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

reply to post by budski


Yeah, I think that is what a lot of us are basing the whole "dedicated forum" idea upon.

Originally posted by TNT13
Just one more question, if and when you start a drug based forum; How

are you to have a complete debate without both sides? You cannot just

simply go on "facts" without anyone with experience weighing in, not

saying you have to describe completely your type of use but having a

drug based forum where people can't discuss pro's and con's of use with

actual users; the thread would become extremely redundant.

This was not the case in many of the drug threads I participated in. Most notably all the phelps scandal threads and their spawns.

It was consisting of statistics, studies, people claiming cannabis was harmful, people claiming that it wasnt, people expressing, people expressing support.

The threads went strong and had no (perhaps they were deleted before I saw them) "dude getting high is awesome thats why it should be legal".

I dont think it would be elitest to have a 10,000/ 5,000 point requirement for god sake its only 1 subject that a new member could not have a say in. And if a new member has a genuine interest in the subject then he is only 10,000 / 5,000 points away from having their say in this 1 subject!

reply to post by SaviorComplex

However, that does not mean we cannot find a middle-ground. If a newer member does violate the T&C, they could be restricted from posting to the forum or commenting on related topics until they reach 10,000 points (or however).

Finally...worthy input from you.




This is a much better solution to the 10k and You can Stay plan thrown out there...


There are quite a few members out there that have passed 10k sometime ago, but due to either poor posts or MOD (in)justice, they no longer do...yet, they may be able to provide input that benefits some or all.

Originally posted by pieman
reply to post by Unit541

 

i've been here since i was knee high to a space hopper and i still don't have 10,000 points (cause i'm lazy and uninspiring,) so i don't think a minimum points thing is a good idea at all.

It could require a year of membership or 10,000 points... Whichever is met first...

Just a thought. [smile]

reply to post by skeptic1


Hmm.. how about this?
Everyone, I joined a culinary forum over the weekend and in order to be able to post, we needed to write a short explanation of why we wanted access. Of course mine was granted, but people who post "I like food" probably wouldn't have been.

So people who say "I smoke pot all the time" and post with a tone that the mods think is inappropriate, wouldn't be granted access. But if you have a valid argument and show maturity, then you get your first chance. If you break a rule, you get a point reduction and warning, and if you do it again you get a ban from the forum for which you can choose to reapply for access saying why you think you should get another chance. If you do it again, permanent ban from the forum.

I think that's better than points. I know we all know members with a ton of points and a much smaller maturity level. And like, my boyfriend may join soon, he's very mature and has a lot of input, so he should be able to post just like I do. But if he would violate a rule and wants to regain access, sure, I think that a point deduction for rejoining (5k maybe) is a good idea.

[edit on 2/25/2009 by ravenshadow13]

reply to post by skeptic1


Whichever way it's done, if we can find a way to discuss it without all the usual bull, then that's a good thing IMO.

Because there's plenty to discuss

Originally posted by kcfusion
I dont think it would be elitest to have a 10,000/ 5,000 point requirement for god sake its only 1 subject that a new member could not have a say in. And if a new member has a genuine interest in the subject then he is only 10,000 / 5,000 points away from having their say in this 1 subject!

It's not only new members though..

Many older members don't have those kind of points either.
It i s not fair to make this points based, at all.

Originally posted by ravenshadow13
Um, no one nominated me, so I nominate myself just because I came up with the whole "War on Drugs Board" idea. So I can support that. I'm also on ATS everyday.

I think Benevolent Heretic nominated you. But I'll second it.

And I'll nominate myself...and pretty much for the same reasons no one else would nominate me.

Yep, Moderators will need to put much effort into managing intellectual data imbued with the issue.

My concern is that science is on the frontier of the exploration of consciousness. To understand and explore this subject our neurochemistry, how it can be augmented, subdued or modulated will be center to the empirical studies. Our discussions will be subject to editorial, therefore if there is, as there always is with highly relevant material, a lack of understanding on the moderator's side for the science, we are in danger of inappropriate omissions.

Also important, the questions for current economical reasoning for hemp crops to be legalized. Oil, clothing and fabrics, cancer treatment and other important issues hover around the drug laws. The determinant being laws and not science unfortunately.

Effects for dangerous drugs, prescriptions and related dangers for food substances like Phenylalanine and Aspartame, all deal with neurochemistry associated with the same mechanisms as the related but categorically segregated illicit list of substances.

For example it was just announced that MDA, MDMA, MMDA have shown a staggering success in treatment for PTSD and are now being considered for legal treatment of our veterans who have had no relief from years of pain and suffering for this recently recognized disease.

“Ecstasy is the key to treating PTSD
At last the incurably traumatized may be seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. And controversially, the key to taming their demons is the ‘killer’ drug Ecstasy.

Article on PTSD Treatment breakthrough

How do we approach such a blunted policy on something like this unless the moderator is wholly informed?

Here are some 2000 years old thoughts that are truer now more than ever:

"The more laws and restrictions there are, the poorer people become, the sharper men's weapons, the more trouble in the land. The more ingenious and clever men are, the more strange things happen. The more rules and regulations, the more thieves and robbers." Lao Tsu

Also on the dangers of more restrictions we are concerned, an article of relevance here is worth the read.

Laws Create Criminals

GMM


[edit on 2/25/2009 by ZeroGhost]

reply to post by skeptic1


Sounds good to me.

Here is the updated list of nominations. If I have forgotten you, LET ME KNOW.

Reddupo
Benevolent Heretic
Maxmars
Cutwolf
Whatuknow
CavemanDD
ToTheTenthPower
DocGonzo
Frankidealist35
Daystar
Unit541
Ahabstar
Pieman
Darcon
Anok
Loam
Jasonjnelson
tyranny22
omega85
ravenshadow13
SaviorComplex
spliff4020

[edit on 25-2-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for this new forum to materialize. Seems that the administration here at ATS can't even work out for themselves what the policy is at this point. While one thread says that ANY discussion of 'illicit substances' is strictly forbidden, another says that it's fine and dandy so long as we don't discuss our own personal use.

As much as I appreciate SO's attempt to find a happy medium, I can't help but feel like we're being given just enough to keep us satiated while nothing changes.

I wonder if this thread went as planned? Judging by the backpeddling, I'd say not.

Best of luck to all of those participating in the planning committee, I look forward to participating in the new forum - should one ever appear.

reply to post by SaviorComplex


I'll nominate you.

I might not like the way you express yourself sometimes, but I nearly always respect what you say, even when I don't agree with it.

Or maybe especially when I don't agree with it

[edit on 25/2/2009 by budski]

reply to post by SaviorComplex


I'll nominate you.

So there.

reply to post by ravenshadow13


I don't know about writing an explanation about why you want access. If it isn't points and it isn't tenure with ATS membership, maybe everyone who requests access and agrees to the oath/rules should be granted access.

One strike, public warning and post removal.

Two strikes, banned from the dedicated forum for good or for a significant period of time (whichever makes more sense to Admin).

Thank you and fully support your decision. Conspiracies here, Drugs elsewhere, easy no?

reply to post by Wethesheeple


Seconded on both counts.

reply to post by ravenshadow13


Ravenshadow, I think this is the best idea this thread has seen yet. I am in full support of this, and even think there should be a section where other (approved members) can read these.

This way, once approved for participation, you can see why others "deserve" to be there as well. A sort of "introductions" area if you will.

reply to post by SaviorComplex


Yeah me too.... I'll nominate you

You'd be pretty good IMO.

what is this committe forming or ego stroking? stop nominating yourselves and get the mods involved.