Michael Phelps, hypocrisy and American Drug Policy

Looks like this and other illicit drug threads will be closing (or maybe just no more being allowed to be created) according to a mass U2U we've all received. I guess ATS will no longer be a promotional billboard for narcotics after all. Farewell truth deniers, ATS has spoken.

reply to post by saint4God


That post amounts to nothing more than "Na-na-na-na-boo-boo, yooouu got in trooouuuble!"

I know it must feel great to know that nobody can specifically address your lame rhetoric without violating the new rules, but you should keep it to yourself anyways. We can all do without juvenile parting shots, thank you very much.

Originally posted by mattifikation
I know it must feel great to know that nobody can specifically address your lame rhetoric without violating the new rules,

Don't hate, appreciate. The idea is that if it's 'violating the new rules' that there must be some reason for the 'rules' well worth investigating. Could it be that there is some kind of substantiation? Could it be this is another move to 'deny ignorance'? The answer is clear and now mandated.

reply to post by saint4God


You're right, the answer is clear. The ban was enacted not due to rational debate, but because of people supposedly telling stories that need not be told. I suggest you look into it more, because apparently you've come to a big misunderstanding of the reason behind the ban.

It's generally a silly idea to speak of denying ignorance when it seems to have filled the pool you've been diving into.

Originally posted by saint4God
Don't hate, appreciate. The idea is that if it's 'violating the new rules' that there must be some reason for the 'rules' well worth investigating. Could it be that there is some kind of substantiation? Could it be this is another move to 'deny ignorance'? The answer is clear and now mandated.

Ummmm, sorry to burst your little bubble there but the reason the ATS OWNERS have given is because it is against ATS rules to discuss drugs in terms of personal use. Some idiots have been doing just that and have detracted from the purpose of intelligent discussion about the topic. The reason is that it shows up on search engines and gives the wrong impression to potential new readers.

It has NOTHING to do with the fact that ATS takes your side of the argument. Nice try though.

I strongly suggest you peruse this forum for clarification on what I just said:

The END of the discussion of illicit drugs/mind altering substances on ATS (The experiment failed)

In this thread, negotiations are currently being carried out to the purpose of creating a separate Drugs forum that is strictly moderated with 'personal use' posts being deleted etc.

Please, for the love of the god that you believe in, PLEASE DENY IGNORANCE.

[edit on 27/2/2009 by Kryties]

Yeah guys. Don't ruin it now. We're in the process of, hopefully, coming to a healthy compromise. I don't know why this was bumped but it seems the thread went dead for about 10 days prior to the latest set of responses...

Personal testimony was a 'key-note' in the pro-drug side of the debate. Slicing off the "you can't talk about it because you haven't tried it" bit is a relief. None of us have touched the sun, but we know it's hot. Again, the negative effects don't always come from the user, but those of us who are around the user. Until you have someone in your family destroy their life by the drug, you'll simply never know what it's like.

[edit on 27-2-2009 by saint4God]

Originally posted by TNT13
(one example: it kept my best friends father alive much longer while he had cancer, he said he couldn't eat without it and it did greatly help with keeping vital weight on during kemo. Yes he still died but he lived 3 years when he was given 3 months; my point is that there is a pro and con to most things you just have to venture out of your box.)

If you're unclear about the difference between drugs for medical use and recreational narcotics, I doubt I'm going to be very much help illuminating the difference.

[edit on 27-2-2009 by saint4God]

reply to post by saint4God


Well we're talking about marijuana here not narcotics, per the subject of the thread. So I'd suggest instead of being cocky you find the right thread to talk about NARCOTICS in because this clearly isn't it. If you can't understand that I doubt I'm going to be very much help illuminating the difference.

Originally posted by TNT13
Well we're talking about marijuana here not narcotics, per the subject of the thread. So I'd suggest instead of being cocky you find the right thread to talk about NARCOTICS in because this clearly isn't it. If you can't understand that I doubt I'm going to be very much help illuminating the difference.

Main Entry: 1nar·cot·ic
Function: noun
1 a: a drug (as opium or morphine) that in moderate doses dulls the senses, relieves pain, and induces profound sleep but in excessive doses causes stupor, coma, or convulsions b: a drug (as marijuana or '___') subject to restriction similar to that of addictive narcotics whether physiologically addictive and narcotic or not
2: something that soothes, relieves, or lulls

- www.merriam-webster.com...

Being that even the most basic of definitions aren't understood, this explains why attempts at more complex modes of differentiation are futile.


[edit on 27-2-2009 by saint4God]