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

Originally posted by Senduko
reply to post by SkepticOverlord

Bottom line -- anything advocating recreational or person use will get you banned -- anything advocating legalization will be removed.

 

Okay may I just point out the Irony regarding your comment/ your stance towards this subject and your avatar?

edit on 25-7-2013 by Senduko because: (no reason given)

OMGosh - I was literally just going to point that out! So funny - and totally not meant as a dig at SO either. You beat me to it by like 30 seconds! Oh the hilarity!

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


So I take it your imagination doesn't extend past heavily armored police walking door to door as what comprises a police state.

Or is it just plain apathy.

Originally posted by crazyewok

Originally posted by Daedalus



query: how can we speak against what we see as "disproportionate" penalties and enforcement of a flawed legal realm, without appearing to "advocate" general useage?

the stakes (imposed by site administration) are too high, to not make absolutely certain of EXACTLY what is allowed and disallowed before posting on such topics.

Thats why I think it might just be better to remove this part of the forum as its going to be a can of worms

PS Not trying to be rude, just makeing a helpfull suggestion.

edit on 25-7-2013 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)

agreed....he nuked most of my post.....and i was just asking about issues of scientific, and historical interest...

i'll probably just avoid the section altogether...seems like a trap..

reply to post by Daedalus


It's pretty simple. Avoid the drug discussions and don't advocate or promote drug use and you'll be fine...

It's not rocket science.

-SAP-

Senduko
your stance towards this subject and your avatar?

My stance toward the subject matter appropriate for ATS, and my personal stance are not necessarily the same.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


This debate about what ATS does and does not permit when discussing drugs goes back to one of my original criticisms.

The position of ATS has long been we cannot discuss the legislation or use of any illegal drug and this is fraught with problems one of which is being highlighted by the very existence of this forum.

You are saying to us that we can now discuss drugs in the context of a "war on drugs" or the law enforcement aspect of drugs.

You could not possibly have such discussion with out discussing the possibility of legalizing any narcotic no matter how illegal. A huge aspect of the debate about the "war on drugs" is the questions "should drugs be legal or illegal?" as it stands ATS's T&C's do not facilitate a framework in which that question can be debated.

If i was to start a thread about legalizing cannabis and I list a range of reasons for it being legal for example, then I would expect that thread to be deleted.

By creating this thread you are actually contradicting a long held position of ATS .

Originally posted by Daedalus

...seems like a trap..

Sorry I just had too

Originally posted by OLD HIPPY DUDE
reply to post by Logarock

 

Taping is not hard at all if you have the knowledge and equipment.

Tampering with telcom. lines or equipment is a federal crime.

edit on 25-7-2013 by OLD HIPPY DUDE because: (no reason given)

Anthony Pellicano: Wiretapper to the Stars is in federal prison.

Originally posted by SloAnPainful
reply to post by Daedalus

 

It's pretty simple. Avoid the drug discussions and don't advocate or promote drug use and you'll be fine...

It's not rocket science.

-SAP-

Exactly, It's not that difficult. You can't say "last night I did ..."

You can say we are losing the war on drugs. Be clever and choose your words carefully.

Originally posted by SloAnPainful
reply to post by Daedalus

 

It's pretty simple. Avoid the drug discussions and don't advocate or promote drug use and you'll be fine...

It's not rocket science.

-SAP-

that's it, roll your eyes dismissively, as if i'm some kind of effing idiot.....

they announce a section to talk about the drug war, then tell us that we can't say anything that could been seen as advocating use, but if you disagree with the drug war, then you're automatically advocating use...

it's a logic trap.....but sure, talking down to me for asking questions, and trying to clarify, makes everything completely ok, AMIRITE?

reply to post by crazyewok


a star for you, sir...i was considering doing the same thing..

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
So what when the police go on a dawn raid of a suspected drug dealer (yes the do exist) they should not be armed?

Lots of drug dealers also keep guns, just like most American's do, and it is only right that the police take steps to protect themselves.

How about you make a list of instances where police (and we are talking about events on US soil) raided a drug dealer and that drug dealer fired a weapon at the police. (I can think of one single case, and allegedly the cops did not identify themselves as they burst through the door)....

...and I'll make a list of cases where the cops executed a "no knock" raid on the wrong house, and/or shot the homeowners, and/or shot a pet, etc....


I bet my list will be longer.


The fact is that 999,999 times out of 1,000,000 drug dealers do not fire on police during raids. They know they're facing insane charges and plenty of years in prison for their activities, without having to add the murder of law enforcement (and thus a life / death sentence) to their list of charges. Shooting a cop has never gotten a single drug dealer (in the US) out of a raid, or a jail sentence. It doesn't work, so it doesn't happen.

What does happen, is when the police come busting into someone's home in full military style gear, without knocking or identifying themselves, is sometimes, just sometimes, people pull guns on "the intruders" to defend themselves (as is their right) before realizing who those unannounced intruders actually are.


I saw a video of a no-knock raid where the cops busted in, didn't identify themselves early or clearly enough (in my opinion)... and you can see a guy in the arch of his hallway -maybe 10-15 feet away from the cops- brandishing a golf club. And the cops put bullets in this man before yelling "drop it." The man was not advancing when this occurred. Simply standing, braced for an attack, so far from the cops where the club posed no real danger, when he was gunned down.

Utah police shot and killed a man within seconds of storming his parents' home, video of the raid shows. The police had a warrant to search for drugs, but found only a small amount of pot and an empty vial that had apparently contained meth.

Local media report that Todd Blair, 45, was a drug addict rather than a dealer, according to friends and family.

In the video, Blair can be seen holding a golf club above his head as police smash through his door. Within seconds, without demanding Blair drop the iron or lay down, Weber-Morgan Strike Force Sgt. Troy Burnett fires three shots into him. The local prosecutor has deemed the killing justified, but his family is planning a federal lawsuit, arguing that police had plenty of alternatives.

Blair's death raises the question of why multiple heavily-armed officers were sent to raid a drug addict -- and why Weber and Morgan counties in Utah would even need a "Narcotics Strike Force." Local police forces are able to keep property they seize in drug raids, often without the necessity of a conviction, creating a perverse incentive to reinvest in military equipment and carry out additional raids.

The Salt Lake Tribune reported that the main focus of the police investigation had been Blair's roommate, who police said in the application for the warrant would destroy evidence if they weren't given authority to carry out a "no-knock" raid. But police were aware that his roommate had moved out.

It's legalized armed robbery, and yet another way in which our system is massively corrupt. The seizure / forfeiture laws need a massive overhaul. The way things stand currently, they don't have to prove much of anything in order to seize and keep your property. In fact, I was talking about this just yesterday in the thread about the stripper who had a million dollars taken from her-- for no reason other than that it was deemed "suspicious" that she had it.

How ridiculous.

Originally posted by SloAnPainful
reply to post by Daedalus

 

It's pretty simple. Avoid the drug discussions and don't advocate or promote drug use and you'll be fine...

It's not rocket science.

-SAP-

So may as well remove the discussions on the war on drugs and penalties.

Because it seems to you can only post if you agree on them.



Again not being pedantic I just think a lot of accidental T&C will happen.

reply to post by Daedalus


I wasn't thinking you were a "effing idiot". If I truly thought that, I would say it.

All I was saying is it is simple... You take take it how you want....

-SAP-

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


About time...

Des

they announce a section to talk about the drug war, then tell us that we can't say anything that could been seen as advocating use, but if you disagree with the drug war, then you're automatically advocating use...

reply to post by Daedalus


Some of us have been waiting a long time to discuss the Drug War in an intelligent manner.

Small steps my friend. Nobody is talking down to you. Lets see how it goes...

reply to post by whyamIhere


Exactly. Thanks for making that point.

-SAP-

Originally posted by whyamIhere


Some of us have been waiting a long time to discuss the Drug War in an intelligent manner.

But how can you disscuss it if you cant disagree with it

If people were allowed to freely discuss advocating and rec. use stories it would completely RUIN ATS, most people should be able to understand that much.. It would lower the site into a pit of raw sewage if that were allowed unfettered, so I 100% agree with ATS's policy on that..

. ATS is a first class discussion board with a lot of awesome people and I for one am glad that particular topic has great limits on it, otherwise it would just rubbish everything.. People should have some class and respect for keeping things clean here, and be glad about that.. This sets ATS far apart from other sites who don't care either way.. I'm glad the site owners and staff have these rules as it gives real credibility to their operations and reflects greatly on the staff's good character..

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

crazyewok
Eg" I say I think such and such should be legal" Does that come under advocating?

Yes.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but that seems a little bit extreme to me, and simply put, here is why:



Advocating for the reform of drug laws is not the same thing as advocating for drugs themselves. It can be seen as simply an acknowledgement that the government's war on it's own citizens does more harm than it does good. I'm sure many of the members of LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition) would not advocate for drugs, or for drug use. But having been on the other side of the badge, they understand the harms "The war" does, are far greater than the harm from that which it purports to fight. (And in fact, this "war" works in the opposite regard as any solid statistics will tell you-- there are more users, and cheaper drugs of greater purity than ever-- if their real aim was to create more addicts and lock them up, and seize "drug profits" it's working beautifully. Otherwise, it's a failure, and a real harm to society.)

For reasons such as this, one can still be against the harms of drug addiction, while still opposing the "War on Drugs."


I hope I made my point clear, and that's it's acceptable for discussion here (and won't be deleted.)


....*bats eyelashes*....