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

Another point to consider is a longer list of mods that you would like see nominated, pending their wish to participate. It is a big issue, would you like SO to draft some "volunteers"?

reply to post by SvenTheBerserK


I am pretty sure if the compromise fails, all threads talking about illegal Drug use will be closed.

Actually, as of right now, we are not supposed to be talking about illegal Substances(For the exception of this thread.

[edit on 25-2-2009 by darcon]

Updated compromise....

(and I am indifferent, BTW, but I do agree with the compromise so far)

...dedicated forum
...strict moderation from a large group of Mods
...strict oath/rules to agree to before being allowed to participate
...2 strikes and you are out of dedicated forum
...certain drug topics allowed but nothing about illegal personal use or personal "pothead" stories
...no testimonials as that is basically equivalent to admitting to illegal activity in a lot of places and is already against established ATS T&C (might need to be evaluated with medical MJ only)
...forum threads not to appear on front page of ATS (meaning flags are disabled in that forum)
...500 point "entry fee" along with oath/rules??
...maybe full access to everyone as long as they agree to the strict rules of the dedicated forum and the 2 strikes and you are out policy is enforced ??


[edit on 2/25/2009 by skeptic1]

[edit on 2/25/2009 by skeptic1]

where did the suggestion that the staff will choose a group from among the nominees come from, i thought we were to decide among ourselves.
has it been officially decided or is it an assumption?

Are there any other issues with the new board idea that have not been brought up? If so, I suggest the committee to be decided as soon as the administrators and staff can do so, so that the discussion of the implementation, wording and rules of the new board can be discussed as soon as possible so that people can continue to discuss this issue on ATS.

The final proposal and final list of nominees? Any last nominees? It sounded like SO may have wanted us to vote ourselves, would you like to do that now?

I believe the staff will decide the moderators for this forum and the new moderators for the site. That has always been up to them.

[edit on 2/25/2009 by ravenshadow13]

Originally posted by Monger
Hide behind hyperbole all you want, the fact remains you said something supremely unintelligent and patently offensive.

You must have missed the part in that same post where I said it was hyperbole. And that wasn't the point of the post to begin with, a point you are still missing.

Originally posted by Monger
Your trolling in this thread should well be enough for anybody to see clearly that your only interest in this issue is your own personal lols.

No, actually that's just a bonus.

reply to post by pieman


It was certainly an assumption on my part - but I had been away for a while watching football and neglected to read the whole thread.

If I got it wrong, I apologise to all.

reply to post by ravenshadow13

Well I mean, if you have back pain, you should get a prescription. If you're using it legally (prescribed) then you go to the Medical forum. If you're not using it prescribed, you go talk about it in the new forum. I think that would be okay, as long as you're not talking about the cool hallucinations that it gave you or something. But yes, unrecognized medical benefits of illicit drugs would be allowed in the new forum and if you have experience about that exact thing, then it's okay to say so.

So what if I go to the doctor and get a prescription of MJ which is legal where I am? And I describe the effects it has on my problem, which by your definition would be classed as touting its benefits or promoting its use. Now if someone takes BackStop, a drug with 25 side effects, and also touts its benefits to the masses of ATS, is that then OK or Not???? If they talk about its benefits, is that not PROMOTING its use?

You can't talk about a drug and then not talk about its effects that it has on the body... What some might classify as a positive effect another may classify as a negative. You can't rely on wiki either. They are biased on some issues, especially the MIND ALTERING drugs that are being forced on our kids. Are we going to be able to talk about the NEAGATIVE effects that they force on our kids daily???? Even the schools are getting into this and are being used to drug our children.....


Hello... Is anyone out there? Can you not see what is happening???? The discussion is being prevented because its the government speaking here...

Originally posted by ravenshadow13
The final proposal and final list of nominees? Any last nominees? It sounded like SO may have wanted us to vote ourselves, would you like to do that now?

Still looking for the updated list with my name on it...

I mean...I guess I nominated m'self. Didn't see anyone else doing so...

hey djarums you still here? i want my thread back. talk to gemwolf. it was removed unnecessarily which is way i got in here anyway

reply to post by ravenshadow13


recreationally?! i consider the use of cannabis to be akin to a sacrament.

would you then say that people whom go to church are doing so as a form of entertainment? i think not.

further, would you ever suggest limiting religious folks' ability to attend thier church?

[edit on 25-2-2009 by tgidkp]

I've not had time to read all the posts since the update (I have a life that includes dinner and drinks you know), but I think the direction has been lost a bit.

The first most-important thing is to select the short-list of members you feel will best be able to work with staff to figure out how this can be accomplished. It's premature to start tossing around ideas before the new DISC members and our staff (and myself and Springer) have a chance to discuss a few points.

Originally posted by ravenshadow13
I dunno... like... not really.

So you don't think it would be fair to have a panel of members from all aspects? Thats a tad bias a think... I'm not one for labels, but I think it would be the fairest appraoch to ensure that all members are fairly represented on the new committee.

I'm not saying that members need to declare whether or not they are users, or not. You can be Pro without being a user.

Just my thoughts.

- Carrot

reply to post by pieman


Me and Benevolent assumed the Staff would pick the five out of the nominees.

Reason being, is because the list is now pretty long, as we are pretty unorganized right now, it will be complicated if we vote, but it could be done.

[edit on 25-2-2009 by darcon]

reply to post by Amaterasu


I'll nominate you.

I'll nominate anyone who wants to be involved.
Why not eh?

Nominations:

Reddupo
Benevolent Heretic
Maxmars
Cutwolf
Whatuknow
CavemanDD
ToTheTenthPower
DocGonzo
Frankidealist35
Daystar
Unit541
Ahabstar
Pieman
Darcon
Anok
Loam
Jasonjnelson
tyranny22
omega85
ravenshadow13
Saviour Complex
spliff4020
N Tesla
Schrodingers Dog
Skeptic1
Amaterasu

26 people nominated. I don't think we should go past 30. Can we agree on that?

If the staff doesn't want to select, we can vote tomorrow. How does that sound?

Thanks to skeptic for keeping track of that other stuff.

I'd like to say that I don't think the position on drug legalization that people on this committee hold should be relevant. They're not going to be throwing their weight around, making policy or anything. They'll be discussing issues with staff. So, whether or not they are in favor of drugs or legalization is irrelevant, in my opinion.

It sounded to me like SO and the others wanted us to determine the 5 or 6 committee members ourselves.

By the way, are there any other legal medicinal users here besides myself?

appears we have to do it ourselves.

reply to post by darcon


I personally think a vote, would be a fair approach as opposed to appointment.

- Carrot