So could I talk about it if I posted it in the Comment on Cecil’s Columns forum? Also, I thought that most of the policies on what subjects were taboo were based on problems of liability for the Chicago Reader. I don’t see how the liability changes based on which part of the Website the material is on, but IANAL so I could be wrong about that part.
Our general rule is that you shouldn’t discuss anything illegal on the board. Of course we usually conform to what is considered “serious” by US law and the general cultural view, so if you posted “I threw away my coke can in the street” (littering) or “I reached 100 mph on my new Honda on I405 between San Francisco and LA” (speeding) will not be considered the same as “I started a campfire and left it burning in Colorado to see what would happen” (possible arson) or “I just beat up my wife and broke two of her teeth because she talked back to me” (assault).
techchick68, you say “If people want to admit to drug use, why not let them?”
a) Drug laws in the USA are pretty strict, so I would refer to my paragraph above (things that are considered “serious” by US law are also considered more “serious” by the staff.) I’m sure you’ve read stories of seizure of property (e.g. expensive yachts) because a tiny amount of marijuana was found on it.
Another reason not to let them: who will have to deal with the later requests “someone I know has joined the board and I don’t want them to know I do cocaine? Can you please delete my post?”? To answer my rhetorical question: the person that has to go delete the post or else tell the poster “tough luck” will be the staff member, not you.
the intent of my post, techchick was I believe that your mileage varies quite a bit from others. and specifically in response to this
(and yes, I did read the next line where you reminded us that we’re all responsible for what we post)
In your personal life, IIRC, you are essentially your own boss, have no real concerns about $$, paychecks, don’t have child, ex spouse, inlaws, etc. So, you really have fairly little to worry about in terms of what you post.
Surely you realize that situation is pretty damned rare. And while we’re all certainly responsible for what we post, I don’t think it’s at all a bad thing for us to be reminded that it’s a public message board and public admissions of illegal activity can certainly have negative consequences. And, even non- illegal activity - I recall a very high profile poster here posted a thread where he contemplated a major life change and hadn’t discussed same with significant other who then read the thread, and disaster resulted.
So, bottom line - posting about illegal activities can indeed prove disasterous to people.
Arnold, I sent the OP of “I got my husband stoned” to you, Cajun Man, Coldfire and UncleBeer before daring to post it. UncleBeer is the one who replied, telling me to go ahead. He added the phrase “CC: MPSIMS mods”, which I took to mean that it was okay with all four of you. Was that not so?
Also, Eutychus, who closed my thread, moderates Cafe Society, not MPSIMS. And Tuba, whose domain is ATMB, closed the “labia” thread in IMHO and the “exploding testicles” thread in the Pit. Do all mods have jurisdiction in all forums? And can they overrule an administrator? (At the time, I still thought you were okay with my post.)
Even if that is so, why, as I asked Eutychus, is it not enough to get permission from the four mods in charge of that forum? Should I have submitted the OP to all 19 mods? I’m being serious here. If I’d been advised not to post, I wouldn’t have. And quite frankly, I was more concerned about the possibility of Euty thinking I was a troublemaker than about the thread being locked. (Sorry, Euty, if I didn’t make that clear in my e-mail.)
Rilchiam: CC means “carbon copy”, indicating that we got a copy of Unclebeer’s e-mail. That doesn’t necessarily mean that we agreed with what we had to say. FTR, here’s what I would have told you: “Your thread is probably OK but I would prefer that you not post it; drug threads are a headache since there’s a fine line of what kinds of drug discussions we allow at the SDMB.” I thought your subject matter was problematic for the moderators (and could probably lead to a Pit thread) because a) you were discussing criminal behaviour in which you routinely engage (smoking pot); b) you were discussing the fact that another person was being encouraged to engage in that behaviour (people suggesting that your husband try it.) With those caveats, once UncleBeer gave you the OK, I was fine with that. But I don’t think that Eutychus was out of line by closing it either.
Who can close which thread in which forum: Every moderator has the ability (through the software) and the informal permission to close a thread in another forum. Eutychus did not know that UncleBeer had sent you an e-mail saying your post was OK.
Can a moderator override an administrator? The software would allow you to do that. If Coldfire and I decided to engage in a pissing match, I could decide to close a thread, he could re-open it, I could close it again, on and on ad infinitum. There is no formal hierarchy here, except that administrators can change the board settings and TubaDiva, LynnBodoni and C K Dexter Haven’s pronouncements carry more weight because of their seniority and the extra work they do.
Rilchiam as troublemaker: has anyone said anything to you about that thread aside from it being closed? Not to my knowledge. I don’t think you need to worry about your posting privileges.
Okay. I rather thought it was like that, but I didn’t know for sure.
**
If I’d been told that, I would not have posted. I guess people know by now that I don’t post just to prove that I can.
**
Hm. No offense, but that sounds a bit problematic; a lot of opportunity for toes to be stepped on.
**
Nor mine.
**
Okay then!
And yet it hardly ever happens. So I guess we must be doing a pretty good job after all. 
Oh, and I forgot to say this:
The way I look at it is:
Your OP made it to the boards. That’s not the end of the world. The thread was eventually closed by Eutychus. That’s not the end of the world either.
Man, this shit is hurting my head. You guys wanna get high?
Arnold It may very from state to state but a small amount of pot or even cocaine, that appears to be for personal use where I live, with no prior drug convictions has pretty much meant a slap on the hand, a fine and possibly drug rehab.
It may have changed in the last few years but if you get pulled over for a traffic ticket and you have a small nickel bag, no prior conviction you aren’t considered long term jail worthy or property seisure.
Besides, the jails here are brimming and full.
I don’t think that allowing the conversation of drugs is condoning it. It’s allowing discussion of it really is just as important as any other topic.
It’s fine you you all decide to knock it out, but know I disagree.
One reason for censorship of blatant drug disscussion in any meadium is the convincing of viewers or readers that drugs are wrong and not an appropriate topic, even for adults. Propoganda through omission, it happens a lot. It would seem the stigma of drug use for recreational purposes extends even to a disscussion can be wrong or taboo?
Halo, I think you’re right.
Welcome to the boards.
I posted a thread very similar to this 16 months ago. Emotions were enflamed, accusations made (some by me in error), and the thread dissolved into a nightmarish train wreck. It made me decide to take a break from the boards for a little while. A little while turned into a long while, and brief stints on many other message boards. None of them, however, gave me the breadth and depth of knowledge, combined with the utter lack of pretentiousness that the denizens of the SDMB offered.
I don’t know if it’s a good thing or a bad thing that the first post upon my return is about the very subject I departed over, but I see that the issue has again reared its ugly head, and I feel I just have to weigh in. Some of this seems to be approaching the point of absurdity.
Suppose I’m a local cop looking for a high-tech way to bust some potheads. I read on a message board that someone smoked a joint last night. He might still have some left and be in possession, a misdemeanor in most states (including Illinois, where the Reader is based, and where you’ll likely be let off with probation for posessing or selling less than 30 grams, or even growing 4 plants). So I contact the Chicago Reader who likely will give up the IP address of the poster without a warrant. Then I find out who owns the IP address and contact the appropriate ISP to find out what user the address was assigned to, which, again, will likely be given out without a warrant. Damn, he’s out of my jurisdiction, a thousand miles away in New York City. Let me just give them a call:
“Hey, yeah, NYPD? I got a hot tip off the computer and I just may have tracked down one of the million marijuana users in your city. Quick, find a judge to issue a search warrant and have a team of officers bust down his door at 6 AM for this hideous misdemeanor. He could be facing some serious community service if you catch him with the whole dime bag!”
Does this sound likely to you? In reality, many cops in all areas of the country will, upon finding a small amount of pot in your car, simply confiscate it and let you go home without a ticket or a fine. Not only have I known numerous users this has happened to, but I’ve actually spoken with police officers that did it.
They see the real carnage on the road and they know that most of it is from drunk drivers. No less than three studies (one actually conducted by the U.S. government) have concluded that pot has little to no effect on driving for experienced users. The first several times a person smokes pot, he gets really messed up, extremely giggly, and obviously unfit to drive. For experienced users, it’s really just more of a relaxing feeling than anything psychedelic.
Tubadiva said:
Obviously this is not, and will never be, a message board for dealing drugs. “How to prepare it” could refer to a lot of things, from setting up a meth lab to building a bong, so I’ll leave that one alone. It’s the last one that I have a problem with - glorification. It’s absurd to say that drugs offer absolutely no benefits - otherwise nobody would use them.
People deserve to be able to rationally discuss the pros and cons of a subject. The guy who developed the DNA “fingerprinting” technique says he uses LSD occaisionally. Carl Sagan was a lifelong pothead, and we all know how many musicians, artists, and other creative types find inspiration in pot. I had a brilliant teacher once confide in me that his retention level when he studied was far better when he was on prescription opiods.
Of course, the affects of all drugs vary from person to person, but that’s just another reason that open discourse on the subject is important. For example, many people never would have even tried studying stoned, but I’ve found it to be a pleasurable experience and I don’t have problems with retention, but YMMV.
The Reader says it wants to limit discussion about drug issues, but I don’t understand why. Several studies in the past few years indicate that 48-54% (depending on the year and the study) of people have tried marijuana before leaving high school. This is an issue that affects the lives of virtually everyone when you consider that drug use also affects non-users, whether positively (there would be no Sgt. Pepper without weed), or negatively(addicted relative).
As far as potential legalities incurred by the Reader, this is so unlikely as to be absurd. There are thousands of sites out there telling you how to grow good pot, and many more telling how to manufacture or grow any drug you can imagine. These sites somehow all stay up without legal incident. Even the ones describing how to manufacture hard drugs stay up for years and nobody bats an eye. And the Reader is freaking out because someone said he smoked a joint yesterday?
Another paranoid fantasy is the child who reads something pro-drug on this site and tells his parents who, in turn, stop reading the Chicago Reader(assuming they’re Chicagoans) and don’t buy the next Straight Dope book. This is just silly. First of all, if kids are reading these forums, they’re smart kids. I’m sorry, but the 13-year-old knee-deep in a conversation on Darwinism isn’t the brain-dead type that would yell “LOOK MOMMY, THESE PEOPLE DO DRUGS!” An intelligent kid knows that if you want to find out how to grow magic mushrooms or manufacture nitrous oxide, this isn’t the site to come to. Any reasonable person can see that what drug discussion does go on on this site is more innocuous than 10 million other sites. If they can’t see that, they’re probably too stupid to read Cecil’s books anyway. If you’re not deterring potential customers and your site isn’t doing anything illegal, why all the paranoia?
Most drug sites on the web are either anti-drug sites that distort the facts to their points of view or pro-drug sites that do the same. In an open forum like this, with so many intelligent people, myths can be dispelled, and the Straight Dope can be spread forth. Or we could just pretend that drugs don’t exist. Either way…
Glad to have ya back, neutron star! (And not just because you posted on this topic. That was a highly articulate, intelligent post.)
But were you high when you wrote it? 
I’m going to take the 5th on that one, your honor. I might incriminate myself and wake up to a battering ram at my door tomorrow morning.
Seriously, though, thanks for the compliment and the welcome back. I’ve missed you guys. Browsing through other threads I was pleasantly surprised to see how many people are still active from that long ago. It’s good to be back.
Like others, I’m a bit frustrated over the “drug post” policy here at the SDMB. It just seems inconsistent, irrational and unnecessary. Not only that, but it seems to be getting even more draconian as time goes by. For example…last July, I started a thread about Salvia Divinorum–a legal plant. It was all well & good, the thread was extremely informative. However, recently someone else started a thread about the same plant (still legal!), and it was met with a harsh (and uncalled for) “Please drop it now”! It almost seems as though any thread that dares to discuss drugs in a rounded way (Pro & Con) is quickly dismissed.
As an “alternative” paper, I’m surprised that the Chicago Reader is not more willing to encourage their users to make full use of the First Amendment. As far as I know, it is still legal to discuss things that are illegal. As it stands, the only threads permitted to stay open are those dealing with their legality (I.E. debates on drug legalization, or on the history of drug prohibition) or threads portraying drugs in a negative light. Imagine what the public discourse would be like if the Reader’s policy was enacted across all media. Free flow of information & open, honest discussion of controversial topics are vital to a free society. And while the administrators may like to argue that their policy is based on a legal footing, in my opinion it seems that they find drug use distasteful. I only wish they’d cop to the fact that their policy is not based on legality, but is a moral judgment.
Well, the FAQ has been updated.
Kudos to the SDMB staff for revising the drug post policy! I think this approach is much more sensible & will hopefully lead to more consistent moderating. Thanks for reconsidering the policy.
From the FAQ (as of 08/06/02):
**
Does 15 minutes ago qualify as past drug use?
Also, the new policy doesn’t address the glorification of drugs that Tubadiva mentioned. If I relay the fact that I love to smoke pot and delve deeply into computer textbooks, and that the pot seems to make me more patient and methodical when trying to understand the concepts involved, will my thread be closed?
How would the administrators feel about threads where someone talks about their current medical use of marijuana if it’s legal in the state they live in, yet still illegal under federal law? (I’d also really love to ask the feds how they can still claim that there are no medical benefits for marijuana when their own FDA approved synthetic THC (Marinol - look it up on rxlist.com) for use years ago, but, of course, that’s a topic for a different thread).
As long as I’m still semi-off-topic, I was wondering if any of you legalization advocates have seen the new Phil Donahue show on MSNBC? It’s a political debate show similar to “The O’Reilly Factor,” but with more of a liberal slant. Legalization seems to be a frequently addressed topic on the show.
It was truly a beautiful sight watching Donahue and NM Gov. Gary Johnson teaming up against Drug Czar Asa Hutchinson and blowing every one of his arguments out of the water.
At one point, Hutchinson made the claim that most people in prison for drugs are dealers. Donahue was ready for that one. He immediately pulled out a bag of “coke” (really sugar) that looked like it couldn’t have been more than 1/4 of a cup. He just held up the bag and said “5 year mandatory minimum sentence.” It was all he had to say.