While I do support the creation of some sort of strictly moderated 'sub-forum', I also think it is very important to work together (obviously with
SO & Springer) in better defining the boundaries. I believe it has become apparent that this boundary isn't as clear as perhaps those making the
decisions initially thought.
I strongly believe there is a case to be made for those who seek in educating themselves and others on the benefits of certain illicit substances, by
sharing their experience/testimonials. However I can also see the major implications that would arise in letting such a thing occur too openly.
Perhaps than we can come to some compromise, or maybe not. But that is the touchy part of this whole subject that needs to be resolved - I don't
believe discussing genuine drug-related conspiracies is what the moderators are against.
One solution I can think of (in combination with having the forum in which has already been discussed) is to have any sort of legitimate personal
experience/testimonial, submitted and reviewed by the moderators in charge. By "legitimate" I mean a strictly mature/responsible (almost scientific)
report, that is absolutely relevant to the topic at hand and addresses only serious genuine questions/arguments. This report,
if approved, can
then be linked to & from the thread.
A similar system can also be used in order for people to share some of the very credible reports/documentaries that have been created over the years
by the likes of CNN and BBC, that offer a different side to some of the 'mainstream' arguments.
I also believe a minimum point requirement might be needed at least initially. Think of it as a beta test. We look at the results, we go from there.
In any case, apart from the very sensitive part of the subject, the rest I don't see a reason to expect real problems so long as there is a basic
system put in place. I look forward to seeing what comes of this.