# Crackdown on drugs at Hypography

44 replies to this topic

### #18 Tormod

Tormod

Hypographer

• Members
• 14353 posts

Posted 10 August 2006 - 09:55 AM

Come on TFS, this is hilarious. Why are you so hell bent on testing the limits here? Do you want to show that the moderators are stupid and inconsistent (ie, human beings), or are you just being a smartass?

### #19 TheFaithfulStone

TheFaithfulStone

Rockin'

• Members
• 1488 posts

Posted 10 August 2006 - 09:58 AM

Sorry - I took dave to mean it was not okay - and that the "notice" would be the kind of "notice" you don't want.

It's not like I have much say in the matter I just don't want to start a rant about how drugs should be legal if it's going to get me banned.

Come on TFS, this is hilarious. Why are you so hell bent on testing the limits here? Do you want to show that the moderators are stupid and inconsistent (ie, human beings), or are you just being a smartass?

Ouch.

I don't think the moderators are stupid or inconsistent. Sorry if I implied that.

I'll go away now.

TFS

### #20 Tormod

Tormod

Hypographer

• Members
• 14353 posts

Posted 10 August 2006 - 10:01 AM

drugs should be legal

*note to self...watch this fella*

### #21 pgrmdave

pgrmdave

Lurking

• Members
• 3057 posts

Posted 10 August 2006 - 10:06 AM

What about if it were "What's the problem with anyone smoking weed?"

That is, if it were an argument about legalization? Is the position that drugs should be legal no longer acceptable?

I was going to put something about this in my first post, but I didn't have enough time to think of how to say it well. Questioning whether or not drugs should be illegal is, in my opinion, okay, with conditions. There is a difference between certain logical arguments ("Why have alcohol legal and marijuana illegal?") and certain emotional arguments ("It opens up your minds and lets you see new dimensions that you can't otherwise see"). The first is a logical argument that can be backed up with facts, experiments, statistics. The second isn't even verifiable. There is also a difference between making it personal and making it vague in that regard ("I should be able to smoke" vs. "Smoking should be legal"). The first, while not necessarily bad in and of itself, has led to some undesirable discussions, and hence we would watch that thread carefully. The second is preferable.

### #22 TheFaithfulStone

TheFaithfulStone

Rockin'

• Members
• 1488 posts

Posted 10 August 2006 - 10:49 AM

Gotcha.

### #23 InfiniteNow

InfiniteNow

Suspended

• Members
• 9148 posts

Posted 10 August 2006 - 12:39 PM

Everyone bear in mind too that it is not a black and mild (oopss...sorry...) black and white issue. As with any new implementation, there will be some things still uncertain. The basic premise to all, and the context to be remembered is...

Please, regardless of what you are discussing, keep it scientific. Mentioning that you do one thing or another in context of an otherwise scientific post will not (IMO) get you banned or the post deleted.

If my understanding of the regulation is accurate, which of course it may not be which is why such decisions are made by the entire team of admins and mods, then each will be taken in context.

### #24 Mercedes Benzene

Mercedes Benzene

Student

• Moderators
• 2950 posts

Posted 10 August 2006 - 01:06 PM

Everyone bear in mind too that it is not a black and mild (oopss...sorry...)

### #25 Cedars

Cedars

Creating

• Members
• 1810 posts

Posted 10 August 2006 - 04:30 PM

PostMagnet is a completely different system than Hypography, so we can't move things between the two sites.

OK, either I didnt know that or had forgotten.

We do not discourage the discussion of drug use. We want to stop the drug *talk*. There is a huge difference between the two.

Yes there is a difference. I am not worried about going over the line myself and just had a point to ponder.

### #26 Mercedes Benzene

Mercedes Benzene

Student

• Moderators
• 2950 posts

Posted 11 August 2006 - 07:34 PM

ok

Okay what?

### #27 Drip Curl Magic

Drip Curl Magic

Creating

• Members
• 1183 posts

Posted 12 August 2006 - 01:39 PM

Lately there have been a lot of threads and discussions about experimentation with drugs for obviously non-scientific reasons. The admins and moderators, and several concerned users, are taking steps to stop this trend.

First of all, we will be adding a clause to our rules:
"The explicit discussion of drugs in order to promote non-scientific experimentation of drugs, show people how to obtain or create drugs, or providing histories of drug use to show off, will lead to deletion of posts, and we will issue warnings."

Repeated violations, or serious breaches of this rule, WILL lead to banning from our forums.

We welcome drug related discussions as fits naturally when talking about medical treatments, scientific experiments, and effects and costs of drug abuse on society.

Reporting good (or bad) news about the use of drugs in a medical experiment is not against our rules. However, such claims will require strong backup, in the form of links to sources and quotes from papers etc, in order to avoid deletion.

We are sorry if this is seen as censorship. However, it is not the aim of Hypography to become a forum where people come to discuss drug use outside of a scientific realm.

Hypography wants to support the fight against drug abuse. Many of our members are minors and as such we have a responsibility to educate them, not persuade them to try drugs.

Whether some of our members experiment with drugs or not is not something we take a moral stand for or against. This is not a vendetta. However, we discourage posting while under the influence of drugs, particularly if the post is all about how the "trip" feels.

I'd like to make a point about equality on both opinionated sides.

I agree that people shouldn't come here and talk about how "cool" their trips were. There should be no promotion of any drug.... Simply facts about drugs in the name of medical science.

"We welcome drug related discussions as fits naturally when talking about medical treatments, scientific experiments, and effects and costs of drug abuse on society."

This statement implys that you can talk about the negativity of drug ABUSE has on society.

I believe we can all agree on what the definition of drug ABUSE is.... but we all have different opinions of where the line is between drug user and drug abuser.

I would like to make it clear to everyone that if it is considered wrong to promote the use of recreational drugs.... then it should be equally wrong to Demote the use of recreational drugs as well.

We should only be allowed to put forth cold hard facts about drugs.... and not impose our opinions on anyone else. This is a science forum.... so, I don't want social discrimination of either side.

COLD HARD FACTS. Leave the opinion up to the reader. That's it.

### #28 Drip Curl Magic

Drip Curl Magic

Creating

• Members
• 1183 posts

Posted 12 August 2006 - 01:47 PM

Case in point-

I don't want to hear anyone say "people who use ___ recreationally are good for society because...."

And I equally don't want to hear anyone say anything like "people who use___ recreationally are bad for society because...."

only fair?

### #29 Loricybin

Loricybin

Explaining

• Members
• 953 posts

Posted 12 August 2006 - 03:33 PM

Case in point-

I don't want to hear anyone say "people who use ___ recreationally are good for society because...."

And I equally don't want to hear anyone say anything like "people who use___ recreationally are bad for society because...."

only fair?

thank you for getting that across.

### #30 CraigD

CraigD

Creating

• 8034 posts

Posted 12 August 2006 - 03:49 PM

"We welcome drug related discussions as fits naturally when talking about medical treatments, scientific experiments, and effects and costs of drug abuse on society."

This statement implys that you can talk about the negativity of drug ABUSE has on society.

I think DCM makes a good point.

Of course, posts that make scientifically unsupported statements about drugs (eg: “all licit drugs are beneficial and harmless, while all illicit drugs are detrimental and harmful” or “LSD has been shown to cause damage to somatic and germ DNA” or “marijuana cures cancer”) can expect to be criticized. However, there’s a human social tendency to avoid criticism of scientifically invalid statements that coincide with present of past statement of authority figures – call it the “keeping your head down” or “going with the herd” instinct. People who aspire to scientific and intellectual integrity must resist this tendency, striving for impartiality and to overcome prejudices they may have acquired from trusted but fallible sources, such as parents, teachers, and clergy.

### #31 C1ay

C1ay

¿42?

• 6488 posts

Posted 13 August 2006 - 07:21 AM

It's interesting that I can totally agree with the action, and it's impetus, and still be a little worried by some of the language in the thread.

Of course, I don't come to Hypography to hear about someone's trip - but I don't want social science discussions about whether or not tripping is a valid pastime shut down because someone thinks it is.

I totally agree that posts about your trip, or posts "selling" drugs shouldn't be allowed - but it seems like the language of the regulation could allow it to turn into a rule where certain opinions, even if given in a scientific or logical context, could be excluded - as those discussion could be seen as "promot[ing] non-scientific experimentation of drugs"

TFS

I actually don't see this as a problem. Anyone that doesn't like the way the rule is applied is free to rent their own server at a host of their choosing and park their own domain there and host all of these types of discussions that they like on their own terms. There is no Constitutional guarantee of free speech here and such discussions here will be on our terms!

### #32 Mercedes Benzene

Mercedes Benzene

Student

• Moderators
• 2950 posts

Posted 13 August 2006 - 07:41 AM

Anyone that doesn't like the way the rule is applied is free to rent their own server at a host of their choosing and park their own domain there and host all of these types of discussions that they like on their own terms. There is no Constitutional guarantee of free speech here and such discussions here will be on our terms!

Here, here!

### #33 Tarantism

Tarantism

son et lumire

• Members
• 2133 posts

Posted 14 August 2006 - 04:34 PM

we sit on the shoulders of giants.

### #34 IDMclean

IDMclean

A Person

• Members
• 1670 posts

Posted 07 January 2008 - 01:14 AM

[....]

We welcome drug related discussions as fits naturally when talking about medical treatments, scientific experiments, and effects and costs of drug abuse on society.

Reporting good (or bad) news about the use of drugs in a medical experiment is not against our rules. However, such claims will require strong backup, in the form of links to sources and quotes from papers etc, in order to avoid deletion.

We are sorry if this is seen as censorship. However, it is not the aim of Hypography to become a forum where people come to discuss drug use outside of a scientific realm.

Hypography wants to support the fight against drug abuse. Many of our members are minors and as such we have a responsibility to educate them, not persuade them to try drugs.
[...]

I just wanted to note that the D.A.R.E. program of the united states has actually been shown in certain studies to be the probable cause of increased drug use$^1$.

Though I certainly support the moderators of Hypography in keeping discussions here at Hypography scientific and evidence supported; I hereby register my opposition to any "War on Drugs"-based politics. I hope that the phrase "drug abuse" could be more clearly defined and the term "drug" could perhaps be linked to the working definition used by the moderators here on Hypography.

Furthermore, I will note that I have participated in the past in the discussions involving controlled substances. Undue restriction of such topics would hamper my ability and willingness to participate on the forums. Towards the end of mutual understanding, I would encourage the Moderators to perhaps pick a notable example of acceptable discussion and contrast it to a notable example of unacceptable discussion, so we may better understand exactly what this policy fully entails.

 I support responsible kids and adults on drugs.

Drug: "a chemical substance used in the treatment, cure, prevention, or diagnosis of disease or used to otherwise enhance physical or mental well-being."$^2$
Controlled Substance: "any of a category of behavior-altering or addictive drugs, as heroin or cocaine, whose possession and use are restricted by law." $^3$