------FORUM GUIDELINES------

Daedalus
...and if you can't explain how the war on drugs is nothing more than a ploy to rob us blind, and exert undue control over us then the whole argument falls apart. its like boxing with one arm tied behind your back, and your free arm injected with muscle relaxant.

I fail to see any reason, logic, or intellectual honesty in that statement.

Daedalus
the difference, and the distinction, which is of utmost importance is that we can expose the war on terror as being a sham, by pointing out that we work with "the enemy" in other countries...

We do? When did that happen? Exactly who is the "enemy" in the war on terror?

with the drug war, we can't talk about why that's a sham, for fear that we'll be banned for advocating use...

So, because you can't have your way with waxing poetic about your favorite recreational drug of choice, you'd be unable to:

1) point out the corruption in the industrial-law-enforcement complex because of the war on drugs

2) point out the absurdities of the DEA waiting for known drug smugglers to get well inside the border before taking action -- after tracking them for miles BEFORE the border

3) go on a historical journey about how the FBI/CIA colluded with criminals to create the crack trade in LA after the race riots

4) examine how the federal government invades medical marijuana dispensaries that are legal in their state and counts that in the DEA's national illegal drug raid numbers

5) point out how non-violent drug offenders who commit crimes that harm no one are sentenced to longer prison terms than sex offenders and murderers

6) Any my personal favorite -- we invaded Iraq on the premise that it was a launching pad for, and funder of terrorism against the united states -- we now know the premise was a massive lie. Yet the factions that control Mexico have been sending an invading army (drug soldiers) into the US for years and killing far more citizens than the sum-total of everyone ever killed by terrorism in the entire world. Yet we don't invade Mexico to put a stop to the real problem, we fight the War on our soil with no regard for collateral damage. If that isn't the de-facto suspension of posse comitatus, I don't know what is.

Really? I don't think you're being honest or serious, you're just pot-stiring for the fun of it.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


SO?

I apologize in advance for this question, but it has been nagging me all day. You might think, "Hey, this turkey has too much time on his hands", but that's not really the case. I sat through 4 hours of mathematics lecture, and only two things could penetrate my concentration: the "Eric the half-a-bee" song from Monty Python, and the question that I must ask.

From what are you breaking badly?

The title of that show is a bit of a paradox, it seems. Does it mean that someone is breaking from a bad thing, or does it mean they have broken from a thing in a bad way?

I think that it is obvious in the show that the main character has broken from some thing, or some particular set of parameters badly, or in a bad way. I assume this goes for you as well.

Can you say what it is? We're here for you.

reply to post by Bybyots


Walter White broke away from good to bad. "Breaking bad" has been slang for those who do that.

Great show, cast, writing... that's the only reason for Heisenberg as my avatar.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

4) Conspiracies surrounding the war on drugs in the United States

5) The US (and international) drug laws that impose disproportionate

And an important note: While we are now allowing the discussion of drug-related topics in an open, public, and searchable forum, we WILL NOT tolerate advocacy of recreation use in any way. Such posts will be removed, and the author's account terminated.

I really don't see the point in this, it is just going to get a lot of people in trouble. Either allow full and frank discussion, on all matters related to the subject, or nothing at all. I personally think that the world powers disallowing the general public access to certain drugs is one of the biggest conspiracies there is. If I was to write a thread about the topic not once would I advocate said drugs nor would I discuss recreational use, yet I can bet you anything it would be removed.

It's like trying to discuss the NWO without being able to mention the Illuminati or the Rothschild's or trying to examine the increased surveillance society without being able to mention the NSA.

I'm suspicious as to the motives to be honest. Why are we treated as children?

reply to post by Daedalus


I think I may have lost something in the translation. I'm not sure why one would have to advocate drug use in order to demonstrate the absurdity of the "war on drugs" Using terrorism again as an example in order to try to clarify my thought process, I don't have to advocate in favor of terrorism in order to show the war on terror to be a farce. I don't have to dig into why terrorists blow things up in order to comment on the way our side is prosecuting (or not, as the case often is) a "war on terror".

Maybe it's just a peculiarity of my own mind. I thought the general thrust of the forum was the rise of the black-suited jack-booted thugs, and their activities and such. Which particular "war" they are tossing onto the agenda today isn't my concern, since ultimately they are going to war with us all.

If you can't discuss the gestapo regime without making a sales pitch for Zyklon-B, maybe that wouldn't be the best forum for you to hang out in.

Originally posted by Springer
reply to post by Daedalus

 

Your inability to accept the word of a site owner is confusing, why are you insisting that if the members discuss what has been clearly asserted here as now acceptable will get people banned?

It makes no sense.

I think it's just not clear to some of the posters that while promotion of a thing necessarily involves discussion of it, discussion of a thing is not necessarily promotion of it. Some are just getting spooked by what to them is not a clear delimiter.

It's a bit like the story of the chihuahua and the mastiff. Every day, a mastiff would go for his constitutional, and pass by where a chihuahua was tethered out. That poor little yappy dog would raise cane, acting like he was just going to eat the mastiff alive, if only he weren't tethered, and could get to the brute. The mastiff paid no attention the the chihuahua, thinking it was just a puppy.

Ah! But one sunny day, the mastiff went for his usual walk, and right on cue the chihuahua charged him, as usual, right to the end of the tether, prepared to do battle, A funny thing happened that day. When the chihuahua reached the end of the tether, instead of getting jerked up short, the frayed leash snapped, freeing him to do as he would.

And there he was. Decision time.

A degree too much freedom, more than they are used to, can be terribly disconcerting to some. They will watch, see how it's done, see what does and doesn't result in bans, and eventually plunge in equipped for the battle with the knowledge and answers they need to get comfortable. It;s just a matter of adjustment to the unfamiliar.

LiveForever8
I really don't see the point in this,

You're not trying then.

it is just going to get a lot of people in trouble.

-sigh- then negate this forum and look away

I personally think that the world powers disallowing the general public access to certain drugs is one of the biggest conspiracies there is.

That's not what this is for.

If I was to write a thread about the topic not once would I advocate said drugs nor would I discuss recreational use, yet I can bet you anything it would be removed.

Yes it would because it's outside the clearly-stated mandate of this forum.

It's like trying to discuss the NWO without being able to mention the Illuminati or the Rothschild's or trying to examine the increased surveillance society without being able to mention the NSA.

That sentiment is just stupid.

Why are we treated as children?

Because in the past, a significant number of the membership have acted as children... and you're odd inability to understand the simple statements seems to put you in that category.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


Thanks Admins.

Funny thing is though I never truly believed the drug topic was actually prohibited, and have always acted in the good faith that the topic is meant to be handled properly and from a more academic standpoint which is actually the spirit of the entire website IMHO. At least the "intended" spirit, that is, hah.

There are plenty of times where we have shared literature and links about the topics of govt involvement in the black markets etc, or news articles about the various topics. This has mostly been allowed because I believe the admins at ATS have always wanted this topic open but have been overwhelmed with the issues of people abusing it.

My understanding is that the admins don't want the website blocked everywhere, and by keeping things civil and in an academic fashion we can keep the website open everywhere even in China (are we blocked in China yet?) haha.
There is no need to cover up anything either, it just needs to be approached properly, as I have come to understand over the years.

If you feel I am hallucinating you can wake me up out of it, but I am pretty sure this is a fairly accurate view.

Welcome, to the new Posse Comitatus forum

Who are you calling a pussy?

Christ.........

Every time ATS changes something, or adds something that is great, the "drug" thing pops up.

Look, they dont want it, end of discussion. There are so many other sites that talk about that stuff.

I for one think this is a great forum. God only knows how many folks talk about this daily. Some with interesting solutions. We need to be informed. There are many people that are living in bubbles, and have no clue. MHO

The drug policy of Portugal was put in place in 2000, and was legally effective from July 2001. The new law maintained the status of illegality for using or possessing any drug for personal use without authorization. However, the offense was changed from a criminal one, with prison a possible punishment, to an administrative one if the amount possessed was no more than ten days' supply of that substance

Today Portugal is better off than in 2000. Everyone said the country would implode due to the vast majority of the population would get hooked on drugs, but it never happened.

I live in Washington and I voted in favor of pot being legal and I don't smoke pot. I see it as tax revenue only... I don't care for it in the least, my drug of choice is 16+ year old scotch.

This is from a guy who has done drug interdictions, and I don't think we are doing the right thing, make it legal and billion dollar cartels will dry up over night.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Daedalus
the difference, and the distinction, which is of utmost importance is that we can expose the war on terror as being a sham, by pointing out that we work with "the enemy" in other countries...

We do? When did that happen? Exactly who is the "enemy" in the war on terror?

Umm... beggin' your pardon, your Overlordship, but I made a post on that subject earlier today over here giving my take on that particular issue. I was just using the war on terror as a contrasting subject here to try to show how one can discuss a thing without advocating it.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

2) point out the absurdities of the DEA waiting for known drug smugglers to get well inside the border before taking action -- after tracking them for miles BEFORE the border

Do you think the DEA is the only agency that goes after drugs? We are below the equator right now heading off the drug trade.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


As this is a forum I actively asked for and have desired for some time I would like to thank you for adding it. I especially love the name you chose.

I'd like a clarification on the drug related topics as I remember the last time this was allowed. You state "recreational" use to be a prohibited discussion but what about legal and medicinal uses? There areas where certain drugs are legal and actively prescribed that might otherwise be considered recreational. If the drug has a reputation as being recreational but has legitimate medicinal usage, may that proper usage be discussed?

Thank you

reply to post by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

it is just going to get a lot of people in trouble.

-sigh- then negate this forum and look away

I have done for several years. I go elsewhere for adult discussion of the subject.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

I personally think that the world powers disallowing the general public access to certain drugs is one of the biggest conspiracies there is.

That's not what this is for.

I understand that but it didn't stop many people last time you tried this subject, most of them inadvertently trespassing upon the taboo areas, getting banned.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

It's like trying to discuss the NWO without being able to mention the Illuminati or the Rothschild's or trying to examine the increased surveillance society without being able to mention the NSA.

That sentiment is just stupid.

It might be a bit weak, I admit. But I think the sentiment stands. It's missing a huge piece of the puzzle.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Why are we treated as children?

Because in the past, a significant number of the membership have acted as children... and you're odd inability to understand the simple statements seems to put you in that category.

So everyone else is punished because of the actions of few?

I get it, it's your site, you can do whatever you like. I accepted that a long time ago. I just think it is a topic of great potential that is being ignored for ambiguous reasons.

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

2) point out the absurdities of the DEA waiting for known drug smugglers to get well inside the border before taking action -- after tracking them for miles BEFORE the border

Do you think the DEA is the only agency that goes after drugs? We are below the equator right now heading off the drug trade.

I think he's referring to incidents like my #3 example. When we were pulled over for NO reason whatsoever except to be 'searched' ... I had asked why we were being stopped. The deputy said, "Because you were in Mexico". Like whoa! 400 or soish (I haven't added precisely) miles LATER they stopped us to search. I'm not a doper, nor were the other people, nor did we even visit anybody in Mexico who was a doper. I asked the officer HOW he knew we had driven in from Mexico and his reply was, "We tracked you from the border."

Now, I happen to know a few other things about LOCAL police, sheriff's and deputies etc. that may be classified so I'm leaving that out. Suffice it to say, they have 'common information sources' with all the fed agencies.

Originally posted by Seiko

I'd like a clarification on the drug related topics as I remember the last time this was allowed. You state "recreational" use to be a prohibited discussion but what about legal and medicinal uses? There areas where certain drugs are legal and actively prescribed that might otherwise be considered recreational. If the drug has a reputation as being recreational but has legitimate medicinal usage, may that proper usage be discussed?

Purely to entertain my own morbid curiosity, could you think up an example that would make either of those usages - legal or medical - relevant to a discussion of how business is conducted by the black-suited, jack-booted thugs in a police state? I can't see how it would be relevant other than a passing reference - i.e. "it's legal for some purposes, so why are the brownshirts pouring it down drains?" That of course is not a promotion or an in-depth exhortation of the substance itself, it's just a question of why the brownshirts are acting so awkwardly towards it.

That way it stays on track and in focus, with paramilitary bad behavior being the focal point, rather than any particular chemical mixture being the focus.

Just as an example to further iterate my point:

Out of the last like 50 posts I made in the last 5 years relating to "drug anything etc", only 1 got removed and it was for a very petty mistake. Very minor IMHO.

The other posts got through because they were academic in theme and within the bounds of reason and sensibility, like I would link a book and say hey read this it explains how the Govt is involved illegally in the black market I got it from a college professor. And instead of removing my post the mods will think "hey cool I want to read that book too it sounds really well researched!"

I honestly feel like they (mods) watch me like a hawk half the time because of various reasons and so even minor mistakes will get a post removed (gold members get held to highest standards for obvious reasons in general to set examples for new members).

Point is, if I can get 49/50 through the door than why cannot anyone else? Do this many people really fail to get the point of ATS's very existence in the first place? It's somewhat bewildering sometimes.

None of my stuff revealing information or links on the Opium Wars, the Iran Contra and it's hidden depths, or about ancient mysticism or tribal traditions have ever been deleted as a violation. I haven't seen anyone else's posts of similar content get removed either now that I think about it.

I think this really boils down to an issue of that the website expects us to appreciate 'common decency' when dealing with these matters. The "hiatus" never really existed as I see it, but rather it merely "raised the standards extremely high".

I don't view this forum as a reversal or lowering of those standards, but rather as a streamlining of those already set high standards of conduct.

reply to post by nenothtu


The dea cracking down on legally prescribed drugs in certain u.s. states is one example. When a doctor prescribes a drug for a medical reason and it is used in accordance with the said prescription but the federal law supersedes it's usage. So we find federal agencies being used to stop people from obtaining drugs that are beneficial to their well being because of their reputation for recreational use.

This is an example of overreaching federal powers against a segment of it's own population.

Without trying to create this debate in this thread it is something that Obama said he would stop yet it continues under his administration.