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

Look guys, it's simple.

All we have to do is stick to the topic without any deviations into the realms of personal experience and/or use.

Same as we do for every other topic - or as we are supposed to.

If we pick the people that are best suited to purpose then we will have a reasonable compromise - as long as we remember our responsibilities.

And by "we" and "our" I mean everyone who has requested this.

reply to post by kcfusion


OK gotcha..

That creates to much work for Mods.
And taking points off people (who may not have enough) is not the way to go.

Maybe 500 like RATS...but 10,000 points is way OTT....IMO.
Just have it like any other board here, free to participate, but a more strict/heavy-handed style of modding....similar to 9/11 threads.

For a mod to go backtracking through those posts of the folks who want to join is just counter productive.
Time could be much better spent.

I say we just sign up to a more strict agreement that will be enforced on the "drugs" forum





[edit on 25/2/09 by blupblup]

some people just shouldn't be nominated. ravenshadow is seriously anti drug. having her on the committee is like having a white supremacist at the million man march.

reply to post by aleon1018


I would say that the debate forum would be okay, and ATS media would be okay (I think I may have voiced my opinion about marijuana on there, maybe not.)

But no personal stories. I mean, that's the main issue. No personal stories, no insults, and no talking about illicit drugs becoming legal anywhere but the Drug Forum, Debate Forum, and in the Media section.

But threads/videos about it have to be identified easily so no one really anti-drug can accidentally click on it. So a debate thread about pot becoming legal couldn't be named "Hooray or Boo" in debate.

reply to post by skeptic1


I agree. The staff is wiling to compromise, so we must compromise.

reply to post by N. Tesla


Dude.. I came up with the whole idea of giving yall a second chance in a "War on Drugs Board" in the first place. That would have been me. So you're welcome.

Nominations
Some have been nominated already, but I'm just re-itterating that I believe these people would be the best to chair the committee.

1. Doc Gonzo
2. Daystar
3. Schrodingers Dog
4. CavemanDD
5. Skeptic1


Now, when do we vote?

- Carrot

I've talked a lot in drug related threads and I don't recall ever once citing any personal experiences.

Right now I am concerned with prohibition and it's injustices upon my nation. I can debate for hours on it without talking about my personal experiences with mind altering substances.

I want a forum where this topic can be maturely debated. If I want to talk about a crazy night involving substance x I can find a thousand forums for that.

reply to post by darcon


Understandable but I just think without the end-user side of the arguement, most debates on legalization will be pointless, without personal testimonials about good use, and the good affects it had etc. And of course I'm talking benefiting ones life.

[edit on 25-2-2009 by TNT13]

I'd like to make a point of saying that I have no interest in being a part of the committee, as much as I look forward to the fruits of their labours.

There are MANY posters who share my point of view on the issue who are much more established and willing to put in the effort to work something out, not to mention less prone to knee-jerk reactions.

reply to post by N. Tesla


Surely that is the member to bring balance to a discussion.

IMO, there SHOULD be someone who is anti drug on the panel.

It weights any decision more democratically.

reply to post by ravenshadow13


its still counter productive.

reply to post by darcon


You should never change your avatar in the midst of a busy discussion! :lol

I think it would be best if the mods chose because they have a better idea of the members' participation and posting style, etc. I don't think I know enough about the other nominees to make an educated vote. But let's hope someone steps in here and gives us a clue.

Dogs, NOW!

reply to post by darcon


Exactly, and personal use stories is what caused this total ban to begin with.

We don't need testimonials in order to discuss a topic.....especially when testimonials are equivalent to admitting illegal activity in a whole bunch of places.

...
But no personal stories....

Any, and I mean any discussion on medicinal use is going to involve "personal stories". Such discussion cannot be productive without it.

How is this for ego stroking?

I have been "just visiting" this site for the last 6 months now, mainly due to the election. I would LOVE to begin contributing again, and I know that this site misses me....

Let's face it, I'm Awesome, and you all know that any forum I regulated on would have at least 5 to 6 well timed jokes, as well as the occasional smack-down on less constructive members.

Bring back JasonJNelson; Save the cheerleader, save the world.

reply to post by Ahabstar


Its not a buy in and I see the 10,000 is not getting great reviews, so say 5000. By saying 5000 I mean this is the minimum points one need to be allowed post in such threads.

Also it would not take up as much of a moderators time or resources as a new forum dedicated to the subject would.

To those that have been on ATS for a while and dont post much or start threads and dont have 5000 points. Well quite frankly these people dont have these points because they rather read threads than post in the first place. Im sure arrangments could be made at the discretion of the moderator if a long time, low point member wanted their say!

Trust me the more simple the solution the more reason for them to give it a try!

reply to post by ravenshadow13


Every drug affects everyones: health, body, and mind differently without a personal testimonial source the works would be incomplete.

Originally posted by N. Tesla
some people just shouldn't be nominated. ravenshadow is seriously anti drug. having her on the committee is like having a white supremacist at the million man march.

Boy...and people got upset with my use of hyperbole.

Whether she is anti-drug or not should not matter. It's the fact that she cares about this issue, she can discuss it in a rational manner, and she has thus far made great contributions to to the discussion. Not to mention the fact that, in regards to this issue, she has acted with a maturity that puts a lot of us older than her to shame.

[edit on 25-2-2009 by SaviorComplex]

i am gonna laugh when this entire thread gets ignored by the mods and they will continue doing whatever the hell they want to do anyway.