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

reply to post by Heike


I see your points, and I, for one, in no way at all promote the discussion of recreational drug use.

But, banning all drug talk also bans the discussion of:

* Legalization
* Drug legislation
* Breaking news regarding drug-related topics
* Illegal immigration tied to drug smuggling/cartels
* Medical MJ
* Government conspiracies involving drugs
* CIA drug issues

I don't want this board to turn into a stoner's haven, either. But there are some serious topics that this blanket ban prohibits.

Some of us are trying to come up with a happy medium that keeps the stoners out and valid, political and/or conspiracy drug related discussions in.

reply to post by skeptic1


Exactly!

And that's what the panel of 6 will be looking at. A way to keep valid discussion on ATS while at the same time keeping the "druggies" out.

It's not going to be easy, but I think it can be done, and needs to be done for the sake of intelligent discussion.

Originally posted by Heike

Way to go catering to the artificial joy crowd. Once we've ALL been convinced to take, smoke, or drink our happiness, no one will care enough about anything to come to ATS and discuss it any more.

I certainly dont want to discuss how using drugs is "good" or "joyous." But when a new study comes out that says substance x has y and z impact on the brain or memory, or mood, or intelligence why should that be banned from discussion? Some of us here LOVE science. And some of us here care deeply how legality is decided, (is legal substance x really worse for people and society than illegal substance y? Or it is a function of lobbying and special interests that decides legality? Not because we necessarily ourselves want to do illegal substance y, but sometimes because we question whether x should be legal? Or whether making any substance illegal has a positive or negative effect on society and is worth the cost?

There are TONS of legitimate reasons not to have a total ban. Yes, I get annoyed (mildly) with the stoner posts. And the boozy posts. I also avoid forums with titles like "Bar" in them so that I dont have to listen to them if I dont want to. But it is even more highly annoying to me that because of a few bad apples we are even discussing a broad ban like this. So breaking news about a huge drug bust, or the actions of drug cartels in Mexico or south America are no longer kosher? Studies that show a currently illegal substance may be a cure for addiction or depression or cancer or whatever can no longer be discussed?

It just seems too high a price to pay for even several bad apples. And if it is highly respected members that are participating in this, they wont have to be perma-banned. They will likely cease and desist after a warning. After all, they value their time here as much any of us do.

And I am glad that SO has agreed to hearing some committee or whatever. But I am saddened that only the people who happened to be on in the last 24 hours are participating. Thats a rather random way of selecting participants, IMHO. I would have liked to see a temporary ban put in place and perhaps a thread devoted to solutions over a week long period or something of the sort. The ban could be in place as a catch all, and the week long process would have allowed most regular members who had interest in participating the time to do so, so the solution was more representative.

With a thread where all you were allowed to do was propose solutions (no chatter) and members voted with stars and the Admins could then select those that were both popular and acceptable to the Owners and perhaps subject those proposals to further tweaking.

reply to post by darcon


I certainly applaud you all for it. At the end of the day you can look at yourself and, as you stated, say, "We tried."

Originally posted by Blaine91555
Discussing drugs means that much to you?

Discussing drugs saved my life. As a former addict, you ought to appreciate that sentiment, which is why I think you're full of it in that respect. Here nor there though.

"Pot heads and mushroom junkies" ruined ATS? When did that happen? As a reader of every related post that remained long enough for me to do so, I can tell you without question that the majority of removed threads were removed on ridiculous technicalities and not blatant violations of the T & C. The pothead posts you speak of were, few and far between, and NOBODY who has participated in THIS thread, has condoned them anyway.

So, kindly do as you stated, and step away from the conversation.

So while I was out and about today for a few hours running errands, we have gone to a vote to pare down the list of nominees? Not shifting through 60+ pages and going only from my memory of the roughly 30 people on the list. I can only think of 2-4 that actually stated any substantial reasons why they should be nominated in the first place. And so not to influence unduly I will only state that I was one of those people and did so here way back on page 16. And I did try to refrain from posting often to prevent influence.

Now of the list of nominees few people know each other by their posts, in fact I think I can see 2 or 3 patterns in the voting already. I suspect BH knows exactly what I mean and she will definitely see them while tallying. Over the past few pages I have read some comments that this process is going on like a closed door session of Congress and much like the Lord of the Flies.

There has been relatively little communication from the staff of ATS on the entire scope and guidelines of this vetting process and maybe Intrepid spoke out of turn but we could be looking at rebuilding DISC itself and the drug issue is but the first topic.

With that in mind I am going to vote on BH's U2U that has been sent to me. I ask that she tally and withhold publishing results until either more clarification happens or others can evaluate their position on being a nominee. And that we all be open to a re-vote if need be.

reply to post by skeptic1


My Stance is your Stance, i agree with every point you put, and share the same values you shared in that post

I think the main group of contributers on this thread share a very similar mindset on this subject.

As people whom I like and respect have suggested, I am now leaving this thread. If I didn't answer your question and you really wanted me to, u2u me and I'll happily continue the discussion. After all, I am a Fighter.

reply to post by SpeakerofTruth


Well, everyone here is trying to work toward the same medium. Thanks

I am heading out for a bit.

reply to post by Ahabstar


I think everyone had the impression that this process needed to be moved along as quickly as possible, which is why it was moved to a vote so quickly.

I don't believe that there is any conspiracy to the voting or anything like you are implying. The fact that some members who threw there name in for consideration are not widely known is of no consequence.

The voting will work fine as it is in my opinion.

reply to post by nyk537


It will.

It is a nice compromise between Admin choosing and a site-wide vote.

And, both Admin and members felt that this needed to be set up and resolved quickly.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


I've seen this thing get rushed at every turn. I'm still stumped as to why it's so vital to do this quickly.Seriously... what's wrong with slowing this down?

reply to post by Resinveins


The desire for a quick resolution probably had something to do with 60+ pages of member complaints that piled up very quickly.

The sooner we get working on a solution, the sooner things will settle down.

Originally posted by Ahabstar
With that in mind I am going to vote on BH's U2U that has been sent to me. I ask that she tally and withhold publishing results until either more clarification happens or others can evaluate their position on being a nominee. And that we all be open to a re-vote if need be.

When I U2U'd Skeptic Overlord with a proposal to gather people's reasons for wanting to become a DISC member, his response to me was:

The announcement thread has been up for 24 hours. By this time, anyone not providing a substantive commentary within that thread either doesn't care about discussing drugs on ATS, or isn't on ATS all that often. I think the members have their participants within the people who have already contributed (to the thread).

The way I figure it, people who are interested in the subject and have read and/or participated in related threads on ATS probably have an idea of who they would trust in the DISC positions.

Now, this vote might be thrown out the window by staff, but at least we (the people who care and are on often) gave it our best shot to gather a group of people as fairly as we could to meet Skeptic Overlord's request in this post:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Select four or five members who are sincerely concerned about the conspiracy and cover-up stories within drug topics, pharmacology topics, and the "war on drugs." You'd have our commitment that myself and Springer will be involved, as well as at least three other staff members with a similar desire. Within the private DISC form, we'll discuss strategies to get these topics back onto ATS, and if we can agree on a way to do it, we'll do it.

reply to post by nyk537


I agree. My votes were based on who would do well in the committee, so there shouldn't be problems.

reply to post by nyk537


And the more arbitrary and unfair it will seem.

Wow, I need to take a minor hiatus from this exchange.

Heike;

I cannot speak for others, but the truth is, when I see 'crackpot' comments my first inclination is to simply ignore the poster, and in this case, the thread grew so quickly that the comment was lost in my memory. I too was offended, so I bear some of the guilt for not having risen to correct that poster's verbiage. By the time I could have done it, it seemed too far off topic to pursue.

I suppose that when people review this 'cyber' event in future times, they will wonder at the nature of it's evolution. The membership was offered an opportunity to be heard. That's what this is all about, I think. Finding a way to craft one voice that honors us all - even those who don't care about the matter in the least.

But I really feel bad that you were so angered.

See y'all in a couple of hours, I need some air.

reply to post by Resinveins


You can't please everyone all the time.

At least most of us are willing to work together to find a solution, not throw wrenches into the process at every turn.

[edit on 2/26/2009 by skeptic1]

It doesn't matter people. We(The main contributers of this thread) will be bashed by many for the decision we have made. As already expressed by some people.

So i accept that, because it is inevitable.

[edit on 26-2-2009 by darcon]

Originally posted by Unit541

Originally posted by Blaine91555
Discussing drugs means that much to you?

Discussing drugs saved my life. As a former addict, you ought to appreciate that sentiment, which is why I think you're full of it in that respect. Here nor there though.

"Pot heads and mushroom junkies" ruined ATS? When did that happen? As a reader of every related post that remained long enough for me to do so, I can tell you without question that the majority of removed threads were removed on ridiculous technicalities and not blatant violations of the T & C. The pothead posts you speak of were, few and far between, and NOBODY who has participated in THIS thread, has condoned them anyway.

So, kindly do as you stated, and step away from the conversation.

If I may....

Personally I respect both of your opinions, and think you both the type of people who need not step away, but become involved with this topic.

I have watched both of you over the past and have come to understand both of you as well.

I believe that you both bring very valid perspectives to this topic and would encourage you both to continue to share those perspectives.

The analog here is a Pharmaceuticals. One person says "Paxil saved my life, my marriage and my family." Another says "Oxycontin destroyed my life, my marriage, and my family." Still another says "They gave me morphine after surgery so I don't know how bad the pain was... that's all I know about opiates". And yet another says "Well all I know is I may take an aspirin once in a great while to cure a headache, but other than that I _NEVER_ take medicine."


All of those perspectives are incredibly valid when discussing any subject no matter the metaphor being used.

I realize that you both feel very passionately about the view you bring to the table, but I also know you are both rational enough to recognize that "your view" is not the only valid perspective; although it very well may be the only valid perspective that allows your life to continue according to your wishes.

My point is, no matter the outcome for the policy on this matter, I for one _REALLY_ learn a lot from hearing both of your perspectives, not only on this, but in all topics as well.