Talk:Salvia divinorum/Archive 1

message: The following survey conducted by two researchers, then at the University of San Franscisco, may help provide more factual rather than anectdotal or POV information Salvia Users Survey 199.181.134.220 00:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Opportunity to include more factually based information

message: can this be cited or something?  otherwise it should be removed . . .  --Heah (talk) 15:28, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like original research to me. --Bk0 15:37, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: coach kovatch

message: Removed mistaken statement about dīvīnorum being an inaccurate form.  I cite Lewis and Short: "dīvīnus , i, m., a soothsayer, prophet = vates, Cic. Div. 1, 58; 2, 3; id. Fat. 8; Liv. 1, 36; Hor. S. 1, 6, 114; Vulg. Deut. 18, 11 al."  The term has nothing to do with ghosts. Rcharman 19:38, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Latin Origins

message: Reverse Tolerance is a layman's "slangish" term that would be more appropriately replaced by the term "Sensitization".  This is the technical word used in pharmacological terminology.
:I am comfortable with either, although I would agree that "sensitization" is the more sophisticated term. I've modified the page, but noted that sensitization is sometimes called "reverse-tolerance," since linking to the wikipedia sensitization page would have been misleading. --Muugokszhiion 06:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Has anyone considered that some of the reverse tolerance effects may be due to absorbing a higher dose by avoiding administration mistakes?  -- Pakaran 04:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's probably part of the reason in some cases. However, many users do qualitatively report requiring less of the material to induce a hallucinogenic state. This is especially true when one dose is followed by another. Since few scientific studies involving salvia divinorum have been performed, we can only speculate as to why the phenomenon exists. Nonetheless, I don't believe there's any harm leaving it in the article, since it does occur, regardless of the reason why. --Muugokszhiion 03:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is harm, if it isn't: a) externally verifiable, and, b) from a reliable, notable source. As you say, there are few scientific studies available for these subjects. That does not give us license, however, to relax Wikipedia standards for verifiability and accountability. People can always go to Erowid or their favorite drug enthusiast entheogen message board if they're looking for vague, spurious anecdotal information. --Bk0 (Talk) 03:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that our articles should be reliable and cited, of course.  However, as a donor to, and frequent reader of, Erowid, I would like to say that I feel that they are very careful to identify which material is anecdotal (trip reports, etc) and which is scientificly proven.  -- Pakaran 00:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Although i can say with some certainty that it has very little to do with avoiding administration mistakes, this is of course completely lacking in any sort of reliable verification.  So i've edited the text accordingly.  --Heah talk 04:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Reverse Tolerance" vs. Sensitization 

message: the article states that salvia divinorum is the most potent drug, with threshold levels around 100 micrograms, but many many established resources (and wikipedia itself on the lsd page) state that lsd is the most potent drug, with threshold levels ranging form 20-30 micrograms. i didn't make the edit because i'm still pretty new to wikipedia, but i think someone more experienced should verify what i said and make the edit if it's true.--Wikipedia manic 04:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chemistry: "the most potent" 

message: This sentence from the article seems, well, unlikely.
:With the significant time distortion typical of Salvia, participants may live a lifetime as another person, or as an inanimate object, such as a wall or a piece of furniture.
I can believe that there might be some time dilation, but may live a lifetime as another person stretches credibility. Richard W.M. Jones 14:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Experience: Time dilation? 

message: Can someone point me to more information about the "green witch queen" strain? Also can we get more information on these strains?
:Holy shit! There were only ~10 strains when I added / reinserted the strain list some months back! I'd like some confirmation that the newly-added strains (the lower ten) actually exist; could someone find some vendors/sites that confirm this (post them here on the talk-page, not the actual article, plz) 71.36.118.253 05:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: EDIT: Okay, found most of them here and added one (B. Blosser #2). Only need confirmation for Green Witch Queen and Resilience now. 71.32.58.100 05:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

text: EDIT: Me again. Okay, Resilience is also confirmed. Strangely, though, a simple google search didn't turn up any s. divinorum-related results for Green Witch Queen. 65.101.179.56 13:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Alright, that's much better. I like how it's worded now, too. 65.101.179.56 05:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Botany: Strains