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

reply to post by Reddupo


Oh, most definitely.

They should not appear on the front page. But, if that's the case, maybe flags could be disabled in that forum and only allow the star system for individual posts?

Well, if nothing else, this thread has illustrated that the vast majority of participants have at the very least, minor reservations about the institution of zero tolerance.

If you take SaviorComplex out of the equation, and put it to a vote, this piece of 'legislation' may not receive a single vote to pass. Failure by a landslide at the very least.

While I realize this isn't a democracy, how does the staff feel about that?

I'd also like to inject, for those who support only the medicinal properties of the substance(s) in question, that such a discussion cannot take place without entries that straddle the border into "personal use land".

In fact, the more I think about it, the less I think the staff here, and the ultra-conservatives like SaviorComplex can be appeased, period. I mean, it's "use" is the root of all discussions of the matter, regardless of their context. Prime example is a discussion on legalization. Legalization of what? We're not talking about it's mere existence, we're talking about it's use. If you've got a bunch of people discussing something they have no experience with, you have a bunch of people playing "telephone" with heresay and conjecture, little fact, little truth.

For example, one of the more popular forums on another board, which is dedicated to the topic is a forum in which medicinal users offer advice on particular strains for particular ailments, all based on their collective experience. What we have here, is a perfectly legitimate discussion, citing research and scientific study (including more on botany than anyone wants to know), that would most certainly be removed due to discussion of personal use, even under the proposed "war on drugs" forum.

This is not something that can be moderated by a set of guidelines. Each and every post may or may not have merit, regardless of it's content. What is required is a dedicated team of moderators who can make rational and explainable decisions as to what is appropriate and what is not. Technically speaking, even the term "War on Drugs" is a misnomer, and should be retitled as the "War on Drug Use". If people didn't use them, there would be no war.

So, I beg the administration to carefully consider what I have stated in this post, in the name of moving forward. I feel that what has been discussed so far throughout the day in this thread gives only the illusion that we're moving forward towards a solution, but in reality we're only moving sideways.

I HOPE ATS REALIZES THAT THEY ARE CONTRIBUTING TO THE STIGMA. THANKS.. You all are right, there is something fishey going on at ats.. possibly run by the government to see what the chatter on their lies are on the internet.. just a thought.. Im not going to pay my taxes this year.. come get me.

I dont see the problem with the 10,000 point requirement for such threads really. New members have plenty of other subjects to give their opinions to and gain points while doing so. I myself have nowhere near those points yet and I would be quite happy to prove to ATS that by having 10,000 points + that I obviously abide by the T&C so should be allowed to post in Drug related threads.
Which would be better having a complete ban or new members proving they are responsible enough to have their say when discussing drug related threads??

Originally posted by Reddupo
...threads do not appear on front page

I'll second that motion. It backs up exactly the response that I received from SkepticOverlord.

Rather than "put the light out" - we "shield" it from the moth that tends to flock to this topic of discussion.

Just one question, if we are not allowed to talk about legal drugs too. Then does than people are not allowed to talk about alcohol too?

reply to post by Reddupo


I agree. And if possible, not in recent posts.
Tyranny, that's kind of a bigger issue. I mean, yes it needs to be discussed, I think the no tolerance policy for being rude to others and stuff was meant to take care of that. But let's take care of this new board first, because in order to do it for the whole site (they're trying) but it would take MANY more new moderators. So since this issue is pressing, let's take care of it first. Who knows? It may make everything else a little better to take the tensions off of posters. And the mods are trying to make an impression to prevent negative comments by banning members and giving more warnings and bringing the red warn tags back. So I know they're working on it, maybe it just needs more time.

But the drug board first! Before someone else comes in here and goes "ZOMG SO UNFAIR NO MORE DRUGS"

reply to post by kcfusion


I don't agree with that. It's elitist and says that if you don't have enough points your views don't matter on this topic.

There's got to be another way.

[edit on 25-2-2009 by tyranny22]

Originally posted by pieman
1st, i'm a bit curious as to the objection to applying to post.

My objection is that people should be given the opportunity without having to prove themselves. Just like on ATS, all you have to do is agree to the rules.

2nd, shouldn't we at least attempt to vote on a member lobby for the subject,

I absolutely think so. I have the list in case we decide to do that. I will post it so often to make sure I don't miss anyone.

Nominations:

Reddupo
Benevolent Heretic
Maxmars
Cutwolf
Whatuknow
CavemanDD
ToTheTenthPower
DocGonzo
Frankidealist35
Daystar
Unit541
Ahabstar
Pieman
Darcon
Anok
Loam
jasonjnelson
tyranny22

Originally posted by CA_Orot
I like the idea of having the posts approved, before they are posted and seen by the membership. Kind of like the anonymous posts - but again - does this put more work, strain, and responsibility on the Mods?

I'm not sure, but I think it would be more demanding on the mods. People are waiting for their posts to show up and that means mods are under pressure to read them all and get them posted. I'm not sure though.



[edit on 25-2-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]

this is why it's still illegal, lack of focus. we still need to vote in a lobby group to discuss this with the higher ups.

EDIT: great minds think alike.



[edit on 25/2/09 by pieman]

Originally posted by skeptic1
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

I agree....

...dedicated forum
...strict moderation from a large group of Mods
...strict oath/rules to agree to before being allowed to participate
...2 strikes and you are out of dedicated forum
...certain drug topics allowed but nothing about illegal personal use or personal "pothead" stories
...maybe a review of posts before they appear in the dedicated forum??

I agree with everything...

...except for a catch-all forum where all drug topics would be restriction. But there should be a dedicated forum for the (failed) War on Drugs.

reply to post by kcfusion


I think a 10,000 point minimum (or similar) is a fantastic way to weed out the trash. It also solves the problem of banned users obtaining a new IP and username and returning to trash our boards more. No reason anyone even needs to be aware of such a forums existence until they have gained some credibility in the community.

Just skimmed through and didnt see this question.

Q: Will the existing threads containing or featuring elicit substances be removed from the site?

Hey, but remember something about the nomination list, these people, have to be on ATS daily!

I can account for myself, as i am always on ATS, been that way since i have been here. So we have to verify that the nominees are here daily, and not monthly


[edit on 25-2-2009 by darcon]

reply to post by pieman


Yep ANOk.... I nominated ANOK.


Ya bloody edited huh?

BH got it though.

Cheers

[edit on 25/2/09 by blupblup]

reply to post by ravenshadow13


Hey, I appreciate your response, but I would hardly label my post "complaining".

So ummmm, how did that "smoking" of hemp work out for you? I bet it gave you a headache, as my EXTENSIVE research here at the radio station proves that there is NO ABILITY to get "high" off of industrial hemp.

There is NO connection other than what the big plastic companies have falsely created. I have multiple audio files from scientists and republican state senators to back up my claim.

So you want me to be constructive? How about we start by labeling "drugs" correctly, and leave non-drugs off the list of banned topics. Seriously, by adding that to the list, it has turned multiple people against the change. You don't hear me arguing for discussions in favor of recreational drug use, do you?

This is especially funny, as I have turned the entire staff here onto this site for research reasons. Now one of the very topics I used this site for is now banned days later.

Thanks, Jason

P.S. Yes BH, I am nominating myself!

[edit on 25-2-2009 by jasonjnelson]

reply to post by pieman


I volunteered but I think you already have more than enough. I was never nominated, which I believe was what S.O. asked for, so that nulls my offer.

reply to post by tyranny22


I agree. It would prevent impulsive posting, and it would require more of a real concern for the threads. I think, anyway.

Alcohol is allowed to be discussed but I guess they would put it in the war on drugs forum unless it's on like BTS or something? I don't really see a lot of stuff about alcohol on ATS. I suppose if there was an article they could put it in Breaking News, whereas for say, Marijuana regulation, it would go into the "War on Drugs Forum". But if it was about the medical use of marijuana it would go into a more strictly moderated (but not as much as the new forum) medical board but any non-medical, pro-everyone smoking pot, comments would be deleted. Any threads supporting the complete legalization of marijuana would go into the new forum.

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
I agree with everything...

...except for a catch-all forum where all drug topics would be restriction. But there should be a dedicated forum for the (failed) War on Drugs.

We understand. You believe this entire policy change is ghastly.

But we have to compromise here.

reply to post by Unit541


i've been here since i was knee high to a space hopper and i still don't have 10,000 points (cause i'm lazy and uninspiring,) so i don't think a minimum points thing is a good idea at all.