eventually be hurt accidentally). I think most people who use it understand, to some extent, how much coordination can be temporarily lost while under its effects (although new users may not be so enlightened). --Notmyhandle (talk) 19:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

In terms of issues, the underlying issue of the exploitation of Indigenous Knowledge also needs to be taken into account. There are many academic articles by Indigenous authors which express concern on how Indigenous Knowledge is taken out of context by non-Indigenous Peoples. This can be argued to be such a case and should be included in the discussions.

Miley Cyrus smoking Salvia divinorum out of a bong?

Supposedly there is a video showing Miley Cyrus smoking Salvia divinorum out of a bong, here from the article:

TMZ released a video of Cyrus, which took place five days after her 18th birthday at her Los Angeles home, in which she is seen smoking the psychoactive plant salvia divinorum from a bong.[1][2][3] Salvia is legal in the state of California, and Cyrus was of legal age at the time the video was shot. Cyrus's father expressed his sadness regarding the matter on Twitter, saying, "Sorry guys. I had no idea. Just saw this stuff for the first time myself. Im so sad. There is much beyond my control right now".[4][5]

James Michael DuPont (talk) 17:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think her use is significant other than showing that it is widely known, and emphasizing that it is legal in California. I do not think any special mention should be made unless some sort of reaction occurs in response to it (like political action). --Notmyhandle (talk) 19:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Why isn't sagewisdom.org on the article

I have found that this is a very good website for both learning about Salvia Devinorum and it is the most trustworthy place online or offline that I've ever seen to buy it too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tumaru (talk • contribs) 05:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but we try to avoid general discussion on Wikipedia. Instead, this page is to discuss how the article might be improved. I refactored a couple of headings and remove some blank lines to give the standard format. Johnuniq (talk) 07:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
SageWisdom is a reference site and shop. Wikipedia directly links to references, not sites that list references. However, you are mistaken, as there actually are some links to Sagewisdom, such as references 75 (sagewisdom.org/faq.html) and 76 (sagewisdom.org/usersguide.html). Satisfied? --Notmyhandle (talk) 21:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 74.96.84.209, 10 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} This article claims that Miley Cyrus says she was smoking salvia. In fact, Cyrus has never said anything about what she was smoking to any news media. The only source for the claim that the substance was salvia comes from TMZ--an unnamed source--not from Cyrus. Also, TMZ inadvertently admitted that it was wrong in claiming the bong video was taken at a party at Cyrus' house when it aired a parody video shot in the same room in the same apartment as the bong video was shot in--at a time when Cyrus was out of state in New Orleans shooting her movie, "So Undercover." It has since been revealed that the bong video was actually shot at a party in the Northridge apartment of the bong owner--who appears next to Miley Cyrus in the video giving her instructions on how to use the bong. So, this article is wrong twice, undermining the article's credibility. The lesson here is clear: just because a gossip website makes a claim, doesn't make it true.

74.96.84.209 (talk) 20:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I would support removal of that paragraph for two reasons now: 1. It is trivia and not notable for this article, though it may be notable for the Miley Cyrus article. 2. The sourcing, based on unattributed rumor, runs afoul of WP:BLP. First Light (talk) 21:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
To me what is notable, and not hard to source, is that salvia got a significant amount of publicity, particularly amongst the young. Something along the lines of "In February 2011 Salvia's public profile in the US got a boost from reports, never confirmed, that singer Miley Cyrus had smoked it in a bong." Wwwhatsup (talk) 04:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
That certainly makes much more sense and WP:DUE than dedicating an entire paragraph to Miley Cyrus, instead of focusing on what was notable about the event for this article, as you point out. First Light (talk) 04:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I've removed the paragraph because of the poor sourcing and potential violation of the biography of living persons policy. I'd like to request that discussion take place before it's reverted back in (but obviously can't enforce that). -Atmoz (talk) 20:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm absolutely fine with that - because after more thought, the phrase "never confirmed" in a biography of a living person (or article content that mentions one) is essentially the same as "shouldn't be in the article" according to WP:BLP. First Light (talk) 01:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm not going to disagree. After review I might suggest replacing "reports, never confirmed" with "widely reported unsubstantiated allegations" Wwwhatsup (talk) 00:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


You Tube section edit request

This section states that You Tube videos, of people reportedly using Salvia and acting high and possibly doing something at the time that could be dangerous like using while driving, were being used as evidence for lawmakers that are trying to control the use of Salvia in their state.

It should be pointed out that these You Tube videos don't give enough background information about the situation in the video to be used as proof that Salvia is a mind altering drug that should be controlled. There is no way of knowing what else the person(s) in the video had previously used--were they stone cold sober with no drugs in their systems, or using Salvia after alcohol and/or marijuana/other drugs were already in their systems. How do we know these videos are of people who have used only Salvia?

Why is the government allowing these videos as evidence that Salvia should be controlled? They're hearsay and shouldn't be allowed. Evidence has to be provable, and there is no way to prove that these videos show the effects of ONLY Salvia use.

There are studies that show that Salvia might be a good medication for several conditions. Passing laws that make Salvia a shedule 1 drug would keep medical researchers from being able to study the plant and discover what diseases and conditions Salvia could help. The Schedule 1 drugs are related to other drugs that have positive, beneficial uses in medicine. Heroin comes from the same plant, Papaver somniferum, as Morphine. While heroin doesn't have any good benefits, what would the world be like without Morphine and the other drugs synthesized from it or made from it? Banning Salvia before researching it completely would be a tragedy. It could be the drug that cures an awful disease---and we might not ever know.

aquestionasker 12:50am, 17 February 2011 (EST)

Edit request from Donaldobrien13, 16 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Salvia divinorum is illegal in the US state of Alabama. Source: Code of Alabama 1975, Section 13A-12-214.1 (http://alisondb.legislature.state.al.us/acas/CodeOfAlabama/1975/coatoc.htm)

Donaldobrien13 (talk) 21:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Done Excellent addition--thanks! Qwyrxian (talk) 02:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Salvia Painting MPM.JPG Deleted

 An image used in this article, File:Salvia Painting MPM.JPG, has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons by Mmxx for the following reason: No permission since 29 April 2011
What should I do?
A different bot should have (or will soon) remove the image code from the article text (check if this has been done correctly). If you think the image deletion was in error please raise the issue at Commons. You could also try to search for new images to replace the old one.

This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotification (talk) 21:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

This is NOT sold in canadian convinience stores!

The image of the package of the extra says it's "Commonly sold in canadian convinience stores"- yeah right! I've never seen this product in any 7-11, gas station, 24-seven, or any convinience store in canada. it must be a joke. 24.129.235.203 (talk) 05:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Reply: While it isn't sold in convenience stores, it is openly sold in 'bong shops'. I believe the claim is made more to emphasize its ready availability rather than to be taken literally, though this is debatable. Note thate no package of Salvia that I have purchased has had this statement. 24.109.204.192 (talk) 05:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Split out drug use

This has been raised before and I also feel that we should separate out the plant and the drug sections. This has been done for the cannabis articles although that drug has a wider global use. The plant and the drug info are closely intertwined of course, but the articles would be linked. There is a hierarchy to the articles:

Salvia divinorum -> Salvia divinorum (drug) -> Legal status of Salvia divinorum

and even deeper:

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

Thoughts? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Support The article is much too long and should be divided. This is a Good Article, but probably wouldn't pass in it's current version, so Salvia divinorum (drug) could be rewritten and nominated if someone were interested. First Light (talk) 18:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Salvia divinorum/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

The Salvia divinorum article does not deserve its GA status for a number of reasons:

  • It is US-centric
  • It has dead external links
  • At 140kb it may too long, although the refs take up a lot of space.
  • Breaking the article into the plant and the drug topics (as per cannabis) is probably a good idea. The drug use is likeley to be of more interest to readers than the botanical information.
  • Having seperate section for UK and US news refs seems odd.
  • There is an overuse of section headings
  • The "Heat gun vaporizing" needs copy editing, reads like a how to guide and mentions a device that may be non-notable and goes unexplained.

I have recently split Legal status of Salvia divinorum in the United States aout of Legal status of Salvia divinorum since the latter also suffered from systemic bias. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Most of the concerns seem to have been addressed based on the history. As such I'm closing this as kept; if you disagree then open up a community reassessment so others can provide opinions. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Ambiguous quote- removal maybe necessary?

"Anytime anything's on YouTube it's an issue," and "Legislators, parents, grandparents, we need to be on top of these things," [...] "We need to protect our children..."

When I first read this quote, I didn't know if it was sarcastic or literal. It contains an absurdity ("Anytime anything's on Youtube it's an issue") and a general scare phrase ("We need to protect our children"). These combine to give the second quote ("Legislators, parents, grandparents, we need to be on top of these things") a more sarcastic feel than it deserves. Only by reading the following text did I realize the senator's intent.

Besides the ambiguity, this quote contains nothing of significance, in my opinion. 24.109.204.192 (talk) 05:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

a serious question.

Am i allowed to troll on the discussion page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.225.211.87 (talk) 22:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Not that I'll bother sourcing this but here in Nevada you can buy it at a smoke shop. I know people who buy it as a legal high. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.142.234.137 (talk) 12:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Salvia divinorum parade in Berlin, Germany - lawl

If you would check the URL of the pic (http://www.flickr.com/photos/modernezeiten/1238685796/) it clearly says: Berlin, Hanfparade 2007. Hanfparade = hemp parade. There is no Salvia divinorum parade in Germany. These people are just showing some love for Salvia while demonstrating for the legalization of hemp. Please check your facts first before posting. Thanks - a German. --DrLee (talk) 14:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I removed the photo, since it wasn't particularly notable anyway - even less so now that you point out that a photo of a person holding up a sign was in some semi-related parade. First Light (talk) 15:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Inaccurate / Out of Date Information

The "legality" map image is incorrect, even using the incongruent Legal Status of Salvia Divinorum as a reference. For example, Salvia has been attempted to be made illegal in Texas multiple times, but no attempts have succeeded (even temporarily restricting the sale to minors, though shops here tend to do so voluntarily). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coreyatx (talk • contribs) 23:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

As of 1/27/2012, the map is still incorrect. If someone is good with editing maps, it would be much appreciated. Until then, I am replacing it with the original PNG map. Although it is not vectorized, it's at least more accurate. Jonathan Farnham 00:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

hi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.161.192.44 (talk) 22:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

spelling mistake "Dale Pendall" "pharma not phama"

missing r — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.129.126 (talk • contribs)


 Done Sædontalk 00:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Hip-Hop/ Media nickname

If im not mistaking this is the drug that is commonly know in the hip-hop/music industry as "Miley", because Miley Cyrus used to use it.

If you could link to some Reliable Sources that show the term is widely used (probably more widely than the hip-hop/music industry), then we could at least have an informed discussion about this. First Light (talk) 21:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Texas Law

HB 124 adds Salvia divinorum (unless unharvested and growing in its natural state) – including all parts of the plant, seeds and extracts from a part of the plant – to Penalty Group 3 of the Texas Controlled Substances Act. Signed into law. Effective 09-01-2013 http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/director_staff/media_and_communications/pr082913.htm Rogburn (talk) 19:53, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

New study on Salvia and depression contradicts line in "long term effects" of the article.

The article includes the following line: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvia_divinorum#Long_term

"and research using rats in forced-swim tests has been used to suggest that Salvia divinorum may have "depressive-like" effects."

Here is a 2009 study refuting those results. Potential anxiolytic- and antidepressant-like effects of salvinorin A, the main active ingredient of Salvia divinorum, in rodents

The study even mentions the cited study used for the line in the article.

"Our findings of an antidepressant-like effect of salvinorin A appear to contradict those of Carlezon et al. (2006) who found that salvinorin A, given i.p., in triple administration to rats, at doses much greater than those used in our study (0.25–2 mg·kg−1), increased immobility behaviour in the forced swim test, suggesting a pro-depressant-like effect. This effect was accompanied by a decrease of extracellular concentration of dopamine in the nucleus accumbens as measured by in vivo microdialysis, indicating that salvinorin A, through the selective action of κ-opioid receptors, affects the function of the dopaminergic system. However, it must be noted that, in in vivo microdialysis studies, an acute injection of a dose of 40 µg·kg−1, which in our experiments induced antidepressant-like effects, produced an elevation of extracellular dopamine in the shell of nucleus accumbens accompanied by rewarding effects (Braida et al., 2008). "

I would like to edit the page myself, but the silver lock prevents me. Is there an editor who wants to include this new information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cybrbeast (talk • contribs) 21:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment Cybrbeast. Unfortunately that study does not comply with WP:MEDRS. Sædontalk 00:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

How exactly is this second study not in compliance? Both citations are from legitimate journals and both are primary sources. From what I can see, either both studies are in compliance or neither study is. In fact, I find the use of the Carlezon study in the absence of the Braida one to be misleading. The Baggott survey quite clearly states that a very small percentage of users experience depression while more than a quarter report anti-depressant effects. The Carlezon study, in it's isolation, only serves to give undue weight to the idea that the substance may result in depression. Either the Braida study should be added to balance the Carlezon, and reinforce Baggott, or the Carlezon study should be removed so that the Baggott survey to stands on it's own.220.233.34.248 (talk) 03:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Cybrbeast, currently the article gives undue weight to the findings of possible negative effects (often on very slim evidence) and not sufficient weight to the many studies published in reliable sources that have thrown doubt on those studies, or found no negative effects.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:50, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

heres an updated link for it http://web.archive.org/web/20101114190653/http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/drugs_concern/salvia_d/salvia_d.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.8.173.231 (talk) 20:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

South Dakota Law

http://legis.sd.gov/Statutes/Codified_Laws/DisplayStatute.aspx?Type=Statute&Statute=22-42-22

22-42-22. Possession of Salvia divinorum or salvinorin A prohibited--Felony or misdemeanor. No person may knowingly possess Salvia divinorum or salvinorin A. It is a Class 1 misdemeanor to possess two ounces or less of Salvia divinorum or salvinorin A. It is a Class 6 felony to possess more than two ounces of Salvia divinorum or salvinorin A. Source: SL 2009, ch 119, § 1, eff. Mar. 10, 2009. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.179.165.99 (talk) 00:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

United Kingdom

It would appear that the sale of Salvia Divinorum would be shortly made illegal in the UK is the Psychoactive Substances Bill passes. I would updat the article to this affect but edits seem to be blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.171.40 (talk) 22:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

"can induce visions and other altered and spiritual experiences"

Seems weird to me this is tossed into the intro without further ado. "Altered" might be sort of innocent (depending on who wrote it and what they mean by it), but surely, "spiritual" is not. "Visions" links to another article that seems to be severely lacking. The salvia article isn't up for editing, but how come this spot has been left there as is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.249.185.2 (talk) 15:43, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Salvia divinorum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. 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 01:31, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The discovery that salvinorin A is a kappa agonist was Roth (2002) reference, not any of the references cited.

Please correct this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BryanLRoth (talk • contribs) 13:27, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@BryanLRoth: Feel free to correct it yourself.  ;) Exercisephys (talk) 13:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2016

The discovery that salvinorin A is a kappa agonist was made by Roth (2002) not the references cited. I'd like to correct this.

BryanLRoth (talk) 13:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I can see that Roth et al 2002 is already cited in regards to the kappa agonist discovery, If you you be more explicit in what precisely you wish to change, I can do it for you.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:43, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Note: This request is currently on hold, awaiting user input. I'm marking this as answered until BryanLRoth replies to this request, upon which the editor should re-open the request. st170etalk 14:43, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2016

In this sentence: "Its chief active psychoactive constituent is a structurally unique diterpenoid called salvinorin A,[10][11] a potent κ-opioid and D2 receptor agonist.[12][13] " the reference to Roth 2002 should be cited as the references cited do not represent the citation to the original discovery but are studies which verify the discovery. Roth 2002 should be cited after 'a potent k-opioid' BryanLRoth (talk) 14:51, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 23:28, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2016

The following sentence give the incorrect citation:

"Salvinorin A has no actions at the 5-HT2A serotonin receptor, the principal molecular target responsible for the actions of 'classic' hallucinogens, such as mescaline and LSD, nor is it known to have affinity for any other sites to date.[12]" The Zhang et al article actually does not have any data on 5-HT2A receptor affinity but instead references Roth 2002 which is the paper which demonstrated this. The citation should be changed to Roth 2002


BryanLRoth (talk) 14:54, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 23:28, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Edit Request 15 August 2016

The legal status of Salvia in the UK has been changed by the Psychoactive Substances Act which came into effect on 26 May 2016. Importing or supplying Salvia for human use is now illegal under this act. Mandolamus (talk) 09:01, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Sourcing for biomedical content?

I have posted a query about this article at WT:MED#Recreational drug experiences. Alexbrn (talk) 07:04, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2016

I have a working version of the rotted link, https://web.archive.org/web/20100111145946/http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/drugs_concern/salvia_d/salvia_d.htm hope this helps improve the site, and crowd-sourcing is awesome! Matt1.tony (talk) 01:44, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Already done. Archive url added by User:Sizeofint. Thanks for your request. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:57, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 22 external links on Salvia divinorum. 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) 22:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 34 external links on Salvia divinorum. 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) 15:50, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

D2 affinity of salvinorin A

The page states salvinorin A has high affinity for kappa opioid receptor (which is true) and D2 dopamine receptor (which is false) and cites my paper (ref 12). In the paper in fact we show it does not have any affinity for D2 and many other receptors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.23.168.3 (talk) 20:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, the claim doesn't seem to be supported by cited reference, so I have removed it. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Seeman et al claim it is a D2 agonist, though. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Remove this article

I know it sounds a bit extreme, but I really have been coming across too many poor, overly bias articles. Where are the negative effects/side effects of this plant? This entire article is written like a new age magazine. Seriously, just take it down. 76.90.119.159 (talk) 20:16, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Please list the effects you would like listed. You can WP:EDITREQ. Bod (talk) 20:46, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Moved from the article per WP:ELNO: "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. In other words, the site should not merely repeat information that is already or should be in the article. Links for future improvement of the page can be placed on the article's talk page". The article already has abundant citations; these below are repetitive. --Zefr (talk) 20:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Further reading

  • Arthur, J.D. (2010). Salvia divinorum: Doorway to thought-free awareness. Rochester, Vermont, United States of America: Park Street Press. ISBN 978-1594773471.

Further research

  1. ^ "Miley Cyrus Video -- Partying with a Bong". TMZ.com. December 10, 2010. Retrieved December 10, 2010.
  2. ^ "Miley Cyrus Smokes From Water Pipe in Party Video". Fox News Channel. News Corporation. December 10, 2010. Retrieved December 10, 2010.
  3. ^ "Miley Cyrus Caught Smoking From Bong On Video". MTV News. MTV. December 10, 2010. Retrieved December 10, 2010.
  4. ^ "Miley Cyrus bong-smoking video has dad Billy Ray 'so sad'". The Los Angeles Times. December 10, 2010. Retrieved December 10, 2010.
  5. ^ "Miley Cyrus' Dad Billy Ray 'So Sad' About Bong Video". MTV News. MTV. December 10, 2010. Retrieved December 10, 2010.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Salvia_divinorum/Archive_5&oldid=1145840487"