Feature: Seattle Hempfest Bigger Than Ever in 2009, But Gaining Critics

Richard,

It goes back to what I said in my response to your first post, distortion. Distortion is a form of lying.

Eric told Frontline that he was "involved" in the enactment of the mandatory minimums. You twisted that into "pressed for" mandatory minimums. These are different concepts. In this case the word "involved" means that he was employed by the Judiciary Committee in a capacity that included writing the text of legislation, at the time when the committee decided to enact mandatory minimums. But the meaning of the legislation was directed by the members of Congress -- much of it publicly for the cameras -- not by Eric or any other staffer. Eric did not advocate to the Congressmen that they pass mandatory minimums -- you certainly have not presented evidence for that -- and I doubt that any other staffer did either.

You made the same lie-level distortion with regard to Eric's quote from the book. "My work" in that context referred to the same thing as above, writing the legislation that he was assigned to write as counsel to the committee. This fails in the same way to back up the term "pressed for" that you tried to use against Eric.

As for "military assistance to law enforcement" appearing in the bio, every Congressional staffer has a set of issues that they are responsible for helping the Congressman deal with. The appearance of an issue in such a list says nothing about what the staffer did or what the Congressman did. For all you know, Eric used his position to make good suggestions to his boss that would have slowed down the militarization of law enforcement if they were adopted. The Ron Paul and Barney Frank staffers who dealt with their decrim and hemp and other good bills had "drug enforcement" in their list of responsibilities. That does not make them drug warriors, and it's the same thing.

Short of all of that, I suppose you're entitled to have whatever opinion you want to have about Eric being counsel to the House Judiciary Committee at that time. But that's not the topic at hand today, and you're not entitled to distort the record, and Glen Stark has laid out how objectionable and unconvincing your ad hominem attacks are.

Thanks for posting the Frontline link, though, it's an important interview and I hope everyone reads it to learn about the tragic and senseless way Congress did business at the expense of large numbers of drug drug war prisoners.

David Borden, Executive Director
StoptheDrugWar.org: the Drug Reform Coordination Network
Washington, DC
http://stopthedrugwar.org

Appreciate your post. See above for more explanation of why I think the attacks on Eric are dishonest and not valid.

David Borden, Executive Director
StoptheDrugWar.org: the Drug Reform Coordination Network
Washington, DC
http://stopthedrugwar.org

I think what you guys don't realize is that the issues of drug policy and conformity are largely orthogonal. They are neither mutually exclusive (opposite direction on a line), nor are they heavily coupled. It's entirely possible to desire, and work towards, a sane drug policy, without being a counter culture freak (I use the word freak as it has been used earlier in the conversation, not in any pejorative sense).

The name of this site is www.stopthedrugwar.org, and it's stated purpose is drug policy reform. Likewise, the stated purpose of hempfest is the reform or marijuana laws. For a former hempfest organizer (Dominic Holden) and a serious reform advocate (Eric Sterling) to attempt to guide and focus the direction of the event, is certainly their right, and their thoughts deserve to be heard on their own merits.

Your posts, whether you realize this or not, attempt to tightly couple drug policy reform and other counter-cultural movements. This is dangerous, because virtually any idea which differs from social norms can be labelled counter culture, regardless of what merits or faults that idea might have. Your posts are extremely exclusionary. They boil down to saying "if you're a conformist, we don't want you in our movement". Well, conformity and conformism are poorly defined. Adopting that strategy is a good way to marginalize the movement and make it ineffective. I believe this is the concern that Holden and Stirling are voicing.

Now, I happen to agree with them. But rather than having a discussion about that issue, you have distracted us with a discussion about Eric Sterling's character, and whether he is worth listening to. Your attacks are pretty rediculous. You ask me to itemize what I think is emotional and non factual... Pick one. Pick any single claim you have made and justify it. They are all emotional and non factual

For example: "He admits to having violated the rights of 100,000+ people...". Can you give me a link to where makes such an admission? And more to the point, why should I care? Perhaps he has done something in the past which he regrets. Does that make him unqualified to work to repair the damage he's done? I think not. I have some 40 years of regrets, but processing these regrets and attempting to correct them have made me a better person.l

Before this discussion, I'd never heard of the guy. But I decided to do a little research, to see if perhaps you were correct, but just communicating inchorently (reasoned debate is often missing in America). Here's what I found out about the guy... He was Counsel to the U.S. House of Reps on the Judiciary from 1979 to 1989. He was principle aid in developing the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, the Anti Drug Abuse Acts of 1986 and 1988. I assume this is the period of service which you object to.

In 1991 He helped found FAMM, families against mandatory minimums, FEAR, Forfeiture Eandangers American Rights in 1993, the MPP in 1995, the Voluntary Committee of Lawyers in 1997, the Interfaith Drug Policy Initiative and he serves on the board of the Partnership for Responsible Drug Information, the board of Students for Sensible Drug Policy, and the Andean Information Network. Apparently he also serves on the advisory boards for LEAP, DrugSense, DRCNet, Flex Your Rights Foundation and the Sex Workers Outreach project.

Never having met the guy, his CV tells me the following story: Here's a talented, highly intelligent lawyer, who had significant success within the system at the beginning of his career. Whether he just went along to get along, or whether he really believed in the work he was doing can't be told from the naked facts. But apparently at some time he realized the harm that drug policy was doing, and began to work very hard to make things better. Looking at the huge amount of work he's done, and at the accomplishments of the groups he helped to found, it's clear to me that he's a tremendous asset to the movement.

Far from negating his credibility (as you claim), his time as part of the establishment no doubt gives him unique insight into the mechanism of government. The sheer amount of effort and time he invests in the movement are proof enough of the sincerity of his convictions, and the successes he has taken part in are testament to his value to the movement. That doesn't mean he's always right time, and you have every right to disagree with him or debate his ideas. But I find it poor form to attack the man. Furthermore, whether your attacks have any merit or not, they are irrelevant to the question of the merits of the mans ideas.

If you want to debate the pros and cons of tightly coupling the counter culture movement to the drug reform movement, I am happy to engage in that debate with you. But please leave the ad-hominem attacks out of it.

www.glenstark.net

I was again agreeing with the general assessment of a previous poster that took offense to the suggestions and tone of the 'normalization' of 'freaky' gay people because it freaked some people out.

I was objecting to the 'conform to get along' theory which is just as flawed and dangerous as the 'go along to get along' theory of some former prohibitionists that 'seek penance before seeking favor'. Which arguably is better then having them oppose us or remain neutral. This is a 'forgive and forget' nation after-all and we all need to eat, and get on with improving our lives, etc...

I also continue to humbly disagree that 'control and appeasement' thru 'taxation and regulation' is the 'best' type of reform because it does not address the deeper socio/economic disorders, quite frankly - the lawlessness of our western civilization - and many of its leaders. And, I fully understand why the path of least resistance and greatest acceptance is pragmatic & frequently pursued by all reformers... a lot to do with human nature & expediency... me thinks?

I've served with lots of sailors & soldiers that proudly marched in the annual gay pride events in S.F, Long Beach, and elsewhere... and I would never suggest they not be and act like themselves. Just don't show me the cruder photos... unless of course... it's the ladies... He He He!

If the 2 named individuals are not who i or the previous poster thought they were then that's my bad and I apologize. If they are gay then they probably aren't and i have them confused with someone else... could be becasue there are more conservative radio stations on the 5 of 7 seas i've sailed on?

Thanks for clarifying...trying to stay 'cognitive dissonance' free!

Choose Legality,
Pastarian Knight

B.S. Didn't some stoner dude named shakespeare say something like 'above all else... be true to thyself'?