Talk:Legal status of Salvia divinorum

message: 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)
thread_title: Picture of Salvia divinorum

message: 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)
replies: text: I've updated so the reference link is included in the article. Many thanks. --SallyScot (talk) 21:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Salvia Argument Overlooked in Main Article

message: * 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: 3rd opinion

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

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: I think I've already entertained you enough... so I'll have to pass.  Thanks though Reswobslc 01:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deduction aka original research?

message: 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 , 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." . 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" .
Please do not revert the main article if you are not prepared to discuss. Thanks.
--SallyScot 13:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: KSL reported quotes

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Third opinion

message: I noted a while back (on 04:58, 17 November 2006 ) 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: KSL reported quotes revert

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Third opinion

message: 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)
thread_title:  Salvia in Utah 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  What about other states? 

message: 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.
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)
thread_title: Wisconsin and Sheldon Wasserman

message: 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)
thread_title: Article too long

message: This article talk page was automatically added with  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)
thread_title: [[WP:FOOD|WikiProject Food and drink]] Tagging

message: 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)
thread_title:  Salvia divinorum and other legal drugs 

message: This substance is on the list of
Ttg53 (talk) 02:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Soon to be illegalized in Poland

message: 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)
thread_title: Salvia in the UK

message: 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:
# the statements were both rather obviously there to promote a point of view, not further neutral description of the topic
# 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)
thread_title:  Argumentative article 

message: Salvia is illegal in Chile —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.214.84.9 (talk • contribs) 
:Section added. --Notmyhandle (talk) 17:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Chile

message: 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 (talk • contribs) 12:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Kentucky, USA

message: 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)
thread_title:  Legal status in DFW 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Michigan 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Illinois - salvia now illegal 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Why such a complex two-stage reference system? 

message: This is wrong now you should check this 
https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCodeArticle.do;jsessionid=E308427C0747481B2DECD98E5E15590B.tpdjo17v_1?cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006072665&idArticle=LEGIARTI000028349966&dateTexte=20141207&categorieLien=cid#LEGIARTI000028349966  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.97.244.90 (talk) 00:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  France 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Legal status of Salvia divinorum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090109183023/http://www.journalstar.com/resources/newsroom/news/firoz_order.pdf to http://www.journalstar.com/resources/newsroom/news/firoz_order.pdf
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070312132705/http://www.cbc.ca:80/health/story/2006/07/28/diviner-sage.html to http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2006/07/28/diviner-sage.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Legal status of 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.stuff.co.nz/4232873a11.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0709/S00211.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Legal status of 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100624223623/http://www.legestart.ro/Ordonanta-de-urgenta-6-2010-modificarea-completarea-Legii-143-2000-prevenirea-combaterea-traficului-consumului-ilicit-droguri-completarea-Legii-339-2005-regimul-juridic-plantelor-%28MzQ3MzAw%29.htm to http://www.legestart.ro/Ordonanta-de-urgenta-6-2010-modificarea-completarea-Legii-143-2000-prevenirea-combaterea-traficului-consumului-ilicit-droguri-completarea-Legii-339-2005-regimul-juridic-plantelor-%28MzQ3MzAw%29.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.progressive.org.nz/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2674
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.peggymast.com/012508nl.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070807093311/http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/Resources/DatabaseResources/QuickFacts/Other/armort01.htm to http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/Resources/DatabaseResources/QuickFacts/Other/armort01.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.reboletti.com/articles/3-01-07.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2006/07/28/diviner-sage.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.stuff.co.nz/4232873a11.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0709/S00211.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:52, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: The article name should be Legality of Salvia divinorum by country, we already have Legality of cannabis by country for example. --Jilja (talk) 20:15, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Legal status of 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090731232354/http://www.prezydent.pl/x.node?id=26543130 to http://www.prezydent.pl/x.node?id=26543130
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:37, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified