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

No adition to the nominee list,

Mr. Saviour Complex

Reddupo
Benevolent Heretic
Maxmars
Cutwolf
Whatuknow
CavemanDD
ToTheTenthPower
DocGonzo
Frankidealist35
Daystar
Unit541
Ahabstar
Pieman
Darcon
Anok
Loam
jasonjnelson
tyranny22
Ravenshadow

reply to post by Monger


Actually, the administration is actually considering this idea a lot. And if everyone agrees with it here, (the members), it has a higher chance of being approved.

Originally posted by chapter29
Finally...worthy input from you.

Oh, look at that, a backhanded comment. Thanks!

I would be more than happy to be on this committee if it does indeed go through.

Most people who know me from chat know that this is an issue I've been very passionate about,and that I've talked about for quite some time.

As a matter of fact,it was due to frustration over this topic that I pretty much stopped posting on the boards altogether,and stuck to chat.

We need to do something to allow Drugs to be discussed in a responsible,adult way,because as I've said before....You CANNOT have honest conspiracy discussion,and completely ignore drugs.

Hopefully this is a big first step to allowing this to finally happen.

Cheers,
Doc

reply to post by ravenshadow13


I think there is a good chance they will consider what we are saying. I think we have come to a good compromise.

reply to post by blupblup


Surely a simple U2U to the forum moderator would clear that small problem up based on a quick investigation into such persons and the way they have conducted themselves in the past etc.

reply to post by Reddupo


Although I understand your stance, I'm just saying that you can have pros and cons for both sides, a better pro and con stance would be people who have used an benefited and people who have used and think its bad. I'm not saying that scientific evidence doesn't help, but without end-user testimonies how could one prove the postive effects of something clearly being demonized by the government?

reply to post by Unit541


Even a very low points limit (say 500) would help weed out the drive-by posters, and the 'ban/re-register' posters.

reply to post by N. Tesla


If the members can agree on a loose outline of what the compromise should be here (like it seems we are), then the select members and Admin can have something to work from.

Of course, if the members already agree to the compromise, then the need for a committee is kind of moot, but that's what SO wanted.

reply to post by kcfusion


I was just going to state myself as a nomination and give qualifications as why I felt...well, qualified to represent members should this go to a counsel forum.

But I have to say this: Having a point buy system as a requirement to post would eliminate quite a few people on the basis of not having written a number active posts that had popular or infamous depending on personal point of view. ATS points are an arbitrary value. Many ways to get them by participation in various activities such as debates old the abandoned system of tagging threads for easier searching.

For example, compare my profile and ravenshadow13. She has been here a little longer, has made a few more posts but has started nearly twice the number of threads and has twice the points. The only thing I have more of is applause. Now I have spent quite a few points over the years on things that are now point free. She may have too.

In either case, I don't think either of us should be excluded could both post within whatever guidelines would be established but at 10K buy in...I doubt either of us would participate.

Sorry but exclusion based on an arbitrary value is little different than a complete ban on the subject.

reply to post by kcfusion


That would give the mods more work, though. New members with a fresh slate should be able to post there on their first chance.

DocGonzo, that's why I nominated you ^_^

Originally posted by kcfusion
reply to post by blupblup

 

Surely a simple U2U to the forum moderator would clear that small problem up based on a quick investigation into such persons and the way they have conducted themselves in the past etc.

Eh....you've lost me

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

I know this is a tangent to our discussion at the moment, but does anyone else think that the Phelps "scandal" may have informed this decision by the owners?


Oh, and by the by...

I nominate Monger.

Originally posted by TNT13
reply to post by Reddupo

 

Although I understand your stance, I'm just saying that you can have pros and cons for both sides, a better pro and con stance would be people who have used an benefited and people who have used and think its bad. I'm not saying that scientific evidence doesn't help, but without end-user testimonies how could one prove the postive effects of something clearly being demonized by the government?

The forum also wouldn't just be for pro and con arguments. News stories about legalization efforts, or ad campaign info from LEAP or NORML or others, investigations on conspiracies in CIA drug trafficking, history investigations, new economic findings, new health studies, .etc.

There are many drug topics that can be covered without personal stories.

reply to post by TNT13


we don't need testimonials, most people interested know or choose not to. testimonials are easily come by.

reply to post by TNT13


I understand what you are saying. But we need to compromise here.

The reason why we are here in the first place was because of a couple of rotten apples.

I would much rather suggest something, that both sides can agree to, than having disharmony in ATS, because of a BAN on drugs.

Not only are we sad that we are here now, figuring out a way to make this work, but also the Staff too. They said they discussed this for a while. I believe it wasn't a quick decision, or an easy one.

[edit on 25-2-2009 by darcon]

reply to post by skeptic1


i understand that but this is turning into more of a prom queen kind vote then a real vote. where people nominate themselves just to for the hell of it when we need real people who really care about the issue.

like i said less ego stroking more gettign work done.

i support gonzo ahab and daystar

reply to post by ravenshadow13

2. For TNT, I think it would be acceptable to find and post descriptions of the positive effects of being high for meditation, as long as you don't talk about yourself doing it. Like, kind of like posting side effects for a medication, only posting the effects of the substance. If you're mature about it, and do the research, you shouldn't have a problem.

side effects of Paxil, uncrontrollable bladder, headaches, dizziness etc...
Side effects of alcohol, inebriation, slurred speech, gait affected etc...
THC side effects, euphoria, munchies, peaceful feeling.

How do you describe a drug and relay info if anything about it is banned? This is ridiculous... even the side effects would be banned.

The only way is to accept the talk since you entered the thread knowing what was going to be within it. Much like the 911 threads. Or the threads about the war and how it is killing certain people over in the Gaza strip. Will that become banned too because some people do not wish to see what they clicked on in the first place?

How about having a second section of the recent threads that are suggested to be off limits to those with high morals or those that wish to deny that it goes on in their world? This would make it so that those that enter are on their own. Then you could deny NON ATSrs from entering also.

This is the first and what is next...

I will definitely be pushing for gruesome pictures of death being banned totally. My definition of gruesome is death itself... where does it end people???

Originally posted by Reddupo
There are many drug topics that can be covered without personal stories.

Agreed. However, there are also many topics that cannot reach their full potential without it, namely where medicinal use is concerned.

reply to post by TNT13


I think that even a Wikipedia on marijuana would describe it's effects, you know?

I support a point requirement for reapplication to the board, but not originally. Why penalize people before they do anything wrong?

(And if it turns out that the board gets out of control, we could always add a point requirement in a month or so)