Talk:Operation Web Tryp

Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Psychoactive and Recreational DrugsWikipedia:WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational DrugsTemplate:WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational DrugsPsychoactive and Recreational Drugs

Drug Policy (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Drug Policy, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Drug PolicyWikipedia:WikiProject Drug PolicyTemplate:WikiProject Drug PolicyDrug Policy

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. 99.129.135.10 (talk) 06:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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).[reply]