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: 28
42
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
If I may make a small suggestion.

Perhaps it would be a good idea to have a certain minimum amount of ATS posts before one is eligible to participate in said forum. Both for their protection and for the integrity of the forum.

I know it took me a while to "find my feet" so to speak when I first joined. I'd hate to lose new members just out of confusion or misunderstandings.




That is an EXCELLENT idea and would minimise such things as trolling and stoner stories, and would at least suggest that members willing to put the time and effort into a board will probably have more to say about a subject after spending an ample amount of time here beforehand.




posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 05:28 PM
link   
apparently im wrong. this committe is for more then pot. i joined in kinda late and i wasnt about to read 20 pages. anyway. if its more then about drugs then i apologize deeply to raven.



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Monger
The committee needs me about as much as it needs you.


I agree...even though I know that was not the point you were trying to make.


Originally posted by Monger
Go ahead and explain to me the difference between a responsible drug user and a child molester again, I love that one.


Are we still on that? It was hyperbole to illustrate a point! *face-palm*



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by N. Tesla
 


Keep in mind, I have stated my opinion but I or others could asked to take a "con" stance just to give full argument in the wishes of the community as a whole.

There may be many mods that are personally against the policy as it stands and are only complying with the rules.



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by N. Tesla
free speech covers my right to talk about the legalization of pot.

there is no spectrum for free speech. you either have it or you dont. and we have it. therefore we will fight to get it back. we dont need people arguing to limit it.

am i making it clearer?

Are you forgetting whose in control of the board? You don't have much ammo unless you decide to compromise.



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by N. Tesla
 



free speech covers my right to talk about the legalization of pot.

there is no spectrum for free speech. you either have it or you dont. and we have it. therefore we will fight to get it back. we dont need people arguing to limit it.

am i making it clearer?


No. You're proving that you have no idea what this thread is talking about.

What free speech? Please read the thread.



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 05:30 PM
link   
In terms of having the committee:

It would be fair and this is just a suggestion, to have the nominees state which they are: Pro, Con, or Indifferent.

Split the nominees into these three groups. Each member gets 2 votes per category - thus making a panel of 6 members on the committee. Equal representation all around.

That way, we avoid a Completely Con, or completely Pro committee.



- Carrot



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by TNT13
 


Okay yeah so as long as you have one and people can get them, it would go in Medical, which would still be regulated to weed out the "I love getting high it's so fun yay" posts, but it would be completely acceptable there, wouldn't need to go in the War on Drugs forum (and helpful, I think.) The War on Drugs forum would be for legalizing stuff like that recreationally.



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by darcon
reply to post by blupblup
 

It is of my opinion, that you need Unbiased people. Instead of having people who are for and against the drug issue on the committee. Why you ask? Because nothing will get done then.


And where would we find these unbiased people?
People always have an opinion whether they care to share it or not.

that's why i think a mixture is best, an equal amount of pro and con and some undecided would be best...IMHO of course



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 05:31 PM
link   
Ok people. I give up


I cant see why creating a point requirement (1000 ) and having a mod proof read a thread before posting would not be better than a new forum with more work for moderators and still the chance of posts slipping through the net or even having an elected few getting to aparticipate in the discussion.

I'll leave you to your own devices and plans


[edit on 25-2-2009 by kcfusion]

[edit on 25-2-2009 by kcfusion]



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 05:31 PM
link   
Hilarity hath ensued.






posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 05:31 PM
link   
Djarums

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

If the compromise fails.



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ravenshadow13
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]


Thanks for clarifying your stance on the whole "personal use" thing. I agree completely. This is a perfect illustration of why this topic cannot be policed with a firm set of guidelines, but rather requires a moderation team that is responsible enough to know when something is appropriate and pertinent to the discussion and when it's not.



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by N. Tesla
free speech covers my right to talk about the legalization of pot.

there is no spectrum for free speech. you either have it or you dont. and we have it.



We have never, and will never have free speech on ATS.
Please don't think otherwise



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by CA_Orot
 


I dunno... like... not really.
Like I just don't want to smoke it but I don't hate people who do or anything. I wouldn't split it up like that, just have people vote for individuals. I wouldn't know what to declare myself, cuz I think people should be able to talk about it (minus personal experiences with getting super high for fun) and I don't mind if they do as long as it's in that new forum.



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by N. Tesla
 


Listen, were doing the best we can. We are trying to compromise.



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by N. Tesla
free speech covers my right to talk about the legalization of pot.

there is no spectrum for free speech. you either have it or you dont. and we have it. therefore we will fight to get it back. we dont need people arguing to limit it.


Yes, but free-speech also covers one's right to talk about keeping pot (or any other drug) criminalized. Arguing for continued criminalization is not the same as arguing for the limitation of speech supporting legalization.

And I know that you have corrected yourself and now understand Raven's intentions. I'm not picking on you, rather I'm clarifying the freedom-of-speech issue for anyone else who comes into the conversation and has the same misconception you did.



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Are we still on that? It was hyperbole to illustrate a point! *face-palm*


Hide behind hyperbole all you want, the fact remains you said something supremely unintelligent and patently offensive.

Your trolling in this thread should well be enough for anybody to see clearly that your only interest in this issue is your own personal lols.



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 05:35 PM
link   
Lest we forget,
this is not about partisanship or getting our own way.

This is about ensuring that decent, mature discussion prevails in an area that is fraught with danger, and which has all too frequently degenerated into "stoner" threads - which are against the T&C.

The fact that we can work together to find a solution speaks volumes...



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by kcfusion
 


It wouldn't be more work for mods, they could add more mods to the other boards and move older mods to the new forum (while they've been considering adding new mods anyway since the election and stuff).

Proof reading the threads takes a ton of time, so I don't know, and I don't personally like the point requirement thing until someone does something wrong. And this would just be a way to condense all the topics on "War on Drugs." And it would make it a legit issue on the site, like 9/11 being a conspiracy, etc, it gets it's own whole new forum! As long as people follow the rules there, they can talk about it. And when members joined they were under the impression that drugs wouldn't be talked about at all, and some probably won't like the new forum. So this way they don't need to see or interact with the discussion at all. If you want to talk about illicit drugs for recreational use, you go to the forum. I think that's super, super fair.



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join