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

I nominate Reddupo
That is my first nomination. I have read his posts. He seems like a good candidate

My second nomination is Benevolent Heretic

She too seems unbiased.

My third Nomination is Cut Wolf.

He seems to be interested, and up to the task.

[edit on 25-2-2009 by darcon]

I nominate Whatuknow. He seems like a rational member.

I would have to agree that ATS is not the site to discuss illicit drugs. As Springer points out, there ARE other websites where the topic of illicit drugs is more appropriate.

Last post took too long I guess, had to read about the committee.

I'm all for it if it stands a chance of accomplishing anything, and as a registered, card carrying controlled substance user under the medicinal use law in my state of residence, feel that I am in a position to provide substantial insight on the topic.

I nominate CavemanDD, ToTheTenthPower, and DocGonzo.

I also think Benevolent would be a good choice.

i'ld like to see frankidealist, benevolentheritic and cutwolf involved in the discussion.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


Very nice analogy.

Perhaps excruciating monitoring ... much like the 9/11 initiative?

Anyway, I'm sure the committee is coming along quickly, if it hasn't already been formed. If not, I'll throw my name in the ring and volunteer.

I'm certain I can be unbiased regarding the issue.

reply to post by Unit541


I think medicinal use should be allowed to be discussed, and I don't think that such discussion is the reason that all discussion is now prohibited. That's my input on that.

I nominate Reddupo
That is my first nomination. I have read his posts. He seems like a good candidate

My second nomination is Benevolent Heretic

She too seems unbiased.

My third Nomination is Cut Wolf.

He seems to be interested, and up to the task.

My fourth nomination is CavemanDD

I really do think that DocGonzo, as an outstanding participant in all areas of the site and also vociferously supporting the open discussion of illicit substances, should be on the committee. If I had only one pick, it would be him. I don't think that being unbiased should be a requirement for nomination. So if he chooses to participate, I choose him.

reply to post by Wally Conley


I'm sorry, but I have to politely disagree: ATS is the perfect site to discuss such taboo topic. If it has room enough for religion, extraterrestrials, 9/11, Bigfoot and Atlantis ... I think we could make a little room for "drug" conspiracies.

I nominate Reddupo
That is my first nomination. I have read his posts. He seems like a good candidate

My second nomination is Benevolent Heretic

She too seems unbiased.

My third Nomination is Cut Wolf.

He seems to be interested, and up to the task.

My fourth nomination is CavemanDD

My fifth and Last Nomination is Maxmars

I have made my decision.

reply to post by tyranny22


There's a big difference between discussing drug conspiracies and discussing personal experience with recreational use. Unfortunately they seem to go hand and hand.

I do think that increased moderation by moderators who are willing to dedicate themselves to the appropriate atmosphere and quality of a board relating to these topics would solve the issue.

I personally don't care who is on the committee, as long as they are adults. Since it seems to be less about the topic, as I now read it, and more about conduct, I think it's easier to moderate behavior than thought. Personaly, I'm for censorship of all displays of childish one-ups-man-ship.

-good luck, we'll see.

I just want to point out that industrial hemp can't be used as a mind altering substance any more than the paper on your desk or food in your refrigerator. Less than three tenths of one percent of anything illicit=aspirin and any other over the counter should be considered far more "dangerous" or illicit.

It's basically common knowledge that there's a conspiracy behind it being illegal, and it could literally "save the world" faster than any other idea/concept brought up on this site.

I understand not allowing talk of drugs/inebriation, but HEMP IS NOT A DRUG, and you're all being ignorant by treating it that way.

reply to post by ravenshadow13


I am pretty sure you can nominate up to five people.

I also feel that Cut Wolf should be a part of this committee.

My final nomination is Daystar, who has shown a great concern for the quality of ATS and the fair representation of members with differing opinions.

Originally posted by Wally Conley
I would have to agree that ATS is not the site to discuss illicit drugs. As Springer points out, there ARE other websites where the topic of illicit drugs is more appropriate.

We don't want that. We primarily want to discuss the war on drugs and important legalization like the recent piece of legislation in California.

Discussion about those topics on biased "stoner" boards seems pointless, because it's one-sided.


I hereby nominate Unit541, a rationale long-time member with very intelligent arguements, who's on top of the subject with existing ties to the staff with the ability to discuss the subject in an objective manner without subjective "stoner arguments".

For some insight in his way of arguementing please check pg78/79 in the "ATS Issues Thread", starting here.

[edit on 25.2.2009 by SiONiX]

reply to post by darcon


is there a rule book for this stuff? why 5?