Talk:Operation Web Tryp

Untitled
Fuckin' pigs. 20:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)24.189.46.33 (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Added link to List of operations and projects (military and non-military) Paul, in Saudi 8 July 2005 02:55 (UTC)

what's with the line about no RC vendors "hiding" in the US?
A simple google search for JWH-018, for example, will show that not only are there tons of US-based vendors, but many of them openly advertise on Goodle AdWords! It's also quite common for headshops to sell various unscheduled "research chemical" drugs - see the Explosion "room odorisers" that actually contained cathinone-derived stimulants, for example, or the many legal high smoke blends infused with synthetic cannabinoids. This line should probably either be deleted or reworded to more accurately describe which types of substances are not likely being sold in the US. It's probably true that grey market potential analogs of schedule I psychedelics are being sold almost exclusively by foreign vendors now, although I'm not sure how appropriate that sort of speculation really is on a wiki article given how secretive RC vendors tend to be in general. Without any verifiable source, any comment on the matter would seem to me like pure hearsay. 99.129.135.10 (talk) 06:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hiding from the obvious intent of the law is still hiding from the law, any idiot knows full well what kind of substance abuse the DEA keeps trying to stamp out. 72.235.213.232 (talk) 03:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * US drug laws are not against any substance that may plausibly cause any form of euphoria in any way whatsoever.130.18.29.114 (talk) 17:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

started the debiasing
Got rid of the sentence on David Nutt. I entirely agree with the mentality of the writer, but that's just way off. Let the cleansing begin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.47.178 (talk) 13:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, the tone of this article is just… Nuts. A pouty link to UK drug law documents as though they're some sort of mysterious entrapment mechanism? Addicts buying online and then reacting with indignant disbelief when the cops prosecute them for it? A line at the end egging people on for loopholes to start a legal meth kitchen? 72.235.213.232 (talk) 20:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * For the record, AMT, 2C-T-7 and 2C-T-21, the primary chemicals targeted by Web Tryp, aren't addictive, so their users are not "addicts." These are psychedelic drugs somewhat similar to mushrooms and LSD.  The article before the edits was biased, sure, but let's not replace that with counter-bias. 99.129.135.10 (talk) 06:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Way to mince words. Addiction is psychological or physiological to varying degrees, and refers to a compulsive loss of willpower, which is exactly what this junk does to most people. 72.235.213.232 (talk) 03:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Psychedelics have little ability to cause either psychological or physiological addiction.130.18.29.114 (talk) 17:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

removed dead link to Wired story
This article is absurdly biased. I agree with much of the insulting of the UK government actions but this is all completely unsourced and overall unscientific tone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.233.195.181 (talk) 04:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

hey friends, in the Linx section, there was a link to a Wired story. the link was dead and i couldn't find the story by searching the Wired site. so i removed that link. that's kosher right? Mathtinder 09:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

how on earth is the quote by prof. david nutt relevant to this article at all, except to add to the anti-uk undertones of that paragraph? 212.225.116.195 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC).

and now that i think about it, since when did the uk government "ban shulgin's work"? pihkal and tihkal are openly for sale on amazon.co.uk 212.225.116.195 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC).

99.129.135.10 (talk) 06:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Deleted section
I just deleted a section which focused on the legal cases of two individuals involved in the case. While they are mentioned by name in the DoJ press release and other sources, I couldn't confirm most of the details here. Based on Biographies_of_living_persons I think it would be fine to include most of this information, but only if appropriate sources are found. Dowcet (talk) 19:56, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Pondman2021 revisions
Hi. I've not had time to review your latest revisions, but I can see they are improperly wikified. Please add section structure, enrich the citations and ensure you are citing your opinions rather than wrapping your own opinions around cited facts. Deku-shrub (talk) 10:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Problems throughout article
This article lacks proper formatting, seems incredibly opinionated (even if correct) which makes this article near impossible to objectively evaluate. I am just a reader, but I wanted to bring attention to this page as it clearly needs a major cleanup in my opinion. 76.94.200.48 (talk) 08:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)