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

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Thanks for answering, I assume it was mentioned at some point, I just didn't see it in any of the pages I read

well then, why is it important to you how we go about trying to facilitate these discussions?

why is there so many people so much more interested in how the committee is chosen that the work the committee would have to do?

Is asking questions no longer allowed here? I didn't know I had to have a vested interest in the specific topic to ask a simple question..jeez

reply to post by nyk537


Spot on nyk - in fact I posted about that just a page or 2 back.

This is not political, the DISC will have no "power" and there will be no reward other than trying to help the community here.

In fact, I foresee that it will be a huge pain in the backside for whoever gets elected - I've already been "foe'd" by some as a result of my participation and views.

Like I care who puts me on a list

I was all for the ban, but when it became apparent that there MIGHT be a way to explore the subject as it should be explored then I happily changed tack - some may call this hypocrisy, I call it trying to find a happy medium and compromise.

reply to post by pstiffy


sorry, nothing personal, although i guess you wouldn't know that.

i apologize, that was a scattergun frustration post. i didn't mean to pick on you. you're perfectly entitled to ask anything you like.

reply to post by nyk537


And I think that closing to the vote to such a large number of interested member who also care shows exactly who those are who are more interested in the "power" aspect.

Locking out the majority from any participation in decision making IS a power grab. And since there was no specific time limit for voting, and instead it was decided arbitrarily, I can only conclude that those on that magic list are the ones grabbing at power. Not us who only want a vote on the list, not to be on the list itself.

reply to post by pstiffy


You have to excuse his attitude, i do not think he was addressing it specifically to you, or because of you. We are all a bit frustrated, thats all.

Many here on the board, that made the initial decision, have been(For the past oh, i dont know, 40 pages) been getting many negative comments based towards them, from the same group of disgruntled posters too.

Questions are fine, i know you don't want to go back 50 pages, its a long read.

[edit on 27-2-2009 by darcon]

Wow guys...this is just pathetic.

You're all squabbling like a bunch of 12 year olds and it's really a sad sight to see.

The bottom line here is, and you're all free to ignore what I'm saying because I wasn't one of the lucky enough people to log onto ATS during the first 3 hours of this drama-fest, that no matter how some of you people try to spin it, having a nominations page in a forum that's 95 pages long and only having nominations open for a few hours during a Wednesday night is unfair and not the proper way to do things.

Go ahead and argue the point all you want like a little child, but it doesn't change the outcome; that your system was flawed and none of you (even if a small group of you who made the decision last night) have the right to make this type of important decision by yourself.

A real democracy works when there are real nominees that were actually nominated by actual people. A fake democracy happens when a small group of people decide it's in everyone's best interest to make the decision for them, and then go ahead and do just that. They're not real democracies and they usually fall apart rather quickly. Funny I mention that, because thanks to all of your squabbling, this "committee" has fallen apart before things have even gotten rolling.

And on top of that, imagine how bad this looks to the people who are giving us the opportunity to possibly choose people to oversee this committee. The site admins give us this great opportunity to solve this issue like reasonable human beings, and the first thing you people do is start to bicker amongst each other as soon as someone calls out the unfairness in the selection process, and then instead of any action on the real cause, we see 12 hours of bickering and argument.

United we stand and divided we fall. Wow, you guys certainly proving that point. The sad part is that you're bringing down the credibility of a very important issue that we need to discuss here on ATS, and that seriously annoys me.

As an actual advocate of this issue in the real world, it bugs me that some of you guys (and girls) are more concerned about keeping your self-appointed "spot" than actually solving the problem we've all assembled here to solve.

So to the people like me who are being ignored by these self-appointed "nominees" while they bicker like 12 year olds trying to hold on to their self-appointed spots, and are sick to your stomach watching them discredit the cause due to their arguing...here's what I propose:

Let's just ignore this group who are bickering and move on without them. The only power these clowns have received is the power they gave themselves...therefore in my opinion that means squat. In the meantime, the people reading this who actually want to help solve this problem in a reasonable manner maybe can start organizing via U2U (no sense in doing it here where it will just get lost in 5 pages of arguments).

We can come up with an easy solution that can make all sides/parties happy (and it doesn't take a special committee to do what they have planned anyway), then together as a group, we approach the site admins with our plan, suggest 6 people to help the upkeep of this new forum (through discussion and not some 3-hour political campaign on a 95 page thread),and voila; problem solved without making things too complicated and without some committee that can't even get past arguing about when the supposed nominations end.

I know this post is going to get ignored/lost in the all so efficient debate you have currently going ( ), so if anybody out here agrees with me then send me a U2U (no point in replying here), and let's get the real ball rolling on this one; because this committee isn't going to get anything done if they're still arguing about how fair it is to have nominations close 3 hours after opening them (it's not fair, by the way, any person could see that unless they've put themselves in a position of power thanks to the unfairness).

I'm also U2U'ing this message to the site admins...this issue is too important for me to see you people screw it all up because you crave power and authority. Peace.

[edit on 27-2-2009 by matth]

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


Think what you want my friend.

It is what it is and that's all there is to it.

I'm not sure why so many are so upset over this whole vote when those that are selected will be facing an extremely difficult task. It's not like we're voting to elect staff members or something.

We're voting to sign people up for an extremely hard job that will provide no recognition or reward OTHER than the satisfaction gained from helping progress ATS.

My apologies for not injecting my input sooner, it took quite some time to become familiar with the personalities and opinions populating this incredible discussion.

While I've had enjoyable occasions to partake in that which is discussed within, I have no desire to publicly discuss the merits of what I consider to be a very personal endeavor. In my mind, those who would engage conversation on the finer points of "high times" are merely attention seekers enamored with the thrill of public disclosure of an illicit act.

I find myself saddened, but not surprised, that the so-called "stoner culture" has inspired the ownership here to restrict discussion of any and all drug-related topics. Having authored critical articles of the Reagan administration's involvement in drug running (under my other more well-known persona), I have an intimate understanding of how narcotics play a key role in several government conspiracies (even 9/11). While unfortunate that it has happened here, it merely reflects the negative influence the "stoner culture" is having on broader more important drug-related issues. Imagine, if you will, how much easier medical access to THC may be if not for the problems related to illicit use and "high times" culture.

Even more saddening than the above, is the tenor that has evolved here in this discussion thread. If you who post in this thread really and truly believe these topics to be of critical importance, why can you not cooperate? Have you who seek to promote drug-related discussions considered that your inability to courteously unite does nothing more than substantiate the concerns of the ownership?

And in parting -- if only this much energy were devoted to researching those who put the global economy into turmoil, perhaps we'd have complicit bankers in jail by now.

Originally posted by matth
In the meantime, the people reading this who actually want to help solve this problem in a reasonable manner maybe can start organizing via U2U (no sense in doing it here where it will just get lost in 5 pages of arguments).

We can come up with an easy solution that can make all sides/parties happy (and it doesn't take a special committee to do what they have planned anyway), then together as a group, we approach the site admins with our plan, suggest 6 people to help the upkeep of this new forum (through discussion and not some 3-hour political campaign on a 95 page thread),and voila; problem solved without making things too complicated and without some committee that can't even get past arguing about when the supposed nominations end.

good idea matth, instead of a self appointed committee of interested parties working in the open you can organise one behind closed doors that essentially does the exact same thing, that sounds like a much more democratic process

good man, let me know how it works out.

Originally posted by mister.old.school
I find myself saddened, but not surprised, that the so-called "stoner culture" has inspired the ownership here to restrict discussion of any and all drug-related topics.

As a participant since page one of this thread, I'm inclined to comment once more on this point.

At the risk of being labeled a "Truther", I see many parallels forming between this entire issue, and the events of one September 11th, 2001. While not a humanitarian atrocity, I see a distinct "official story", and an unknown truth. I simply never saw this massive influx of mindless "I love to get baked" posts. I did however see many intelligent and thought provoking topics raised, and even more "preemptive strikes" on said topics by the staff. In my opinion, and it's only that, it was the fear of the "stoner culter", as you put it, taking over, rather than the actual occurrence of such.

That said, I'll repeat my current position, as explained to BH in a U2U looking for my tardy vote on the committee:

I'll abstain, as I don't feel anyone in the list is qualified to represent the community to the extent that is required. I have lost faith in this endeavors ability to succeed in the long run. The most valuable points have simply gone ignored, and the issue of the nominees, and how they're selected has surpassed the reason for the committee in importance. The stages of democracy went full cycle in 50 pages.

All one has to do to realize the futility in this exercise, is examine the reason we're here in the first place. As was argued by myself and a (very) few observant others, the zero tolerance policy was instituted on a sham basis in the first place. A compromise cannot be made, when only one party intends to compromise at all. The administration has made it clear that they simply do not want to make discussion of this topic available (contrary to their claims, actions speak louder than words and all that jazz), and as such are simply humoring the uprising long enough for the flame to extinguish. SO even alluded to as much in his suggestion that the current influx of media coverage on the subject is designed to distract the 20-30 something crowd from real issues.

That said, I hereby declare my independence from a system in which I do not believe to be fair and just. I refuse to be steered and manipulated into thinking I'm getting any semblance of what I call for, when I'm not. In other words, I am denying ignorance.

Originally posted by pieman
good idea matth, instead of a self appointed committee of interested parties working in the open you can organise one behind closed doors that essentially does the exact same thing, that sounds like a much more democratic process

good man, let me know how it works out.

Anything is better than what I am seeing here. A group discussing/talking in private, after everyone has been invited to participate is more fair than 5 or 6 people arguing in public and ignoring all else (including the actual topic at hand) and everyone else. Nobody made these people experts on the issue but nobody can tell them to stop bickering either, so it's going to continue here either way.

I just want a quiet place for the people who really want a solution to talk about reaching that solution. It's too easy.

Now I will repeat what I said earlier; if you want to actually help find a solution then U2U me and we can collectively work this out absent of the useless bickering and ramblings going on in this thread.

[edit on 27-2-2009 by matth]

Originally posted by Unit541
All one has to do to realize the futility in this exercise, is examine the reason we're here in the first place.
*snip*
A compromise cannot be made, when only one party intends to compromise at all.

so if you think this is all so pointless, why are you so vocally objecting to the situation as it stands?

i really feel these questions need to be asked and answered at this stage.

reply to post by pieman


Note that was my first post in 40 pages. I'm out, but choose to voice my reasons for walking away. I am not that fly that will continually butt my head against the window, thinking that sooner or later, the window will cease to exist.

reply to post by pieman


I read his post, then put him on ignore.

He just basically insulted everyone who is working and striving toward forming a committee, and in turn trying to make a compromise with the staff. Many people have dedicated time and effort towards helping ATS as a whole. I do not like insulting posts, and that whole post was insulting to me, and probably many others.

Regardless, i have already posted many times why we(the main contributers at the time) did, what we did. It had nothing to do with power, as you know.

He can go to SO or springer,

please, come back with their info, i would love to hear what they think. If they think this process is unfair, then by all means end it.

But until then the vote goes on.

[edit on 27-2-2009 by darcon]

Originally posted by matth
after everyone has been invited to participate is more fair than 5 or 6 people arguing in public and ignoring all else (including the actual topic at hand) and everyone else.

how are you going to invite everyone? how long are you going to wait so that you can be sure everyone has been made aware of your invite?

maybe you should at least read the summary posts, it's clear from your proposal that you haven't.

reply to post by Unit541


I've stood by my point that the end far outweighs the means since my first post. In fact, I think most that have been active in this thread have said the same. I've constantly tried to remind people of that fact.

I'm only trying to chime in when there are blatant errors in statements ... like: there was only 3 hours for people to volunteer or be nominated or to respond to statements that have portrayed this process as being a behind-closed-doors effort.

Originally posted by darcon
reply to post by pieman

 

I read his post, then put him on ignore.

Sounds like you just ignored a member who's opinions you're supposed to represent...

If you willingly ignore members you are supposedly representing because their opinion is different than yours... well... extrapolate what that means yourself... I don't feel like being ignored today...

Matth is right... perhaps a different thread... without the egos is in order.

reply to post by nj2day


that's not what matth is suggesting, he's suggesting the whole thing co-ordinated via u2u behind closed doors with him heading up the initiative, i assume.

ego's are a fact of life. we all have one. he felt insulted and hit ignore, it happens and everyone's human.

reply to post by nj2day


I read his post, and read his other posts on this board too. I see much of what he says, but some of it is just plain wrong. He is assuming we just want power, which i can say in my defense, is not true. I openly insults the people who have been working very hard on this subject.

If i am on the committee, than yea, i have to represent him. Thats the point of being on the committee. You represent the ATS members.

As of right now, i do not have to represent him.

I hardly think i will be nominated, but if i do, all ignores are off, which their are few indeed.

I may be wrong in ignoring, him, i do not know.

Judge me as you see fit.

reply to post by darcon

Thanks darcon, I appreciate that.

Turns out I was NOT one of the members banned, as SO announced in the "Chat Closed Due To Stoner Idiots" thread this morn. I'm relieved, because I have never posted any 'personal use' story anyway.



Now, for this committee subject, it's important to me. I hope my small contributions to this thread qualify me as one of the people SO mentioned as wanting a dedicated forum for the heated topic of drug-related issues, simply for posting here.

Perhaps the forum could include some headers like these, as suggested already, but be pre-empted with warnings of NO PERSONAL USE STORIES as stated in the Terms & Conditions of this site;

Legislation . . .Medicinal . . .Examples of What NOT to say, (avoid being BANNED); . . .The War on Drugs . . .FATALITIES: Alcohol vs Drugs . . .From the Professional Field, ie Doctors, Counselors, Psychiatrists, etc. . . .From the Law Enforcement Community . . .Addiction & Pregnancy . . .and finally, some kind of 'disclaimer', and/or reference to HELP sites, if you have an urgent concern or problem, this may not be the immediate place to inquire.