Ats policy on naming and shaming

Recently i replied to a thread that was about masons and drugs. I wrote that, if allowed, i would name masons, and the lodges they attend, that take drugs. Could anyone help me with this?

what kind of drugs?

Viagra?

what purpose would this serve ?

the mere " revalation " that masonic member " mr x " an initiate of "lodge y " takes " drug z "

is IMHO totally USELESS muck raking -

what is the context of this " drug taking "

is it done with the apporoval / consent of masaonic hierachy ?

etc etc

if you have are real issue , and real evidence - why not contact the local law enforcement , and the lodge master .

use regisered signed for mail - and keep coppies

if you can show clear evidence that police and masaonic authorities have ignored the evidence - and that the activity is still ongoing

then MAYBEE your muckraking is the tactic of last resort

but there is alot you can do before getting to that satge

without " naming names " , can i ask a simple question :

if an aledged masonic drug taker was arrested tommorow on narcotics charges - would you make a credible prosecution witness ?

Hmm, witch hunting and blacklists based on recreational drug use?

McCarthy might like it, not sure who else would. Does this list come with instructions on how to burn people at the stake?

Maybe you should just stick to Mason's with meth labs and give the list to the DEA.





[edit on 28-1-2007 by Regenmacher]

I have no reason to start a witch hunt or call police,I was replying to a thread,this question came up-are drugs used at lodges or by members,and I know of masons who get high.No need to trash my request on policy,does the truth hurt mate?

Why would you want to cyberbully someone like this? What business is it of yours even IF someone is 'doing drugs'? Would you like your personal infomration pasted all over the internet??? Who are you to judge other people like that?

Ats policy on naming and shaming ?

I think common sense comes into play here. ATS would certainly not be posting the members names of any organization because of accusations of drug use. Can you imagine the lawsuits that would follow. Also who cares, people drink alcohol (drug) smoke tobacco (drug)

Originally posted by nemo1111
I have no reason to start a witch hunt or call police,I was replying to a thread,this question came up-are drugs used at lodges or by members,and I know of masons who get high.No need to trash my request on policy,does the truth hurt mate?

Go drop names all you want, my name won't be there.

Blacklists are designed as control mechanisms, which are geared towards oppression and usually blow up in the originators face. Probably more to do with ego stroking and fictional heresay in this case. So who do you think you are fooling with this "I am miss innocent" crap?

That and you might be slapped with libel suits, so it's best to hide your finances, become self-employed and/or plan on moving.



[edit on 28-1-2007 by Regenmacher]

Originally posted by nemo1111
Recently i replied to a thread that was about masons and drugs. I wrote that, if allowed, i would name masons, and the lodges they attend, that take drugs. Could anyone help me with this?

So long as there is no infringement on other people's well-being (i.e. forcing overdoses, getting rowdy and/or physical with the neighbors, et cetera), then I do not see a point in naming names.

If you are actually trying to start trouble, then what's the purpose behind it, what's your reason?

Originally posted by nemo1111
i would name masons, and the lodges they attend, that take drugs.

I like conspiracies uncovered but I do not see how this could help.
Your allegations would not be able to be substantiated.
If you have information about illegal activities I suggest you contact the police.
If/when the masons are arrested then you can post the news articles.

Why single out the Masons?

Though not one myself, I do not see the connection here.

Would you not imagine that members of say the NBA take drugs? NFL? FFA?

How about the Skull and Bones? K of C?

I mean, what makes a list of Mason's that take drugs anymore unique than any other organization?

Semper

Originally posted by nemo1111
Could anyone help me with this?

I wouldn't if I were you..

1. You'll be creating a permanent internet record of your accusations which you will not be able to delete or retract. This will show up in an internet search of the persons name, forever.
   
2. You could be sued for libel, and have to prove your accusations are true in court, else face financial ruin.
   
3. It's just plain Bad Karma. Will do nothing but damage and come back to haunt you in the end.
   
4. "Let he who is without sin caste the first stone etc.."
   

Just my thoughts.

maybe he means, some police may be masons there, we know police everywhere are masons, maybe this is what he is getting at.

i would be careful who you are talking about, because there may be some powerful local individuals in that group.

Originally posted by nemo1111
I wrote that, if allowed, i would name masons, and the lodges they attend, that take drugs.

Why would it even be an issue? I know more people [from all walks of life] who take drugs than those who don't.

That's just living in the world today. Everybody's got their own poison.

FWIW, the context of this request was in a discussion where people were asking if Masonic Rituals involve the use of Drugs, similar to how shamans and tribal people's rituals use drugs for ecstatic experiences.

I agree, thats pretty different from 'masons who are stoned'.

Simply name the town in which this occurs, then go to whatever law enforcement agency would have jurisdiction, and report the misdeeds. upon their arrest these errant "Masons" identity will have become a matter of public record, and you be able to post some form of a news link and a well deserved "I told you so."

Of course, my money is on this not happening.

This of course is where the excuse of the police all being Freemasons and in on the drug use may be inserted.

On a side note... Anyone who "knows" more people who are taking drugs as opposed to those who don't... Knows the wrong people...

:shk:

[edit on 28/1/2007 by Mirthful Me]

Originally posted by Mirthful Me
On a side note... Anyone who "knows" more people who are taking drugs as opposed to those who don't... Knows the wrong people...

Give living in the real world a try sometime.



Drugs

[edit on 28/1/07 by Implosion]

Originally posted by Implosion
Give living in the real world a try sometime.

Drugs

I've been living in the real world for quite some time... 42 years and counting.

There is no doubt to the definition of "drugs" in relationship to the on topic discussion in this thread, nor the anecdotal reference you made. Your feeble attempt at semantics via a Google search link is noted, and discarded... Google itself is a departure from reality.

Originally posted by Mirthful Me
Your feeble attempt at semantics via a Google search link is noted, and discarded... Google itself is a departure from reality.

The use of drugs in my country is at epidemic proportions. I have known people how have held down financial positions in the city whist harboring a crack coc aine addiction. These are the people you rarely hear about, as they have the means, and the nous to keep it under wraps. As with most things, it is the people lower in the pecking order that are demonised.

Did you know that in the U.K. you can purchase a tablet of ecstasy for a lower price than you can buy a pint of lager? Here we see simple economic reasons that could explain why the use of illegal drugs is so high.

MDMA use has increased markedly since the late 1980s, and spread beyond its original sub-cultures to mainstream use. Prices have also fallen since the 1980s. In countries where distribution is more extensive, such as in the Netherlands and other places in Europe, prices can sometimes be as low as €1 per tablet. In countries where distribution is more difficult, such as the US and Australia, prices are accordingly higher at up to US$10-40 and AUD$30-50 respectively per tablet. In the United Kingdom it is common to pay around £2 to £3 for a tablet on average. Prices are also usually higher when the drug is purchased in a club or at a rave.

Source.

The latest survey, 2003/04, suggests that 35.6% of people aged 16-59 in England and Wales have used drugs at some point.

Twelve per cent have used drugs in the past year and 7.5 per cent in the past month.

That equates to 11 million people having used drugs in their lifetime, and just under four million using them in the last year. Cannabis, the survey suggests, remains by far the most popular drug.

In a similar survey in Scotland, 27% said they had used drugs in their lifetime and 9% reported using them in the last year.

Commentators agree that although figures from both surveys are likely to be underestimates, they provide a useful benchmark.

Source.

There is a saying that states, “When you judge another, you do not define them, you define yourself.”

That's not to say that "substance abuse" isn't a serious problem. At the time the drug war was launched, deaths from tobacco were estimated at about 300,000 a year, with perhaps another 100,000 from alcohol. But these aren't the drugs the Bush administration targeted. It went after illegal drugs, which had caused many fewer deaths - over 3500 a year - according to official figures. One reason for going after these drugs was that their use had been declining for some years, so the Bush administration could safely predict that its drug war would "succeed" in lowering drug use.

Source.

Here, when we see the contrast between official mortality rates related to legal, and illegal drugs, you can see yet another reason why the use of illegal drugs may be so high.

Excuse me if I don't rush to judgment over a person, just because their favorite form of recreation differs from mine.

[edit on 28/1/07 by Implosion]

Originally posted by Mirthful Me

On a side note... Anyone who "knows" more people who are taking drugs as opposed to those who don't... Knows the wrong people...

:shk:

[edit on 28/1/2007 by Mirthful Me]

Im afraid i fall into this category also, you cant go to any event anymore here socially where the majority arent getting high. I live in an inner city middle income area, 60 to 70% of the people i mix with socially take one kind of recreational drug or another, its a sad state of affairs, but all of these friends are just that, friends, not the wrong people. They'd be the first to help out if needed (less one or two maybe upon reflection)