Drugs talk

kneemos

Surprised it seems to be OK to talk about how great it is to take drugs(as in the "ideal moments of incredible high" thread) considering it's a thirteen site?

Elmidena

A link would be helpful

kneemos

Elmidena wrote: »

A link would be helpful

Can't I'm afraid,but it's in Ah.

Potatoeman

kneemos wrote: »

Surprised it seems to be OK to talk about how great it is to take drugs(as in the "ideal moments of incredible high" thread) considering it's a thirteen site?

They are just talking about it.

kneemos

Potatoeman wrote: »

They are just talking about it.

Saying how great it is.

Elmidena

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057037251
To save others the hassle of looking.
I also disagree with general promotion of usage posts, one post in particular recommending everyone try E and wanting to get their parents to try it seems to cross the site policy IMO.

Potatoeman

kneemos wrote: »

Saying how great it is.

Just an opinion, Im sure you will find plenty about other adult activities.

humanji

kneemos wrote: »

Saying how great it is.

So? Are people not allowed to have opinions now?

kneemos

humanji wrote: »

So? Are people not allowed to have opinions now?

Well that's the point I was making.Should people be allowed express such opinions where children are allowed access.
It's still an illegal activity.Just seems odd that drug use can be openly glorified.

Cookie_Monster

Elmidena wrote: »

I also disagree with general promotion of usage posts, one post in particular recommending everyone try E and wanting to get their parents to try it seems to cross the site policy IMO.

report that one, it's "advocating illegal activity" and is a card at the least

Dades

The mentions of drugs were just random posts in response to a question which would inevitably receive eclectic answers. I'm sure if the thread descended into comparative stories of drug-taking then the mods would see fit to stop it going in that direction. Though I'd agree perhaps one of those posts might have been snipped.

Sometimes you draw more attention to a subject by censoring it, rather than letting it fade into a general thread.

kneemos

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

report that one, it's "advocating illegal activity" and is a card at the least

I reported it earlier that's why I'm here.

Elmidena

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

report that one, it's "advocating illegal activity" and is a card at the least

Did that before posting here

Cookie_Monster

a lot of that thread has been pruned now by the way

humanji

kneemos wrote: »

Well that's the point I was making.Should people be allowed express such opinions where children are allowed access.
It's still an illegal activity.Just seems odd that drug use can be openly glorified.

Dades wrote: »

The mentions of drugs were just random posts in response to a question which would inevitably receive eclectic answers. I'm sure if the thread descended into comparative stories of drug-taking then the mods would see fit to stop it going in that direction. Though I'd agree perhaps one of those posts might have been snipped.

Sometimes you draw more attention to a subject by censoring it, rather than letting it fade into a general thread.

Why snip it though? They think that people should experience it, but they're not telling people to take it. There's countless similar posts on every marijuana thread and nobody ever has a problem with them.

If many people really have an issue with anyone not condemning drugs, they we'll crack down on it, but it seems a rather insane approach to people not actually doing anything wrong.

hullaballoo

My viewpoint is that the dissent around drug-taking from other members could be considered better from a social policy perspective than pure censorship.

I agree that a thread that descends into story swapping about different drugs/the same drug should be culled but allowing both sides of the divide (and the neutrals!) chime in on the debate might be better from a social perspective; cannabis discussion comes up frequently and it's always useful to get an insight from all sides.

returnNull

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

report that one, it's "advocating illegal activity" and is a card at the least

better call the gardai too ,some one admited to stealing twinks jocks...

kneemos

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

a lot of that thread has been pruned now by the way

All still there.Just something that was deleted earlier.

Dades

If I was going to delete that post recommending everybody try E it would be with a view to keeping the thread on rails. As it happens, it was early in the morning and the thread seems to have faded away anyway, so nothing came of it it seems.

kneemos

Hell of a policy.Swear words are banned but "coming up on crystal meth"is fine.

returnNull

kneemos wrote: »

Hell of a policy.Swear words are banned but "coming up on crystal meth"is fine.

swear words arent banned ,you can get around the filter and not get sanctioned for it.

humanji

Because he was joking?

kneemos

humanji wrote: »

Because he was joking?

Really?

humanji

Yes.

K-9

There's a difference between somebody talking about a drug high on a thread talking about highs, and actively promoting it, no point censoring talk about it either as that doesn't work, drugs education courses wouldn't do that and they'be aimed at over 13's.

There are a load of things discussed on this site that are "illegal activities". Speeding (and many other motoring ones). Turf cutting. Downloading movies. Using American Netflix. And many many more on many forums. The biggest example would be that which humanji gave which is "getting stoned".

Do we ban all talk of anything which is illegal? That would be damn near impossible. As long as noone is giving direction on how to carry out illegal activities then it's not over the line IMO.

frag420

There is a thread about what one would do if one were to be assaulted on a night out over on AH.Many replies including my own indicated a retaliatory level of violence( I jokingly said I would set them on fire).

So why is it people smoking s bit of harmless plant stuff that gets people's gruff up yet condoning violence does not? You seem more worried about what perceived harm a person does to themselves as opposed to the harm one could do to another!! And if you are worried about 13 yr olds reading it il assume you will be writing strongly worded letters to various tv stations, programme makers, musicians etc that incorporate drug taking and violence in their art?

Or would asking parents to actually parent their children be too much??

Insect Overlord

kneemos

Deleted User wrote: »

There are a load of things discussed on this site that are "illegal activities". Speeding (and many other motoring ones). Turf cutting. Downloading movies. Using American Netflix. And many many more on many forums. The biggest example would be that which humanji gave which is "getting stoned".

Do we ban all talk of anything which is illegal? That would be damn near impossible. As long as noone is giving direction on how to carry out illegal activities then it's not over the line IMO.

If you're going to have a thirteen age limit then surly you have to be responsible with it.
"Driving through the city at night while on heroin"doesn't compare to Netflix.

Amirani

kneemos wrote: »

If you're going to have a thirteen age limit then surly you have to be responsible with it.
"Driving through the city at night while on heroin"doesn't compare to Netflix.

Where do you draw the line though? At what point does an illegal activity become "too illegal" to talk about?

I think the focus on not allowing instruction or advice on how to carry out illegal activity is ultimately the most pragmatic approach to take. Otherwise you're just banning opinions.

kneemos

NiallSparky wrote: »

Where do you draw the line though? At what point does an illegal activity become "too illegal" to talk about?

I think the focus on not allowing instruction or advice on how to carry out illegal activity is ultimately the most pragmatic approach to take. Otherwise you're just banning opinions.

You draw the line at drug use.
Anything I've seen in the thread could be seen as opinions or suggestions.

kneemos

kneemos wrote: »

You draw the line at drug use.
Anything I've seen in the thread could be seen as opinions or suggestions.

Why though? Why drug use?

Drinking is illegal for under eighteens, should we ban people say "I was so drunk, it was brilliant"?

kneemos

Deleted User wrote: »

Why though? Why drug use?

Drinking is illegal for under eighteens, should we ban people say "I was so drunk, it was brilliant"?

Because it's dangerous,damaging,addictive,expensive,addles the brain and can lead to all sorts of social and phsycological problems.

kneemos

kneemos wrote: »

Because it's dangerous,damaging,addictive,expensive,addles the brain and can lead to all sorts of social and phsycological problems.

Are we talking about alcohol or drugs? It's hard to distinguish.....

Insect Overlord

kneemos wrote: »

Because it's dangerous,damaging,addictive,expensive,addles the brain and can lead to all sorts of social and phsycological problems.

So are video games...

kneemos

Insect Overlord wrote: »

So are video games...

Well you could say balloons are dangerous because they make you light headed.
Condoning the use of one substance because some other substance is acceptable is nonsense,taken to it's logical ending you could say why not kill people if we already kill animals.
The only point I'm trying to make is the apparent acceptable discussion of drug use on a site open to thirteen year olds.If it was eighteen I wouldn't have a problem.

humanji

kneemos wrote: »

Well you could say balloons are dangerous because they make you light headed.
Condoning the use of one substance because some other substance is acceptable is nonsense,taken to it's logical ending you could say why not kill people if we already kill animals.
The only point I'm trying to make is the apparent acceptable discussion of drug use on a site open to thirteen year olds.If it was eighteen I wouldn't have a problem.

What about all the comments talking about how using drugs isn't worth it? Is that not a more valuable bit of information than completely hiding the existence of drugs from people who are already exposed to drugs in real life? Which is better, censorship or education?

Nodin

kneemos wrote: »

Well you could say balloons are dangerous because they make you light headed.
Condoning the use of one substance because some other substance is acceptable is nonsense,taken to it's logical ending you could say why not kill people if we already kill animals.
The only point I'm trying to make is the apparent acceptable discussion of drug use on a site open to thirteen year olds.If it was eighteen I wouldn't have a problem.

.....you realise that many 13 year olds are aware of drugs.....?

Dades

kneemos, you understand that Boards isn't condoning anything, right? It's an opinion expressed by one of thousands of users of the forum. Allowing an opinion to be expressed is not the same. We don't agree with or condone everything that is said here.

If you have an issue with talking-up drug use, that's fine, many do. But don't bring the age-requirement for this forum into it as it doesn't exist to nurf every discussion down to some arbitrary safe level.

kneemos

kneemos wrote: »

The only point I'm trying to make is the apparent acceptable discussion of drug use on a site open to thirteen year olds.If it was eighteen I wouldn't have a problem.

You know the internet is open to anyone of any age who can gain access to it though, right?

And you know the policy on boards is that you must have a parent or guardian's permission to register and also their permission for what you post?

Cuddlesworth

Nodin wrote: »

.....you realise that many 13 year olds are aware of drugs.....?

And have better access to them then most adults.

kneemos

I can appreciate what everyone is saying.It just seems odd on a thirteen site.
I know they can see it in other places and that they are aware of drugs and I don't want to see everything censored but at the end of the day you have to be responsible for your own bit of world.As I say it just strikes me as odd nobody has a problem with the suggestions/opinins for getting a high.
Maybe I'm old and decrepid and should stop peeing in the flower pot.

Insect Overlord

kneemos wrote: »

I can appreciate what everyone is saying.It just seems odd on a thirteen site.
I know they can see it in other places and that they are aware of drugs and I don't want to see everything censored but at the end of the day you have to be responsible for your own bit of world

What about individual and parental responsibilities? Boards.ie can't nanny every easily led/emotionally immature poster, whether they're 14 or 34 years old.

Karl Stein

The most harmful aspect of recreational drug use is the possibility of getting a criminal conviction.

MadsL

We want AH to be kiddie-safe?

Please.

OK, since boards requires a birthdate to register, make AH an over-18 forum.

Problem?

minidazzler

Kneemos, this is the most relevant thing for you to read.



If drugs are the only place you wanna draw a line you are a very strange person. There are threads where people can go into pretty epic levels of fantasy violence, but doing something that harms no one but the person involved is your line...... grow up and just don't read threads that upset you. If kids read it, guess what, that isn't what is gonna make them do drugs. Because they still won't have drugs yet.

padd b1975

Dades wrote: »

If I was going to delete that post recommending everybody try E it would be with a view to keeping the thread on rails. As it happens, it was early in the morning and the thread seems to have faded away anyway, so nothing came of it it seems.

I don't think it really matters what time it was posted, and timing of a post should definitely not be used as an excuse for inaction by a mod.

By allowing the post to stay, it sets a precedent for future benchmarking of what might be allowed to fly.
A self made unnecessary rod for the mod's back if you will.

The fact that the thread fizzled out is irrelevant.

Dades

padd b1975 wrote: »

I don't think it really matters what time it was posted, and timing of a post should definitely not be used as an excuse for inaction by a mod.

Nobody used anything as an excuse. The mods allowed the post to remain. Posts were actioned in that thread, just not the one in question, so "inaction" does not apply here.

I have no problem with that, despite the fact that I might have acted differently. They know the forum better than I do and this isn't exactly a Big Deal.

padd b1975

padd b1975 wrote: »

I don't think it really matters what time it was posted, and timing of a post should definitely not be used as an excuse for inaction by a mod.

By allowing the post to stay, it sets a precedent for future benchmarking of what might be allowed to fly.
A self made unnecessary rod for the mod's back if you will.

The fact that the thread fizzled out is irrelevant.

It does matter what time it was posted. You have to remember that mods are volunteers and have lives and jobs, so chances are that if a post is made late at night, a mod is in bed. This site is 24/7, the mods/admins are not.

NegativeCreep

Making something out of nothing. Get over it.

MadsL

AH - Over 18.

I was being serious...no comments/thoughts?