It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 26
42
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by TNT13
 


I know it's harsh. But do we really have a choice?

It's the BAN or compromise.




posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
reply to post by N. Tesla
 


Surely that is the member to bring balance to a discussion.

IMO, there SHOULD be someone who is anti drug on the panel.

It weights any decision more democratically.




I totally agree.
you need those at absolute extremes and all in between too.

Completely fair and balanced then.



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by blupblup
 


No points get deducted its only a minimum requirement to post! You keep your points.



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Unit541
 


I think that it can be productive without it. And you can find personal stories online just like yours, without needing to cite yourself or your friends. It's just better.

Tesla, it's not counter productive, everyone here is agreeing with my idea and it doesn't matter if -I- don't want to smoke pot, I think other people should be able to talk about it without offending anyone.



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


I agree, since we have a long list of nominations now anyways, it is best for the mods to go through this forums, and choose 5 out of the nominees. Of course they will have to way the pros and cons, look at each nominees posts, and see who best fits the committee.

Though, again, it must be stated, these people should be on ATS daily

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

[edit on 25-2-2009 by darcon]



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 05:17 PM
link   
that would be insane to have her there. we are already fighting to get the rights back that we deserve (free speech) why would we need her there to make things harder.

we are looking to reverse the decision not make things worse where we will have to censor words.



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by kcfusion
 


It should only be like 500 points then. When you require a lot of points to participate somewhere, you're going to get a lot of "posting for the sake of posting" posts and threads elsewhere on the site.



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by N. Tesla
 


I'm trying to reverse the decision and I've been trying to do so for the past 20 pages! What are you TALKING about?!



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by skeptic1
 


See thats the problem with everyones opinion of this, It isn't a haven for users to "talk about their use", the fact is without end-user testimonials it would be an incomplete work. Your taking this as I wanna say "man getting high yesterday was so cool", but really what I'm trying to say is, "man I've had back pain for the last 3 years nothing worked, till I tryed this" or "I've been really depressed so I'd figure I'd try anything this really helped". Thats what I'm talking about, take a step back before you accuse everyone of being a JUNKIE.



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by kcfusion
reply to post by blupblup
 


No points get deducted its only a minimum requirement to post! You keep your points.


Ok...but why exclude those who don't have the points in the first place?
It's honestly not a viable option, IMO.

There is no need to exclude anybody or penalize them for not having the points.



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Monger
I'd like to make a point of saying that I have no interest in being a part of the committee, as much as I look forward to the fruits of their labours.


I think we need you, or people like you, in on this committee. You are not going to cheer lead and anything you have to say will not be whitewashed.



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by N. Tesla
that would be insane to have her there. we are already fighting to get the rights back that we deserve (free speech) why would we need her there to make things harder.


This line of discussion is fruitless. People's opinions on drugs aren't relevant. Ravenshadow has been nominated.

Reddupo
Benevolent Heretic
Maxmars
Cutwolf
Whatuknow
CavemanDD
ToTheTenthPower
DocGonzo
Frankidealist35
Daystar
Unit541
Ahabstar
Pieman
Darcon
Anok
Loam
Jasonjnelson
tyranny22
omega85
ravenshadow13
Saviour Complex
spliff4020
N Tesla
Schrodingers Dog
Skeptic1


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



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by N. Tesla
 


We can not deprive someone of a nomination, isn't that little biased?



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 05:19 PM
link   
I want to again urge every one to consider that there is most assuredly a difference between discussions involving personal use, and "stoner stories".

Productive discussions of this topic, inevitably at some point require information gained through personal insight and experience to reach their full potential.

Just to be clear, I am completely against the "stoner stories" (that are a lot less prevalent than some members would like to think), and believe they have no place on this, or any other board where serious and insightful adult discussion is to take place.



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 05:20 PM
link   
Updated compromise....

(BH can keep track of the nominations, I'll keep track of the agreed upon suggestions of the members
)

...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
...no testimonials as that is basically equivalent to admitting to illegal activity in a lot of places
...maybe a review of posts before they appear in the dedicated forum??
...forum threads not to appear on front page of ATS (meaning flags are disabled in that forum)
...maybe a points "buy" to gain access to the forum to go along with the oath (similar to RATS but not as high a point count)
...maybe full access to everyone as long as they agree to the strict rules of the dedicated forum and the 2 strikes and you are out policy is enforced


[edit on 2/25/2009 by skeptic1]



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 05:20 PM
link   
Well, the committee idea is going well isn't it?

If we can't keep from getting off track in a thread focusing on the fomation of a steering committee, what hope does said committee have of producing anything?



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by N. Tesla
that would be insane to have her there. we are already fighting to get the rights back that we deserve (free speech) why would we need her there to make things harder.


Anti-drug attitudes and freedom of speech are not mutually exclusive ideas. I

Man, I hope Ravenshadow is picked for the committee just to piss people off now.

[edit on 25-2-2009 by SaviorComplex]



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by TNT13
 


Well I mean, if you have back pain, you should get a prescription. If you're using it legally (prescribed) then you go to the Medical forum. If you're not using it prescribed, you go talk about it in the new forum. I think that would be okay, as long as you're not talking about the cool hallucinations that it gave you or something. But yes, unrecognized medical benefits of illicit drugs would be allowed in the new forum and if you have experience about that exact thing, then it's okay to say so.

Skeptic I would add that in your outline.

[edit on 2/25/2009 by ravenshadow13]



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 05:21 PM
link   
i didnt say we deprive her. i just said having her on the committee counter productive.

why do we need people on the other end for this one? we already had been banned from talking about this. we are trying to get it back. why do we need people there going "ehh maybe we shouldnt"?



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by skeptic1
 


Sounds good.

How can we improve that list? It's pretty airtight.


[edit on 25-2-2009 by darcon]



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join