From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

"DiPT is not explicitly scheduled, but possesion will most likely still be prosecuted under the Analog Act. As of July 2004, the illegality of DIPT was confirmed by Operation Web Tryp."

How could Operation Web Tryp confirm or disconfirm the illegality of any substance? Isn't it up to the courts to interpret the Analog Act?

Technicly, yes. Unfortunately, the popular opinion in America is so easily controlled by agencies such as the DEA that it really doesn't matter. I definitely understand your qualm here, and I would love to see a legal history of the legality of these supposed analogs, but I would personally not know how to frame that as the DEAs position is assumption of guilt in this instance in spite of court cases, apparently. So, technically DiPT may not be illegal, but those who sold it are being prosecuted i believe. Perhaps this should read something more like "As of July 2004, the illegality of DiPT has been seen to be evident enough by the DEA that Operation Web Tryp was carried out." Flying Hamster 15:14, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

We should decide between DIPT and DiPT (this article uses both) and use it consequently both in article titles and in the articles. I think DiPT is correct nomenclature. 09:46, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am doing research on DIPT and a number of other psychedelics ( I would like to learn more about the tendency of DIPT to cause tinnitis. Flying_Hamster: please contact me at


A section on the pharmacology of DiPT is deeply desired.

Spectralyst (talk) 14:04, 27 April 2014 (UTC)