Hi, John!

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

August 22, 2009 blog post by Eric Sterling:
Regarding Hemp rallies, the many ways in which I am wrong!

It takes courage to admit when one is wrong. Some of the most powerful advocates for drug reform in my opinion are activist LEAP members. Eric Sterling had this exchange in an interview for the 1999 documentary "Snitch"on Frontline:

Interviewer: Do you feel guilty about your involvement in the development of these laws?

Eric Sterling: The war on drugs is one of the great evils of our times. Drugs are a serious problem, but it's very hard to tease out where the problems of drugs and the problems of the war on drugs are not overlapping. Some day there probably will be war crimes trials in which those responsible for these crimes against the American people, and other peoples, may be brought to justice. ... We have federal judges who have resigned, federal judges who have wept on the bench. Senior federal judges who say, "We refuse as a matter of conscience any longer to take these kinds of cases." Those are people at least who have the opportunity to step out. I had the opportunity to step out by leaving my job in the government and [am] now working to help expose what I think are these problems. When I meet with the family members of people serving these sentences, it is very hard. At times I am moved to tears when I sit across from someone whose loved one is serving a 30-year sentence for something that I played a role in getting enacted. It's an awful feeling.

This is a wildly distorted account of Eric's history. Eric happened to work in the House of Representatives at a time when members of Congress of both parties decided to do some bad things. He had no control over that, and if he had quit his job it wouldn't have made a bit of difference in how it came out. Unlike many others who were there, Eric has made it his mission to speak out and undo the harm, and the fact that he was there makes him more able to do that, not less. Eric has been working non-stop in the reform movement since the '80s, and if you're unaware of all his efforts to fix things these past 20+ years then it's because you haven't looked or maybe you just don't want to know.

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

I don't want to belabor points here, but having read this comment more closely now, I feel that I have to weigh in once more. It is a flat-out, total lie to claim as Richard has that Eric pressed for mandatory minimums or was involved in militarizing the policing. A lie, as plain and simple as it gets.

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

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

Richard, you are still evading the matter at hand, which is that you have massively distorted language, to the point of lying, in order to engage in ad hominem attacks against drug reformers who have simply expressed opinions with which you disagree -- instead of actually debating the issues, which you've done none of. And you continue to try to dress it up and deflect it by leveling the same distorted attacks. Well I'm not going to let you get away with it, not on our site, so I'm telling it like it is. We are trying to change the world and help people by working to stop the drug war, and we don't have time for the circular firing squad you are trying to build.

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

I don't know you, and I don't know anything about Sterling or Bob Barr. But your post as written inspires absolutely no confidence in your claims. Why?

1. you don't argue against Sterling's opinions or ideas, rather you engage in ad-hominen attacks "he used to be a dick, therefore his ideas are worthless!". This doesn't work. No one is wrong all the time, so whether Sterling is a jerk or not is irrelevant, he might be a jerk with a good point.
2. your claims are subjective opinions and you provide no verifiable facts to justify your opinions. You call sterling a jerk, but you provide no concrete justification for these claims.
3. you adopt a combative tone, and when someone provides a counterpoint, you simply make your original claim in a more emotional, strongly phrased manner, rather than providing any facts, evidence, or references to justify your opinions.
4. rather than discuss concretely what you object to in Sterlings actions or opinions, you accuse your critics of being dishonest, and go on to discuss a completely different individual (Bob Barr), and go on to making the claim that if Bob Barr is bad, so too is Sterling. This leads me to conclude that you have arrived at your opinions not through a process of informed reason, but simply through uninformed emotionalism.

This kind of uninformed, emotional reaction weakens democratic processes, and decreases the likelihood of successful, wise outcomes (which should be our goal). May I encourage you to suck down your pride and bile, and attempt to engage in reasoned discourse? Let's face it, we have far too many emotional nut-jobs polluting America's political debates.

Coming back to the actual issue: I'm a long haired hippy freak myself, and I think society benefits heavily from loosening social norms. On the other hand, I am convinced that what the anti-prohibitionist movement needs is more people in suits, more doctors, more teachers, more people my 65 year old aunt can relate to, saying "look these laws don't work, it's time to try something different".

With Cannabis in particular, the bad rep that Cannabis has causes so much societal harm. Not only through prohibition, but through denying ill people a natural, and essentially free, medicine. That should be our focus. Curtailing our own excesses and desires to accomplish a desired political goal is certainly expedient. But I would claim that a certain amount of impulse control, and a certain ability to defer pleasure, is a mark of a well balanced, mature individual. I would go so far as to say it is a necessity for a well functioning society.

So I don't see anything wrong with asking people to please think of the event as a party with a purpose, and try to focus peoples energies in a certain direction. This is not the first time we've found ourselves on the cusp of cannabis legalisation. I'm hoping that this time our movement won't implode or dissipate, as it has in the past.

www.glenstark.net

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

This is so lacking in basic perspective. I haven't followed Dominic's writing closely, so I don't know whether he's been fair to hippies, hempfest, gays who don't wear suits, etc. I'll stay out of that one.

What I do know is that Dominic is one of the people who made Seattle's lowest priority initiative happen, and is one of the people who helped ensure the law was implemented and that marijuana arrests in the city would actually decrease. Even in Seattle that's a large number of people who have been spared from having their lives changed for the worse -- maybe even some of the people who go to Hempfest. So I think Dominic is entitled to have some opinions about marijuana activism!

Others are entitled to their opinions too. But when they take the form of this intolerance toward anyone seeing things a different way, by people who don't have that level of achievement actually helping people to their names, that's pathetic.

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

Okay, I've read Dominic's Hempfest piece now, and I'm a little floored by the reactions it's gotten. Not only do I not see anything that in my opinion even remotely resembles hate speech, I see now that he doesn't even come out against Hempfest! Nor does he attack hippies or the counterculture as people have claimed here. A quote from the piece: "There's nothing wrong with hippies, mind you, and Hempfest itself is wonderful." How is this "borderline hate speech"?

Dominic does say he thinks it's a mistake for the organizers to primarily target the hippie/counterculture crowd in its design of venue, choice of music, etc. He thinks it's strategically and demographically misplaced. But nowhere in the piece does he suggest that people who identify as hippies should be pushed away or not welcomed. He goes on to make several suggestions for how to make Hempfest more effective. Basically his message is that the counterculture is one part of the movement but not all of it.

I understand why some have reacted to the column the way they have, and I understand that those who identify with the counterculture may justifiably feel that society disses them on a regular basis and be sensitive to that. But I also hope that everyone involved or concerned with this takes another look with the heat of the moment now past. For my part I do not see anything in Dominic's column that objectively looks like an insult to anyone. Hence my view that the attacks on Dominic here and elsewhere just represent thin-skinned-ness and an attempt to shut down debate on some important questions.

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

Dominic is openly gay, and Dan Savage is an openly gay celebrity. I don't know Savage, but he did not seem like a self-hater when I saw him on TV. I do know, Dominic, and he did not sound like a self-hater either. So I still don't get what the hate speech accusation is based on.

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

P.K., we all have cognitive dissonance to rid ourselves of, I'm afraid. :) Nice to have you here.

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

Richard,

Most of the comments posted here I would simply classify as debating these issues, and that's good. But a number of the comments, including some of yours, crossed the line into tearing down and trashing the people who were making the arguments you disagreed with, and in my opinion using distortions of the facts to do so. That kind of tactic does not constitute debating the issues, and it definitely does not deserve to be dignified in that way. That kind of tactic is an attempt to shut down the debate by discrediting your debating opponents. And in this case the victims of that happen to be anti-prohibitionist activists, your allies!

Regarding the leaf button, thanks for the suggestion. However, I don't wear leaf imagery and DRCNet doesn't use it. We don't judge it and we have no problem with it, but it's not our approach. Our view is that wearing leaf imagery tends to get the issue typecast as being about marijuana use, and the wearer's driving interest in the issue as being about marijuana. Whereas for us the issues are freedom and good public policy, and for all drugs. Of course marijuana activists are for freedom and good public policy too, but that's not what the leaf image often evokes. Also, it tends to suggest that the wearer is a marijuana user, who comes to the issue as a marijuana user, and that drives others away from getting involved.

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

Eco,

Thanks for mentioning this. I'll double check to make sure that nothing has gone wrong with our Google News listing, but I think it's okay. Articles drop off of that listing after awhile, and that is probably what happened. It's not like the regular Google search, where items get indexed permanently.

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

You're welcome. It shouldn't be dropping off this quickly. There are other Seattle Hempfest entries going back to August 5, 2009. Go to the last entries on the sort-by-date listing to see. You may have to go to page 2 or 3 depending on your Google News settings.

I found this page:
Contacting Support - Google News (publishers) Help.
http://www.google.com/support/news_pub/bin/request.py

Check out this search shortcut below too. The missing article is not in the Google News archive either:
http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Drug+War+Chronicle%22+seattle+...
http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Drug+War+Chronicle%22+seattle+...

Only 3 Drug War Chronicle articles are showing up in the current Google News results when searching for "Drug War Chronicle":
http://news.google.com/news/search?q=%22Drug+War+Chronicle%22

There are none showing up in the archive:
http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Drug+War+Chronicle%22
http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Drug+War+Chronicle%22&scoring=...

No individual Drug War Chronicle news article is listed in the Google News archive.

When I search Google News for the site URL (stopthedrugwar.org) many more articles show up in the current Google News:
http://news.google.com/news?q=site:stopthedrugwar.org

But I still do not see this Seattle Hempfest article.

Searching the Google News archives ("all dates" link) for the site URL pulls up no stopthedrugwar.org articles.

Bill Downing (MASSCANN) tells me that police have been laying off things at the Freedom Rally in recent years. One would hope they would take the initiative as a cue to continue or go even further, and I suspect that is likely. But we'll see.

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