The SUSPENSION of illicit drugs/mind altering substance topics on ATS (The experiment failed)

re: SkepticOverlord's last post in the update thread


So basically, most drug topics are OK as long as we don't talk about any personal usage?

Isn't that how it was - or at least should have been - anyway?

*sigh*

reply to post by ravenshadow13


'living in a country where say, marijuana, is illegal or link them to being 14 years old and doing heavy drugs, or could link any IP address to talking about selling, buying, or distributing illegal drugs could get both YOU and the website in serious trouble."

My bar card and I tend to disagree with this statement.
This has nothing to do with legallity, Its a choice made by TPTB, lol, For whatever reason.




[edit on 25-2-2009 by uaocteaou]

I feel this diminishes ATS's legitimacy as a conspiracy forum. There are plenty aspects of the drug war, what should be legal, and alternate reasoning as to why some "drugs" are kept illegal that inspire intelligent discussion.

I would rather see stricter moderation on the topic, than censoring the entire subject. Hopefully a compromise can be reached.

Originally posted by Cutwolf
So using the reasoning you have repeatedly given for banning drug discussions, shouldn't "9/11 Truth" discussions be banned as well?

If the T & C are to be enforced, they most assuredly should all be closed and removed. After all, every thread in the 9/11 forum blatantly violates the "recruitment/solicitation" rule, as it was applied to drug related topics.

Will this include discussion about vitamins when they become a controlled substance? I am not being facetious; I am really curious how posts about vitamins will be handled if they become illegal.

Entropy ensues?

You will need to define much more specifically. Illicit, or pharmaceutical, socially accepted mind alterants like alcohol, caffeine, nicotine, and the gray areas will to need be managed very carefully by staff. So carefully in fact that you will inevitably make bad political decisions to enforce the general premise of the rules and begin assaulting the free speech so treasured on this site. Best of luck, I don't envy the response or the effects.

DEA has scheduled substances we actually all have in our neurochemistry. These are illegal to possess in quantity, but still illegal by law. In what quantity will such subjects be allowed for discussion? How used, or how associated the determinant?, the subject will span many situations and seem unfair to many in how this rule is applied. I can only imagine your internal discussions on this. I don't drink, smoke or use drugs, but recognize the subject as being a critical social and political concern. I don't think we should outlaw "feelings" because someone gets emotionally upset sometimes. Yet you can, as a business, apply policy in whatever fashion is practical to your operational parameters. Whether effective, eventually damaging or not.

With the recent throttling of Religious areas, we are seeing a strategy of avoidance for largely legal and image based policy that we could see reducing the discussion subjects significantly, filtering reality down eventually to "Hello Kitty" level mundane subjects.

Knowing your concerns for the abuses and causes for this policy, still does not seem to call for such a sledgehammer to take the fleas out of your dog.

I will watch with great interest on the effects. An interesting sociological study begins. Can general free speech be "micro-managed" on social networking sites without fundamental damages to the intellectual quality of discussion? That might be the better question.

ZG

I've discussed '___' in U2U's, unless this is against the rule then I don't care. I think people are upset because there is a large audience here, and some peoeple in particular they want to get the info out, and also get their opinion. If they had anyone in mind, they simply send them a private message.

It is a little bit frustrating for me only because what I want to touch on his a tribal brew, used for spiritual experiences rather then recreational use, and its legality is kind of iffy in many countries as I looked it up. Its really about the topic of tribal practises, which the government allows, if under traditional conditions.

But again. No big deal. I want to talk about it to a certain few people and until its banned from private messages I won't really care. And I mean its not like these people don't have emails. This is just making it a little more diffuclt, thats all.

I understand the spirit of the rule, to clean up the board, to mature it, but as another member said, you might as go ahead and remove all the sexist, racist, ignorant comments with it. I would also add in that defense, that there has been stricter rules on that as we have seen, so they are trying to make everyone respect each other, you know?

I just hope its not an issue of looking down on "druggy-talk" because we PERSONALLY don't like it, and can't handle it. Don't get me wrong, I don't like it either but getting the information out there would still be nice.

EDIT TO BOLD THIS
A nice compromise would be like.. haha.. a special forum, like breaking news, where you post a source, only your not allowed to discuss it.

If some scientists post an enlightening opinion on illegal drugs, it would be nice if everyone could see the article you know? But just not post their 2 cents. You would be denying ignorance, and not really taking a side. I mean thats what denying ignorance is all about right? Seeing the full picture!

I just hope its not a case of personal preference and it seems like they have given it much thought and even though they themselves probably see there is some great value in it, that they value the order of their board more. I mean it would be stressful when you think of it.

A bit of censorship guys but its not bad. Its like going to someones house and they have a stupid rule, put up with it. Yes there motto is deny ignorance but I hope they're trying to piece this all together at least.

I wonder if they'd get any kind of heat from the government as well, as the gov't won't fess up and crack down on someone for digging into conspiracies because then they'd have to admit the conspiracy, thats why they just do dirty things to shut us up. But when something like drugs, some common laws here comes into the picture. I can see them getting into some trouble. But I don't know the depths of the law.

Understand that these guys want a forum of free speech for you, but hell.. I'm not going to ask them to go jail or get a fine for me, but thats up to them.

We already discuss so much, so much. And again, if we can still discuss certain things in U2U's, we're not missing much.


I understand both sides of the arguement, but I don't think it's really that bad.

If you don't agree, start another site I guess. I'm here because of the audience, and i want to stay here for that reason, more people to get to.

Anyways, thats my opinion. Thanks for reading.

[edit on 25-2-2009 by CavemanDD]

what is the updates thread you guys mentioned?

Expect this thread to get closed or partly censored soon. It's always been the case if/when any site owners are not able to sell their new policy to their members and have no stand against the intelligent arguements from their members. Only way out: Ostrich tactic.

As soon as we're get to the point to actually make a change, we're locked back in our cage, and everything stays SNAFU. Whenever a movement starts to get support, it's deleted because of the "recruitment rule" (recent examples: "Fax on Washington", "Upside-Down-Flag Movement", general "Contact your Congressman" threads, and so on.)

I wonder what the real intent of this place is: "Denying Ignorance" or having the resourceful, intelligent, upstream-swimming people of a society in a controlled environment where they can't do any harm to the way things are run in the world.

Endless back-and-forth talking: YES; actions: NO.

Without action, all those words are smoke and mirrors.

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
reply to post by SkepticOverlord

 

Please... what value is there in "9/11 Truth" topics?

What value is there in believing what you're told?

Originally posted by Cutwolf

Please... what value is there in "9/11 Truth" topics?

Implicit in your sarcasm is the notion that there is not much value in "9/11 Truth" topics.

Both of you purposefully twisted SkepticOverlord's words and took them out of context for nothing else than to be argumentative and attack him. His point was explicit in his statement...

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Please... what value is there in "9/11 Truth" topics to mass-media advertisers?

Twisting his words and taking them out of context is quite stupid considering anyone can go back and see exactly what he said.

reply to post by Uniceft17


Why not just throw out the bad apples? By banning the topic, it's giving the bad apples a chance to post their opinions and discussions on other topics.

Which clearly may not even be what they want.

Originally posted by darcon
reply to post by ravenshadow13

 

In my opinion, anything that you wouldn't discuss with your boss or a police officer isn't okay here on ATS.

LOL what? Alright then, lets just take half the threads off of ATS then

[edit on 25-2-2009 by darcon]

All the drug topics aside i agree. I wouldn't discuss most of the topics on ATS with my boss or police officer. Not that they are illegal but they would look at me odd and cart me off/ write me off at that moment.

I have seen plenty of alcohol discussions that might not be appropriate for the younger set. Do the internet filters catch this? Bad language isn't allowed to keep the site family friendly.. I think a lot of the allowed topics are inappropriate for the younger minds as well.

I am "just a member" and will certainly do my best to stay with the t&c but as others have stated where does it stop..

How come all the cannabis threads I was posting in consisted only of people posting statistics, studies, discussing economic effects, discussing moral issues with prohibition, .etc?

There were a few one liners every 20 or so posts ("maybe so and so should smoke some....heh heh heh") but doesn't it make sense that the sudden spike in these types of posts were because you had strangled all discussion for so long?

I agree with the prospect of a 'War on Drugs' forum.

Originally posted by darcon
reply to post by ravenshadow13

 

LOL what? Alright then, lets just take half the threads off of ATS then

[edit on 25-2-2009 by darcon]

Most of them really won't get you arrested or fined. They'll think you're crazy but if you're not plotting or anything illegal, then it's not a big deal.

So it seems, according to the final post in this thread we ARE allowed to discuss drug prohibition?

So which is it?

reply to post by Reddupo


Not only that, but isn't every thread like that. Every 20 posts or so you get somebody who posts immaturely.

My, My, eleven pages of whine. This comes down and then everyone one is up in arms. "What about...." "What about......" Some have said, "Weed doesn't hurt anyone." The Kernal disagrees. Obviously it impairs reading comprehension.

Originally posted by SpringerPlease don't waste your time or ours trying to "negotiate" with us on this.

Carry on.

[edit on 25-2-2009 by Kernel Korn]

reply to post by Monger


C'mon Monger... for the longest time, it's been both and neither. Haven't you been following the issue? You can talk about drugs all you want, just as long as you don't talk about drugs.

reply to post by SaviorComplex


its probably a moot point at this point of the thread, but i have to say: what could be more obtuse than conflating growing cannabis with child molestation.

[edit on 25-2-2009 by tgidkp]

reply to post by ravenshadow13


Perhaps not illegal but as a site that caters to the contaversial topics just odd that it can't inclue all topics. The moderators are here for a reason. Take the action against those that dont follow the rules of the site.