------FORUM GUIDELINES------

reply to post by neformore

Bluntly, its a forum to discuss the political and conspiracy issues of the day, and not one to brag about/discuss ways of getting high (because you can do that elsewhere on the net) or one where you can tell us how high you got (because - frankly - no one really cares, and such repeated discussion is damn boring)

Hope that clears it up. If it doesn't, ask away.

I wish that standard applied to recreational alcohol consumption as well then because I see a lot of it here, in chat room and elsewhere, talking about how drunk they are, will be, and/or can' t wait to get off work to crack open a bottle or can.

Alcohol is the yellow-brick gateway into accepting recreational drug use as a normal, accepted, and even encouraged way of life. Your argument is valid but the standard is double. With changes in local and state laws there needs to be discussion about a now legal matter but the line is too fine here to straddle easily. Either cut out ALL the recreational drug consumption chatter or leave a little leeway so we can have open discussion about the important aspects of it all. There are plenty of serious elements to all this that need to be aired openly.

Originally posted by LiveForever8
Nothing. I don't think it would change. There will always be people who cannot discuss these matters with a genuine academical/philosophical/historical/spiritual mindset. Of those people I say: Let them fall on their swords.

Change the T&C's to allow serious discussion and ban those who can't stay within the T&C's. This might mean more work for the Mods for a couple of weeks as people push it to the limits but eventually everyone will see the line and dare not cross it.

I hear ya.

Does anybody else?

reply to post by SkepticOverlord

Posse Comitatus Act

I think a reminder is in order here. As we can readily see - there is no provision in the 'Act' that allows for the militarization of local police, which is what I see as the most dangerous and not so subtle encroachment upon the law.

Another is the over 'militarization' of the National Guard by sending them off to fight in 'foreign' wars, which further allows for the blurring of distinctions as to their original intent and purpose, i.e., the protection of the states. Note (below) that the NG is to be enabled police powers whenever necessary on the state level - as well as the Coast Guard.

We might also note here "Posse Comitatus" - while legal - isn't necessarily 'constitutional' insofar as its adoption is 100 years later. Meaning that the 'law' can be readily changed, misapplied, or ignored altogether as is the case at the present time.

Partial Quote

The Posse Comitatus Act is the United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385, original at 20 Stat. 152) that was passed on June 18, 1878, after the end of Reconstruction and was updated in 1981. Its intent (in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807) was to limit the powers of Federal government in using federal military personnel to enforce the State laws.
The Bill/Act as modified in 1981 refers to the Armed Forces of the United States. It does not apply to the National Guard under state authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within its home state or in an adjacent state if invited by that state's governor. The U.S. Coast Guard, which operates under the Department of Homeland Security, is also not covered by the Posse Comitatus Act, primarily because the Coast Guard has both a maritime law enforcement mission and a federal regulatory agency mission.

reply to post by LiveForever8


Bottom line is that if this forum degenerates into drug discussion (which generally degenerate into pissing contests), rather than discussions of the "war on drugs", then people like me will just lose interest and move on, leaving no one but the drug/anti-drug partisans to duke it out and draw blood.

I have zero interest in drugs, but big interest in government misconduct. There is a better than 50/50 chance that I'm not alone in that.I don't care how or why people choose to wreck themselves. None of my business. I DO care that government tries to wreck all of us in some misguided attempt they claim is only to "save" people who don't want saving.

I have NO interest whatsoever in "genuine academical/philosophical/historical/spiritual mindsets" involving drugs. Those discussions are best carried on in smoky rooms accompanies by chips, dips, sugary drinks, pie, cake, cookies, etc.

I hear they can last for hours and still get nowhere.

HEY NSA - store this!
great thread - didn't read all replies - so not sure if this is repetitious :

basic statement:
Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

dojgov - PosseComitatus

reply to post by nenothtu

Originally posted by nenothtu
Bottom line is that if this forum degenerates into drug discussion (which generally degenerate into pissing contests), rather than discussions of the "war on drugs", then people like me will just lose interest and move on, leaving no one but the drug/anti-drug partisans to duke it out and draw blood.

Fair enough.

But if the subject is properly policed then there shouldn't be an issue. Personally, I think the whole subject deserves its own forum but that's wishful thinking.

Originally posted by nenothtu
I have zero interest in drugs, but big interest in government misconduct. There is a better than 50/50 chance that I'm not alone in that.I don't care how or why people choose to wreck themselves. None of my business. I DO care that government tries to wreck all of us in some misguided attempt they claim is only to "save" people who don't want saving.

It's hard to respond without breaking T&C's. Needless to say, you have misjudged the subject matter. As evidenced by...

Originally posted by nenothtu
I have NO interest whatsoever in "genuine academical/philosophical/historical/spiritual mindsets" involving drugs. Those discussions are best carried on in smoky rooms accompanies by chips, dips, sugary drinks, pie, cake, cookies, etc.

And as for this...

Originally posted by nenothtu
I hear they can last for hours and still get nowhere.

Are we talking about Drugs or Politics?

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


Actually, the continuing studying and medical use of some drugs is directly related to why the laws are being changed at this time. So, by instructing us that discussing the medical benefits of these so called 'bad' drugs effectively cuts off any meaningful discussions regarding these misinformed and antiquated laws.

Im not a stoner lets get that straight. I have never touched non medical drugs. Well unless you count beer

But I have some string views on drug laws and the laws on drugs and things I would like to debate is:

The restriction on certain drugs interfering with legitimate medical research and treatment.

The wast of billion being spent on the drug laws and the war on drugs when better cost alternatives can be sought. Be it legisation of the less harmless drugs (useing Alcohol as a standard) and putting more resources into stopping the hard drugs or improving social and mental health programs to reduce the need for rec drugs.

Question the attitude of politicans toward drugs in that they think all Rec drugs are the same when sceince clearly says otherwise. I want to ask why are they ignoreing it? Why is tobbaco and Alcohol ok whn it clearly more dangrous than half of the illegal ones? Why are there some legal medications that are more toxic and additive and less effective than certain rec drugs being prescribed when certain rec drugs have proven medical applications that are better than the legal medications in some cases?

Are these topics ok?


Im not advocating recreational drug laws or condeming them, Im just quetioning the validaty and effectiveness of them.

Just my humble .02 cents... just two days ago ( and for the previous several years ) the battle cry was a constant "Please, just let us discuss this subject, in any context! It's not fair that we can't at least do that!"

Now, after years of this - the subject is opened up on some level, more than honoring the long-term request and the very first thing that happens is that people start complaining that they want more???

This is exactly what brought down the ill fated drug forum some time back and caused the policies to disallow the topic in the first place. Just saying.

I guess my point is that it's better to make ones case and do battle within the confines of what is allowed, than to instantly start off with all or nothing style debate arguments.

reply to post by LiveForever8


Truth be told - I was disappointed to see the inclusion of drug discussion in this Forum. I suspected that it would muddy the waters.

Incidentally, I stopped going to AA meetings for the very same reasons. Rather than to stay in NA, which is where they belonged they would 'crossover' - intruding on, and being generally disruptive of AA meetings. They're inclined to want to dominate the conversation and to mis-use principles. I predict that it'll be a problem to deal with here.

In fact, the Forum isn't even off the ground yet and already its devolved into a drug discussion. I have no interest in that at all.

reply to post by Hefficide


The question it not that I want more. It not knowing what I have


I have no idea were the line between Ok debate and T&C Violation as it ambiguous and pontentialy dangroue as one slight mistake could get me a Extreme T&C Violation

I think we all agree stoner comments and the bong brigade are a no no here.

But take example from my post above? Are topics like that acceptable? As they neither encouarge or condem recreational drug use?


OP said the rules are "no advocating drug use" ok great! But were does the line between disagreeing with the war on drugs and drug laws end and advocating drugs start? As it seems just disagreeing with the drug laws automatacly = Advocating

Originally posted by LiveForever8

But if the subject is properly policed then there shouldn't be an issue. Personally, I think the whole subject deserves its own forum but that's wishful thinking.

Beyond a doubt. Some mention of drugs is necessary, but there is usually a point where you can look and say "this just ain't gonna end well", and the mods step in and police it, often in forceful terms that brook no dissent. I have no problem with that, or mention of drugs up to that point. I'm just saying that when it crosses the line and veers away from government malpractice and into the drug debate arena, it's gone beyond the remit of this forum's stated purpose. Then brawls break out if not nipped in the bud, and the forum gets shut down. The topic can be emotional to some, just like partisan politics and religion.

Needless to say, you have misjudged the subject matter.

That's entirely possible, as I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed. Within my limited perspective, however, I think the subject matter has been pretty clearly and adequately set forth by SO, with helpful hints by a couple of mods now. Since they claim the subject matter is police-state related, and not drug-focused, I have to take their word for that until they express otherwise. In that vein, drug discussion is only ancillary to enforcement malpractice, rather than the focus or subject matter.

As evidenced by...

Originally posted by nenothtu
I have NO interest whatsoever in "genuine academical/philosophical/historical/spiritual mindsets" involving drugs. Those discussions are best carried on in smoky rooms accompanies by chips, dips, sugary drinks, pie, cake, cookies, etc.

Perhaps you can help me understand why discussion of academic/philosophical/historical/or spiritual mindsets concerning drugs would enhance a discussion focused on legal malfeasance by The Man. Do we really need to know the history and philosophy of why people enhance their mellow in order to know that it's a bad thing when Johnny Law cracks down on everyone in a legalistic blanket party?

And as for this...

Originally posted by nenothtu
I hear they can last for hours and still get nowhere.

Are we talking about Drugs or Politics?

Both, but in the political discussions, fewer people forget what they were saying in mid-sentence. Otherwise, both can get pretty drawn out and inconclusive.

Originally posted by InTheLight
reply to post by SkepticOverlord

 

Actually, the continuing studying and medical use of some drugs is directly related to why the laws are being changed at this time. So, by instructing us that discussing the medical benefits of these so called 'bad' drugs effectively cuts off any meaningful discussions regarding these misinformed and antiquated laws.

edit on 26-7-2013 by InTheLight because: (no reason given)

But the general thrust of the forum appears to be government misconduct, not whether laws are good, or bad, or antiquated or misinformed. They are what they are, and the government alternately enforces some and ignores others at their own good pleasure, which isn't the way it's supposed to work.

The laws themselves are immaterial - it's what the government DOES with them.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

Originally posted by blaenau2000
Is this still a CONSPIRACY FORUM ? Surely ALL issues should be discussed, be it medicinal, Therapeutic, Spiritual and if some natural plantation can help with all of these issues and its not allowed to be discussed, then this is NOT a conspiracy forum, but a well controlled propaganda forum.
Which is it?

If I might make a comment with regard to this general sentiment. Many of us have been hoping for a good long time that the policy on this would change for the aspects of the drug topic that do impact every level of society and culture. Political, Economic and Social. Finally, after very bad experiences multiple times in the past that are there for folks to see in forums, SO and ATS Staff have decided to allow this again.

It is their site, their rules and their prerogative...but just as importantly? The recreational nature is illegal and could actually put ATS in a position of legal troubles if allowed to run wild. I say that as a site owner of a different site and designer myself, totally unrelated and unaffiliated here, but quite aware of how that whole thing can play out badly.

I'm very happy they have changed policy on this for what they have. In the same breath, I'd be more than happy to see them shut the whole topic RIGHT BACK down ...if it gets all crazy again like it has before and puts the smallest risk toward everything else built here. One topic isn't worth it...not even remotely close.

Perhaps one bunny's opinion alone, but a strongly enough held one to want to voice it.

Are you having a laugh, there are plenty of sites and forums for recreational users to got to, and NO they are not in any legal trouble, infact some have been going longer than ATS? So lets keep it real and to the point. A conspiracy site shouldnt be closing these topics down? Are you for real?

reply to post by crazyewok


I am not SkepticOverlord, so what I say is not policy - but to me the lines seem clear enough. Discussing personal use is forbidden. Thus I can say "The so-called War on Drugs is a travesty" but not "The War on Drugs is a travesty because I really like to get high".

IE there are plenty of political and Constitutional factors to engage which do not include statements like "I will smoke/snort/take whatever I want because it's natural".

Sadly I wish that we could discuss some of the medicinal aspects of some substances more openly... but eventually somebody comes along and posts something like "I snorted Draino and saw God. Now I am an evolved being and must continue to snort Draino. I recommend this to everyone who wants to crystallize their chakra" or some such.

My personal guideline is that I am not going to say anything here that I would not say to a cop, face to face. Obviously that would include protecting myself and exercising my Fifth Amendments right not to incriminate myself.

Food for thought.

reply to post by neformore


Who is bragging how high they got? Thats not what the discussion was about?

reply to post by Hefficide


That kinda fair then and if those are the conditions I would easly keep in them without violating T&C.

reply to post by crazyewok


I give up. It looks like the forum is going to be a drug-focused forum, or as I like to think of it, a "drug-fuelled ban fest" for at least the first couple of weeks, or until it gets shut down. I'm just having a tough time wrapping my brain around what part of "Posse Comitatus" screams "it's just about the drugs, man!"

It appears that most want to discuss drugs as their focus, rather than jack-booted thuggery, including the instances when the jack boots are accompanied by gray flannel Brooks Brothers suits.

I despair.

Have at it, then. I'll just sit back and watch. It really doesn't seem that hard to understand to me, so obviously I'm looking at something wrong.

reply to post by nenothtu


I honestly disagree. I actually posted what was my first and probably only "War on Drugs" thread a few hours ago... Mostly to vent feelings that I have personally had on the issue for a very long time and to discuss the excessive and privatized imprisonment of American citizens.

My future contributions to this forum will almost certainly return to my usual pet subject... cyber spying. I think that others will also follow this pattern to a large extent.

LiveForever8
So everyone else is punished because of the actions of few?

Is that a surprise to any adult that, unfortunately, the world works that way?