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: 68
42
<< 65  66  67    69  70  71 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Resinveins
 


I understand what you are saying, people have missed out, yes.

But whats done is done. I am sorry you feel this way.




posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Resinveins
 


It's a fact that no matter what we decided to do, someone wouldn't be happy about it.
I suspect I haven't heard the last of the criticisms for my part in this. We even went over the downsides of the different methods.

I DID put up a vote to the board, but staff closed the thread. We have discussed for many pages how to best make this happen and Skeptic Overlord has been involved.

I'm sorry you're unhappy with the decision and it may not stand. Staff may not approve of it, either, but the majority of us participating in this thread did something we agreed on would probably work.

On another note, I have the Excel spreadsheet ready to count the votes and my husband has offered to help me tally them, so it should go pretty smoothly.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 04:18 PM
link   
No....


I believe it is completely against T&C for ANY psychoactive / mind altering substance to be discussed amongst these boards.

If someone makes a post about how bad meth is, that is a perfectly acceptable thread.

IE.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

and

www.abovetopsecret.com...

However if a thread concerning the legality of marijuana rises about, it's "devolves" as you put it, quite simply. However, reviewing the thread about "New meth trends", you will quite blatantly see people speaking about their *War Stories* and using such terms as "I took a hit off a crack pipe."

If that's acceptable, and thread's like these aren't(regardless of how it's devolved);

"Whiff of change in US medical marijuana policy"
-(404 link) www.abovetopsecret.com...

and,

"Legalize It: Ammiano to Introduce Legislation Monday to Allow Pot -- and Tax It"

-(Possible RATS link) www.abovetopsecret.com...


then I would suggest NO DRUG TALK at all involveing anything remotely specific to any kind of mind altering substance, period, I don't care if it's pot, crack, meth, '___', heroin whatever. If I can't express my opinions on the beneficial effects of drugs, or how historical civilizations used them in ways to spiritually expand, than I do not believe that someone should be able to make a thread about how horrible meth is, or heroin or crack.


No more drug talk, no more stereotype. I don't believe either one of those pot threads devolved, and if they *did* it was more than likely the cause of anti-pot crusaders, which could and should be corrected by moderation, not by closing a topic.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Revolution-2012
 


Most serious people in this thread are against any talk of personal experience with illegal drugs (with the exception of medical MJ). We don't want to hear how cool it was when you lit one up in your dorm room this weekend.

But, we do want to preserve valid and serious drug discussion.

[edit on 2/26/2009 by skeptic1]



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 04:27 PM
link   
Again, I agree with Skeptic1

Most of the main contributers of this thread, are against Posts, that have anything to do with "Stoner Stories" or Personal use of Illegal Substances.

We do want the right however, to talk about the subject, in an intelligent manner. There are many conspiracies out there that are related to drugs, and as of right now, we are not supposed to be talking about this sort of thing(For the exception of this thread).

[edit on 26-2-2009 by darcon]



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Revolution-2012
 


Bravo. I made that exact same point last page. SO says it's about filters and search engines, so how does it filter context? It's BS, and it's obvious.

[edit on 26-2-2009 by 27jd]



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 04:34 PM
link   
I'm a bit disappointed by the lack of "old school" options on the list.

Any other 03s or 04s up for nomination? I think it might be nice to have input of multiple people who have been here since relatively close to the beginning.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Yup I'm not happy about it. Yes I am vocal about it. Yes regardless someone was gonna be unhappy.

I've never thought my happiness was the point. But rather fairness.


I had thought maybe some people would recognize that if things were done in a fair and open manner it might lend some sort of legitimacy to the whole idea.


Instead, to many, as one poster put it awhile back, this all resembles some back door congressional dealings of questionable nature.

[edit on 26-2-2009 by Resinveins]



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by 27jd
 


Surely you can make a point, whether pro or con, without involving yourself in the discussion (thus overriding "personal use")? As far as I know hypothetical discussion, within reason, has always been allowed.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by skeptic1
 


I don't smoke marijuana anymore, I've never once posted about personal experiences with any drug.

I believe that because a few clowns posting their stories about hitting the bong being a great thing, does not glorify closing topics such as the ones I linked about legalization of marijuana to be *closed* or moved to *rats*.


Once again, if an intelligent conversation about marijuana isn't acceptable on this board, than neither should be how bad a drug is; none the less with people posting their war stories about how they're recovered addicts, and how they used to hit crack pipes.

Read the meth trends thread, you'll see what I mean.

Bottom line, all illicit drug talk should be banned if someone can't talk about their opinions on the legalization of marijuana, or how it is beneficial to humanity.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Cutwolf
 


i'm '05, there aren't many 03's/04's left!!!!!



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by 27jd
 


If you review SO's updates to this thread you will find that he also describes patterns of posting and an increase in overall juvenile behavior as motivating factors.

But may I suggest that it would make more sense to wait and submit these points to the DISC committee once that's been formed rather than prolonging the quibbling on this thread that's not likely to go anywhere productive?



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Revolution-2012
 


I agree with you.

That is why a group of us on this thread are working towards a compromise to keep the stoner posts off the board, the stoner threads off the board, and valid discussions ON the board. Hence, nomination for the DISC committee.

If there isn't a compromise reached, the blanket ban will stand.

Not everyone is going to be happy with the outcome no matter what it is. But working towards a happy medium is best all-around in my mind.

[edit on 2/26/2009 by skeptic1]



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by tyranny22
 


Sure, I've never posted my personal experiences on any thread, ever. But if you look at blaines post that I quoted, he very clearly did. How is that different and why wasn't that deleted?? If he said he enjoyed it on that very post, in this thread, what do you think would have happened, honestly?

Then tell me how the filters can tell the difference?



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by pieman
i'm '05, there aren't many 03's/04's left!!!!!


lol, i'm an "04"...but i'll probably be banned soon enough
jk



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 04:43 PM
link   
I think the fact that you are telling people they can't discuss something goes against what this site is all about. The criminalization of drugs is one of the biggest conspiracies of all time. Look at what prohibition did to this country....

I respect the sentiment here, but I think its a bad idea, and something that if anything should be talked about more and with a more intellectual bend.

The reason most drugs aren't legal is the image of the user, which is usually some dredded hippie or strung out crack head.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by americandingbat
If you review SO's updates to this thread you will find that he also describes patterns of posting and an increase in overall juvenile behavior as motivating factors.


I've seen juvenile and blatantly disruptive behavior in many different topics. The offenders posts are usually removed and they are warned and eventually banned. Should be no different here.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 04:44 PM
link   
I surely you're not considering threads about marijuana in general and the beneficial effects of it's use considered "stoner".

As a person who used to use marijuana, I can honestly say just because someone smokes the substance to achieve a barrage of beneficial effects does not mean that they are classified as a "stoner", or someone who is equivelant to Sean Penn's Spicolli off of Fast Times at Ridgemont High.

I do agree that people should not be running about speaking of their glorious expierences with smoking weed.


However, in all honesty I doubt there will be a way to moderate drug talk, period, I believe the same stereotypes will apply, that's why I'm voting for an all out drug talk BAN that way we don't have to moderate it much more than with the click of a close topic.

Easiest, most efficient way, with no controversy on how the moderation is being done.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Cutwolf
 


Another good point that has not been addressed Cutwolf.

There are a number of people on the list that are fairly new to ATS. '05 and '06 seem to be middle times and have some representation. I would hope that there are some mods, at least, that can freely represent your time frame as well.

But then again, I see this more as "what are we going to do" than as "us vs.them" subject.

There are those that have various levels of participation such as writers, fighters and scholars on the list as well as those that do not participate in such areas for various reasons.

That said, I am not sure that level of participation nor time as a member nor even the age of a member make them unacceptable by ATS as a whole.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by 27jd
 


with the background i can hardly see your name, never mind your age.

i wonder how many long standing members are regularly posting, generally speaking. it would be an interesting stat. a class of 03, class of 04, 05, 06 thing.



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 65  66  67    69  70  71 >>

log in

join