Talk:Salvinorin A/Archives/2023

Edit war on legal status in the United States
Please stop the edit war. The revision by clearly improved the article. If you disagree, discuss it here. Do not revert it further without discussion. -- Wiki Linuz  { talk } 22:06, 13 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I actually don't object to a section explaining that part of the history. The DEA at one point did think Salvinorin A (also a very similar situation with Thujone occurred for interest) may act as a cannabinoid 1 agonist and thus may be considered under the federal analog act as a result if the hypothesis they are CB1 agonists is true. However, we now know from multiple studies that Salvinorin A and Thujone do not act like psychoactive CB1 agonists. They are not considered structural analogs of any scheduled compound. Which is why the DEA scrubbed any mention of the hypothesis since, because it's possible it could create a legal conflict for them.
 * My objection is how it's worded and put into the article under the legality. Removing the old paragraph of legality was unnecessary and the way it was worded appears confusing without context. Adding onto the existing legality underneath it, with specific information would be informative if worded correctly with those specifics. Gettinglit (talk) 22:07, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If you disagree with wording, discuss with the other editor here -- not through edit warring. -- Wiki Linuz   { talk } 22:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with that and sent them a message and posted on their talk page with that intent and will work towards an agreeable solution Gettinglit (talk) 22:13, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Gettinglit, you can do what you suggested without edit warring. Look, here is a revision with similar information in a format that you mentioned; “ Salvinorin A is not listed as scheduled at the federal level in the United States. Furthermore, the DEA does not currently consider Salvinorin A as subject to the Controlled Substances Act.
 * DEA’s opinion can change at any time. For reference, in the early 2000s, the agency held a different perspective and did consider Salvinorin A an analogue under the Federal Analogue Act.” JoeBo82 (talk) 22:12, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, all it requires is a single space that breaks the discussion of current legality from past opinion. JoeBo82 (talk) 22:13, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The "Its molecular structure is unlike any Schedule I or II drug, so possession or sales is unlikely to be prosecuted under the Federal Analogue Act." has no reason to be removed
 * "DEA’s opinion can change at any time." is out of context
 * "For reference" there is none from the DEA since they deleted it because it was incorrect, I can't find a citation with their argument anymore, just 3rd party accounts from blogs which shouldn't be used as a Wikipedia citation for such a claim because it could be incorrect.
 * "the agency held a different perspective and did consider Salvinorin A an analogue under the Federal Analogue Act.” 
 * but not exactly, their argument was if it's found to be functionally similar to THC. But it has since been proven it's not. They never prosecuted anyone for salvia or Salvinorin A under the federal analog act and basically went out of their way to scrub any mention they attempted to claim it could of been if studies showed it.
 * Adding in specifics, why did the DEA have this opinion, why does the DEA not promote this opinion anymore, otherwise the way it's worded makes it seem confusing. Gettinglit (talk) 22:21, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you please provide a citation for Its molecular structure is unlike any Schedule I or II drug, so possession or sales is unlikely to be prosecuted under the Federal Analogue Act? -- Wiki Linuz  { talk } 22:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Current opinion of the DEA states that Salvinorin A is not regulated; “ Neither Salvia divinorum nor its active constituent Salvinorin A has an approved medical use in the United States. Salvia divinorum is not controlled under the Controlled Substances Act.” JoeBo82 (talk) 22:23, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * However, in the past, DEA did consider Salvinorin A an analogue. JoeBo82 (talk) 22:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * They didn't though, this is the misleading and confusing part I was telling you about. And we cannot see the DEA page this saved blog page is citing because the page is 404-ed and was not achieved.
 * However, if we are to take this blog at its word it describes ""If sold for human consumption, Salvia may be subject to control under the Analogue statutes because of its functional pharmacological similarities to other CI hallucinogens like THC."
 * However, this hypothesis is very outdated as it's proven Salvia does not have pharmacological similarities to THC or other Schedule I substances, see the pharmacology citations on this page for supporting references.
 * "According to the Controlled Substance Analogue Enforcement Act, if a substance is substantially similar in structure, or in action, to a Schedule I or II controlled substance, then it can be treated as a Schedule I controlled substance. There are several points that would have to be settled by some law court.
 * Is a plant a substance? Can a plant be "substantially similar" to a compound? And what is the "function" that is implicit in the phrase that suggests that Salvia (the plant) has "functional pharmacological similarities" to THC (the compound)? I believe it would be an uphill battle for the prosecution. -- Dr. Shulgin"
 * This citation at the end doesn't even seem to support what you're trying to say. I cannot find any DEA documents in regard to cite for such claims.
 * The DEA has never prosecuted anyone for Salvia or Salvinorin A under the federal analog act. It's very misleading to say "the DEA did consider Salvinorin A an analog" without any context because they actually did not, they said if it's found to have a similar pharmalogical profile as THC. Gettinglit (talk) 23:02, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Salvia is not regulated by the federal government or listed under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). However, 37 states have introduced legislation that would control the drug to some degree – neither Salvia nor its active ingredient Salvinorin A, has an approved medical use in the United States. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) regards Salvia as a ‘drug of concern’ because of its wide availability, potential for abuse, and hallucinogenic effects. As such, DEA is monitoring reports of abuse and assessing whether Salvia should be scheduled under the CSA.
 * ''For example, Salvia divinorum (an herb with hallucinogenic effects) and kratom (a tropical tree whose leaves may have either stimulant or sedative effects depending on dosage) are not subject to the CSA at this writing, although DEA has identified them as “drugs of concern.” DEA, DRUGS OF ABUSE: A DEA RESOURCE GUIDE, 84-85 (2017). 32 See 21 U.S.C. § 802(6).
 * This would make it clear they don't consider it an analog of anything scheduled. Additionally the DEA could emergency schedule it for up to 2 years without congress approval. Gettinglit (talk) 22:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The article is reverted back to WP:STATUSQUO before the disputed content is added., please gain WP:CONSENSUS before adding the material back. -- Wiki Linuz  { talk } 22:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This would make it clear they don't consider it an analog of anything scheduled. Additionally the DEA could emergency schedule it for up to 2 years without congress approval. Gettinglit (talk) 22:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The article is reverted back to WP:STATUSQUO before the disputed content is added., please gain WP:CONSENSUS before adding the material back. -- Wiki Linuz  { talk } 22:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The article is reverted back to WP:STATUSQUO before the disputed content is added., please gain WP:CONSENSUS before adding the material back. -- Wiki Linuz  { talk } 22:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)