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

Originally posted by darcon

Originally posted by americandingbat
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

what if we left nominations open for a while longer, then did a thread with why we wanted to participate, then the nominees vote from among themselves.

Just a brainstorm.

I like that idea, it would take many problems off of the table. One condition, you cannot vote for yourself.

It is another route we an go.

I think it would work if people could vote for themselves and one or two others, but it's kind of a minor point overall.



edit to try and stay caught up:

BH: definitely, this would have to be with admin approval. And your willingness to organize is hugely appreciated.

[edit on 2/26/09 by americandingbat]

reply to post by darcon


I rather dislike that idea... I think if any vote... we should all have the chance to do so.

If it makes matters any easier, you can move my name to the bottom of the list. I'd like to help. But we need to be able to get this process moving a bit quicker than 'weeks'.

If you need a smaller group of candidates to begin, I will reluctantly withdraw .

If there is any level of my participation that can be of assistance, I will be there for you (all).

reply to post by darcon


Just one thing to consider.

In order to avoid any semblance of impropriety, I believe it would be wise for whomever is going to be spearheading the selection process not to be themselves a DISC nominee.

I am happy to help either way if others wish me to, but if you wish me to do the former I would respectfully withdraw my nomination for DISC for the sake of the process.

Originally posted by Resinveins
reply to post by darcon

 

I rather dislike that idea... I think if any vote... we should all have the chance to do so.

I understand your perspective, but I think an electoral college of sorts is required here.

The reason? Well if California passes the bill that was presented the other day, you are going to see a HUGE amount of change in how people relate to certain substances just because it has changed the legality in their state.

I'd imagine people from Cali will begin to be very vociferous on all sides of the debate and either side would probably vote to have anecdotal evidence allowed as there would be a wellspring of discussion and debate if this passes.

Having an Electoral college in this matter helps us remove the same situation that California brings to the General Election of Presidents...

It allows us here at ATS not to be ruled by the voting power of the population of California.

Odd how as an adult tries to navigate through this murky waters that the steps of those who came before become much more understood.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


I am pretty sure it is either you or Skeptic, perhaps you can have a joint effort, like you create the thread where all the nominees explain themselves, and skeptic can create the voting thread or something of that nature. You will need the staff's support. Intrepid was in here a couple times, he seemed interested in this discussion. The problem is, i think we need to leave the nominations open for a bit longer as it has only really been a day.

Shro, I'm not going to be a DISC member and I'm happy to head up the vote.

I'm going to contact staff to see if we can get some backing for americandingbat's idea here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

That way, anyone on ATS can post in the thread for a week or so why THEY think THEY should be on the DISC. There will be a deadline for self-nominations and then only the people who nominated themselves can vote for a few days (maybe their 3 top picks) and I'll be happy to count the votes and display the results.

How does that sound?

reply to post by schrodingers dog


Benevolent is not on the list, so she is ok. Skeptic is, so perhaps we have a problem.

Very noble of you to withdraw your name to help in the efforts

Regardless, many people still have not voted, only a hand full have.

Right now it's' either you, Benevolent Heretic, Or skeptic(If she withdraws perhaps, i am not sure.) But we still have many members who have not seen this thread, and who do not understand what is going on.

I think there needs to be someone, who can alert people, about the current predicaments. Many do not know what is in the works, and this may effect ATS as a whole.

reply to post by Maxmars


Maxmars you will do no such thing. If you are not on the nominee list, i will be very disappointed.

We have many volunteers right now.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

How does that sound?

sounds like a good plan!!!!

reply to post by TruthMagnet


ok..

wow back

first of all: i wrote it down in short words.. i know many about the human-species and i know also that the whole system would fall down without drugs. Take a look to the countries where the drugs are made. They life from the money.
The goverment of every state could close the doors for those who want drugs. But they never do this. Why? cause they make money with them.

You are right. and i didnt mean only drugs.
lets make a list of drugs: (only my view!!!)

1. Alcohol (look outside.. you can buy it in every market.)
2. Nicotine (the same as up)
3. Medicine (go to the docs.. what do you get? drugs, called Medicine)
4. and all the others etc etc

my point of view is, that its only important the way you use them.
the native-people used drugs for visions.
In India they use Opium as in Holland you can go into a Coffe-shop.
But here in Europe (Austria directly), the Opium kill the people. Why? Cause they cant handle it.
In the Usa you have problems with Crack. In Brasilia they eat Cokain (the plant), and dont die. In Usa i dont know how many people died at this ***.

Next:
Alcohol: Nr.1 cause, (there you are right, i lost my father and mother for that reason), Nr.1 cause its the first step to get high.
Its not pot. its Alcohol.
2. Nicotine: second step (sometimes the first step too, i know children who began to smoke with 8 (!!!!) years.
Its the step to use drugs.
3. Medicine: I know guys who have to take medicine. The pills are stronger as everything else (as i guess). You and I would lay down for a week if you take them.
So..

ITS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY

you can hate me for my view, i dont care ;-)

And:
I will not talk again about them. please They only destroy...and i will forget my strange life and start into a new one, without people who use drugs. So PLEASE!!!!!

ENDING DISCUSION for the panda

In an effort to contribute to progress here, please remove my name from the list of nominees. The process is becoming far to tedious and political to succeed in the long run, and trimming even one name from the list moves things forward, even if it's only slightly.

reply to post by darcon


I guess it just depends where you (the membership) believe my participation and/or input would be best put to use, if at all.

Like it has been said, my only interest is in what is best for our community.

It is not every day that we as members are given an opportunity to engage in such a process. You can be sure that ownership and staff are watching this process very closely, and our ability to "seise this moment" will go a long way in opening the door to the possibility of further such opportunities down the line.

Edit: Aaah, you guys move so fast.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
How does that sound?

Thank you BH, that sounds great.




[edit on 26 Feb 2009 by schrodingers dog]

YAY censorship! To the owners, I know this site doesn't belong to me, and your business decisions are yours to make but to me it looks like you guys are just in this for the money, not true discussion of conspiracies, since the war on drugs is probably one of the biggest and deepest conspiracies in this country and even the world. I'm not somebody who discusses my personal habits or past usage, and it's sad so many feel the need to share theirs whenever policies are discussed to show how cool they are. That said though, you guys seem like cowards who have a government or sponsor nanny threatening to spank you. Too bad you don't have the balls to stand up for the freedom of speech.

(Updated) Nominations:

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

reply to post by HunkaHunka


So I'm to accept a process I see as quite less than fair because Cali might pass a bill? And the members from that state might be vociferous and skew things? No thanks.

If some have the opportunity to vote and not others, then none of this will hold any legitimacy as far as I am concerned.

reply to post by schrodingers dog


hey there,

I think Benevolent is up to the task of organizing things.

I still think you should be in the runnings, but it's up to you

I also think skeptic should be in the runnings, but well see what she says.

[edit on 26-2-2009 by darcon]

Here is a great example of the kind of story that would pop up a lot on ATS.

Many many of our global meltdown friends post Glenn Beck videos everyday.

Here is one where he is talking to Rob Kampia from the MPP discussing why he thinks that legalizing and taxing a previously illegal substance, is a bad thing because he doesn't like taxation in general.


This, I believe is a great example of a positive discussion, however Rob Kampia makes no bones about it in this discussion that yes he does "partake" occasionally... and even though Glenn says "But it's illegal" Rob responds... "So is speeding, and when did you do that last?".

My point here is that I'm beginning to believe that limiting anecdotal discussions would also limit news stories like these, which I think many libertarians would believe is a discussion that should be had.

Now with this also comes moderation based on the basic principles of ATS... "No recruitment" Someone says "Do you smoke?" If it's legal where you are... then feel free to say "Nope" or "Sure" (if not, expect a knock on your door :-).

But that's where it ends. Rob Kampia in this situation is not arguing for the use of the drug, he is arguing for the legalization of it, yet at the same time not attempting to recruit anyone to the cause.

There is a very very fine line here, but I believe this line is going to become very blurred in the very near term future depending on how this legislation goes.

If the legislation is shut down, expect to have a day of threads... and then it will go back to the way it was...

if the legislation is passed.... stand by, because I really don't know how the current policies will hold against a state like California legalizing a previous illicit substance.



[edit on 26-2-2009 by HunkaHunka]

reply to post by darcon


i am confused.. nominated for what?
and vote for what?
hehe but i dont stand at the list.. bless god

NW

Originally posted by Resinveins
reply to post by HunkaHunka

 

So I'm to accept a process I see as quite less than fair because Cali might pass a bill? And the members from that state might be vociferous and skew things? No thanks.

If some have the opportunity to vote and not others, then none of this will hold any legitimacy as far as I am concerned.

We're going for expediency here, and whoever is deeply concerned with who gets on the committee can just nominate themselves so they can vote.

(If I am understanding everything I've just caught up on)