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

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


I will nominate my self for consideration provided a general consensus can reached for such a council or committee.

As for qualifications, I submit publicly (and release privately for investigation by the Administration of ATS should such verification be needed) the following:

In 1988-1989 I was elected and served as a Regional Youth Coordinator for the Ohio Teen Institute for the Prevention of Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse (T.I.). The position required me to represent participants and serve as Youth Staff at various events and functions. The program was founded and administered by the Ohio Dept. of Health.

Training received under T.I. was done by various counselors, psychologists and psychiatrists. While as a participant and later as staff, I was trained in peer counseling, drug education, leadership skills in order to be able to independently provide education, identification and initial intervention. As well as to provide alternatives and generally be perceived as a positive role model. In order to be considered an authoritive source by peers, the education dealt with both negative and beneficial effects. It was by no means the DARE nor Just Say No programs.

I was also a performer in an offshoot program known as The Medicine Show for four years, that would perform comedic skits designed to entertain and be an ice breaker to further discussion. Our performances ranged from elementary to high school ages and included various levels of government sponsored shows in business, city counsels, open public events. And even in front of The Ohio Guidance Counselors Association which was observed by a member of Gov Celeste’s cabinet to advise on a pending funding of educational programs.

As an intelligent and reasonable person, I would do what I can facilitate the continuing discussion of this topic on ATS. I feel that by discussion we are better able to not only make more informed opinions and positions but are able to more freely discuss other topics that are unrelated. By sweeping a taboo subject under the rug, it disenfranchises those that fear reprisal and pushes them to less controlled and informed areas of the web.

I concur with the idea of a forum.

I also believe that a few special moderators should be added and instructed that their main priority will be this new forum.

Also, is anyone else sort of amused by this whole "I nominate...let me show you their qualifications" thing going on right now?



[edit on 2-25-2009 by Cutwolf]

reply to post by ravenshadow13


if the staff were going to go for something like that they would have just done it in the first place, it's too much work.

should we give it another two hours for nominations and say this time friday for voting, perhaps.

just an initial suggestion to get things moving.

reply to post by CavemanDD


Well, do you think you would be happy with a more strictly moderated board dedicated to the topic of illicit drug related discussions? And then the medical uses would go in the medical board, which could also be more strictly moderated?

Obviously none of us here are against banning the entire discussion. But a stronger moderation (made possible by a specific board) would allow for the constructive discussion of some of the topics that you've brought up.

The War on Drugs should be allowed to be discussed. The legalization of medical marijuana should be allowed to be discussed. Personal use should not be allowed to be discussed.

Maybe a special forum with dedicated Mods is the answer. But, I am not sure how to keep the immature posters out of that forum.

It would be a fine line to walk.....but, I think working together to create a happy medium is worth it.

reply to post by pieman


Maybe not, though. Put some of the responsible moderators that we already have in the other boards in the drug-related board, and replace their positions. That's kind of what they did for the 9/11 board. Asking the admins- Is there a reason why this idea has or has not been considered?

reply to post by ravenshadow13


I think it's probably the most logical way to monitor the topic. A War on Drug forum would cover most topics of drug conspiracies and the Medical forum could deal with the medicinal use of various legal, and in some cases, illegal drugs.

Threads started in the wrong forum could easily be moved to and fro, as many things are moved to Skunk Works when placed in the improper location each day.

reply to post by ravenshadow13


But a stronger moderation (made possible by a specific board) would allow for the constructive discussion of some of the topics that you've brought up.

Agreed! More mod intervention(In the War on Drugs Topic), rather than the whole ban on drugs.

[edit on 25-2-2009 by darcon]

I like the idea of a special forum with selective entry, special attention to make sure the strict rules are understood and one strike and you're out. I think it would work.

If we're still nominating for a committee, I nominate pieman and darcon.

reply to post by skeptic1


I think that the policy towards immature posts would be the same. Warnings, point reductions... maybe a way to ban certain members from that single, specific board. It would take those dedicated mods to make it work.

Here's an idea on the Board Issue...

Remember The Bully Pulpit? And we (those who wanted to) posted a public oath that we would act and post in a certain manner and accept the consequences if we broke the rules?

Something like that.... might work for a Drug Discussion board... and the ONLY way you can post on that board, is if you have publicly taken such an oath, and are granted permission to take part in those discussions.

I'll have my nominations up shortly.


- Carrot


[edit on 2/25/2009 by CA_Orot]

reply to post by ravenshadow13


seriously, selective entry is the way to go, people then need to proove they are not immature in order to post, it cuts out all the crap.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Hey Heretic,

I agree, like most at this point, that a special forum or topic is the best solution.

Thanks for the nomination. If it is still valid, so are my nominees.:up

I nominate Reddupo

That is my first nomination. I have read his posts. He seems like a good candidate

My second nomination is Benevolent Heretic

She too seems unbiased.

My third Nomination is Cut Wolf.

He seems to be interested, and up to the task.

My fourth nomination is CavemanDD

My fifth and Last Nomination is Maxmars

[edit on 25-2-2009 by darcon]

reply to post by ravenshadow13


Yeah. If it was a dedicated forum that we had to sign up for (like the Bully Pulpit), then members could be banned from that forum.

The Bully Pulpit didn't get a lot of play with politics, but when it did, it was serious without all the BS and mudslinging, and rumors. It was good for those of us who wanted to deal with serious issues about politics.

Something like that with dedicated Mods (maybe 3 or 4 specifically assigned) would work well, I think. Keep the focus on the conspiracies, the legislation, the controversy and off of the personal stories, the personal use, and the immaturity.,

reply to post by pieman


How would selective entry work?

Sorry for the one-liner.

EDIT: Never mind. I understand after reading about the Bully-Pulpit.

[edit on 25-2-2009 by tyranny22]

Yes, I have a list:
Nominations:

Reddupo
Benevolent Heretic
Maxmars
Cutwolf
Whatuknow
CavemanDD
ToTheTenthPower
DocGonzo
Frankidealist35
Daystar
Unit541
Ahabstar
Pieman
darcon

Great!! Good to see and we are all adults here... Yes and then next I want the threads to stop about the child abuse and anything to do with FAT kids.

After that we should do away with anything that deals with illegal torture... that is totally outrageous that we would be putting stuff on forums like that, promoting the fact that torture is OK. You have people saying things like " How dare you bad mouth torture when it is getting info from them. Why not just let these prisoners go and have them kill people because you are weak and can't believe torture is doing good".

Let's ban anything that talks about illegalities... Can we talk about free speech? There are areas set up around the countries for such speech, does that mean we can't talk about that too?

Rgds

reply to post by CA_Orot


Public Oath would be a good idea.

Especially with this topic.

A topic to itself, War on Drugs.

[edit on 25-2-2009 by darcon]

reply to post by pieman


Yep. On the first offense, you get a point deduction and your post gets deleted and you get a red warning tag. On the second, you can be banned from that specific forum.

Is there anyone who has been nominated for the committee who does not agree with the board idea? I think also that the public oath would be necessary, possibly just something that you need to agree to (like the T&C or within the T&C) in order to post there.

reply to post by skeptic1


I was thinking more Mods than that. All with previous experience. The 9/11 forum has 8, so I would say 10 to start.