The Sexist

“The Breast Massage Will Happen”: Inside the Culture of Sexual Harassment at the Marijuana Policy Project

Lewis’ memo touched off a couple of concerns. How could a workplace womanizer and his No. 2 provide “complete reports” to anyone about an alleged incident of sexual misconduct? And how could staff members honestly air their complaints about Kampia and Green when Green would be relaying them to the board? After all, Green was the very HR head who had failed to curb Kampia’s behavior for so long. “We were informed that all information had to go through her, and that she would summarize it for us,” says Sarah Hench, an MPP employee who resigned following the Aug. 6 incident. “I thought that was completely ridiculous.” Nevertheless, Hench agreed to submit her gripes with Kampia to Green.

Here’s one of them: In a meeting, Kampia told Hench that a potential MPP donor had recently had a breast lift, and that he planned to give her a breast massage the next time he saw her. In an e-mail, Hench informed Kampia that she was uncomfortable with the direction of the conversation. “I indicated to Rob that I did NOT want to see personal e-mails to this person because of previous comments he had made about her,” Hench wrote in her complaint. Kampia then sent Hench another e-mail saying, “The breast massage will happen,” and also attempted to raise the topic again in a phone call. “He responded by deliberately trying to make me uncomfortable,” Hench wrote, “and then three days later sent me an e-mail with completely unnecessary sexual comments in it.” The exchange reveals Kampia’s commitment to keeping office banter sexually charged: Kampia made a sexual comment to Hench; Hench told Kampia she was uncomfortable with the sexual comment; Kampia responded to Hench’s discomfort with more sexual comments. (Kampia claims that he stopped referencing his masseuse duties when he became aware of Hench’s unease).

Green summarized the exchange in preparation for a board meeting: “Rob was communicating with a friend in NYC who said she was recovering from breast lift surgery. Rob told this friend he would give her a ‘breast massage” when they saw each other next, and she agreed. Rob shared this story with Sarah.” Hench says that Green’s retelling downplays Kampia’s persistent harassment. Green disagrees. “I thought that that account was horrifying. And I thought my description of the account was horrifying,” says Green. “I was horrified having to write it. I do not believe that my account of that situation lost anything in the retelling. That account is objectively disturbing.”

Bernath had this to say in his complaint to the board: In his role as executive director of MPP, Kampia had exhibited “sexual harassment, openly predatory behavior, and complete and possibly sociopathic disregard for the harmful effects his actions have had on his employees.”

Lewis says the board received a complete summation of complaints from Green—even though it did not include testimony from all of the staffers who had quit in the wake of the Aug. 6 incident. “I wasn’t concerned about that, because what we already knew [about Kampia’s behavior] was as bad as it could be,” Lewis says. “It couldn’t have been any worse than that.”

In late August, the board issued a resolution concerning Kampia’s misconduct. “We take seriously what we have learned about Rob’s and others’ words and actions, and we’re committed to bringing MPP’s standards and practices in line with those of other modern-day organizations,” the board decided. “Rob clearly understands, acknowledges and apologizes for having exhibited poor judgment and bad behavior, and having been an imperfect example. He has committed to us, and will to you soon, that his behavior is now changed and that he will obtain remedial sensitivity and behavior modification training ASAP.” MPP implemented a new sexual harassment policy and required its staffers to attend sexual harassment training. But their “imperfect example” was to stay on as head of MPP.

Which raises the question: Kampia’s harassment was “as bad as it could be,” in the words of Lewis, so what could Kampia possibly do to actually force his resignation? “I don’t know. Shoot somebody? Bring an unregistered gun into the office?” Lewis says. “Those are criminal behaviors. This was not appropriate behavior, but this was not criminal behavior.”

Five months after the board’s resolution to keep Kampia, the executive director announced his three-month hiatus. Green remains on board, ready to guide the organization through the crisis Kampia caused. “In my mind, she’s just another person who Rob has hurt. I don’t think he cares what happens to her,” says Bernath. “There’s a little bit of irony there to me, because Alison is not very sympathetic to women who put themselves in vulnerable positions. But that’s exactly what’s happened to her.”

Cover illustration by Brooke Hatfield; Kampia photograph by Bob Berg via Getty Images; home photograph by Darrow Montgomery


  1. #1

    that cover! yessssss!

  2. You're late to the "story"

    Next week's cover story:

    "A crock of shit will be published," inside the culture of pointed, one-sided hackery passed of as "journalism" by Amanda Hess.

  3. #3

    What a douche. No wonder marijuana is still illegal. Thanks jerk.

  4. #4

    "You're late":

    Jeez, could you be any less specific in your complaint?

    Seems to me that Hess gave Kampia and Green ample opportunity to respond, quoting them often and noting when they disagreed with others' accounts of events.

  5. #5

    There were female employees who said "yes" to a date with the boss, if he was so bad why did they go out with him?
    The employee who left was drunk and he was drunk, and the guy knows he has a problem and is getting therapy for it. Time to move on and let MPP do what they do best, helping change archaic marijuana laws.

    Why did these former employees wait so long to come out? If this was so bad, why didn't they say anything in August? Did all these former employees get together to make sure they got their story straight?

    If Mr. Kampia does have a sex addiction, these former employees did him a favor, he can get the help he needs. If their motivation was to hurt him, I feel that will be done in the short - term, but in the long term it will help him. Sex addiction is all encompassing, leaving little time for a healthy life.

    As for Ms. Green, I have never met her, but I have worked as middle-management. It seems that Mr. Kampia is her boss, and she is the boss of most of the lower staff. Not a comfortable or easy position to be in. I think having her employees read her book is a good idea, that way they can understand her decisions and how she works. I don't understand trashing her in this article.

    If I were asked about this situation, I would say that there should be a policy put in place that employees are not allowed to date each other. If that was in place, none of this would have happened.

  6. #6

    Dan Bernath, you apparently forget to tell the City Paper about the part of the story where you regularly engaged in sexual relations with MPP colleagues, namely Alison Green.

  7. #7

    Let me get this straight. Your investigation revealed that use of sexually crude language and behavior was widespread among staff, that many staffers had relationships with one another, and that no formal complaints were ever filed about Kampia's or anyone else's behavior. Yet you run a story focused on a handful of specific instances, mostly of comments in a workplace filled (by your account) with such comments and behavior, and focus only on the actions of Kampia himself?

    I'd also seriously question your use of (and understanding of) the term sexual harassment. There are specific standards defining it, and you have hardly proven that those standards were met by Kampia's or anyone else at the MPP's behavior.

    What you did is take claims from people who quit - seven people out of more than thirty - and offer reference to almost no actual evidence besides a couple of e-mails in one specific instance, and present these things as if it is proof to back up the sleazy claim your rag of a paper has made. It's interesting that you apparently did little to no research into other public comments by the same people you quote in your story, or their comments and behavior in ongoing debates about these matters at High Times and other places.

    Those comments and debates have included assertions of fact roundly refuted by actual evidence posted and published publicly. The fact that some of their initial claims were shown to be completely false or were outrageously distorted versions of actual truth should have given you pause in publishing an article filled with accusations and interpretations based primarily on the simple claims of these few people.

    Some relevant facts I saw posted at High Times help put things into better perspective regarding how instances of relations among staffers are handled in the business world. One in five businesses in the USA has no policy against dating and sex among workers, including between bosses and their direct subordinates. Of the remaining four out of five, one of the most common (meaning at minimum one, and likely at least two) policies used in workplaces is to only prohibit relations between superiors and their direct subordinates.

    Meaning that at the very bare minimum, forty-percent of workplaces would in fact have no policy against a boss dating or having sex with someone who is not their direct subordinate (meaning the person reports directly to them, with no manager in-between). Moreover, another link over at High Times provides statistics on the frequency of sexual encounters among staff at workplaces in the USA, and the numbers are in fact shocking. In short, what happened at MPP was hardly uncommon, including their lack of policy against such relations among staff and even with bosses.

    The only actual issue in this article with any merit is the question of whether or not widespread sexually crude discussions and behavior in the office leads at times to anyone being upset and complaining about it. And your article in fact notes only one single instance of this, in relation to Kampia sending an e-mail referencing breast massages.

    The staff person you quote explicitly states she told Kampia she was not happy about the e-mail and to stop, which means she certainly didn't seem to feel obliged to tolerate it nor did she seem to fear reprisals if she confronted him about it. Whether or not he stopped making such comments to that employee is disputed, but had there been any actual evidence to prove he did so, you would have mentioned it. So you only have evidence that he made the comments via email and that the staff person told him to stop. Anything beyond that is accusation-and-denial without evidence.

    I've watched for days now as this story spread in the activist community and online, and now here it is at the City Paper. I was shocked to see another outlet doing such a big story about this, and especially stunned that once again the usual suspects are the source of the assertions despite their previous remarks and behavior elsewhere that has made me personally (and a lot of other readers, judging from the comments of other people) either question their honesty or simply outright disbelieve them.

    People telling the truth don't change their stories, they don't make demonstrably false claims, and they don't lash out at people who challenge their claims or who provide evidence directly refuting those claims. Yet, in every instance so far, that is exactly how the accusers here have behaved.

    Ultimately, this article is about a group that I believe has been around for about 15 years or so. You have published an article calling Kampia basically the biggest creep of the creeps, a predator, a harasser, and other terrible things. His name is being dragged through the mud, based entirely on the claims of a handful of people while a far larger number of people provide evidence that the accusers have been distorting the truth and sometimes openly making false statements.

    And your article grants these people another soap box from which to shout their accusations, all in the end so your article can point to a few examples from that 15 year history that show Kampia several times made crude comments in an office full of such commentary, and that he sometimes dated or slept with staff persons at an office where that likewise seems to be a frequent occurrence among workers. You've proven the MPP probably has an office where lots of profanity and often crude sexual remarks and humor take place, and where dating is common. Then you used that basic and rather uneventful bit of information to claim Kampia is a predator, because a few people of questionable honesty say so in contradiction to a larger group of people.

    Congratulations of a poorly written and badly researched article that libels this man while actually only demonstrating the MPP is like basically most offices in the country. And like most offices, it too seems to have a few disgruntled former staff members willing to make baseless accusations and distorted versions of the truth. I don't know what their motives might be, but I bet they have some. And I bet a halfway decent reporter would've bothered to investigate that, and perhaps even spent a sentence or two asking if any of the former staffers were among those who took part in the widespread crude behavior and dating/sex at the office.

    I hope somebody bothers to look into that aspect of the story. If Kampia and others at MPP are going to be forced to see their names and reputations slandered and libeled like this, it's at least fair and relevant to see what there is to say about the people making these accusations. One thing I think it's fairly obvious to say about them is that they play loose with the truth when it suits them, and I'd advise anyone reading this to take a look at some of their other claims that were revealed as either twisted versions of the truth or at times completely false.

    I'm not familiar with this publication, but it strikes me as a tabloid if this is the norm for their reporting. If it's not, then whoever allowed this story to go to print should be out looking for a job pretty soon, along with the person writing it. Because this is nothing short of character assassination masquerading as journalism, and everyone involved should be held accountable.

  8. #8


    I was Rob's roommate around the time of the alleged incident.

    I know Rob's judgement was poor. He is getting therapy right now and I know that he'll be better for it.

    Rob is a passionate advocate and a great person. He is not the monster that he is being made out to be. While exhinbiting terrible judgement, he didn't do anything that is (unfortunately) unusual and certainly not unusually at MPP. Particularly since the organization just created a sexual harrasment policy very recently.

    As for the character assassination of Rob...let me tell you some other things about Rob that you might now know...

    Rob was arrested in college for growing his own pot. He was at the time on an academic scholarship for having been his high school's valedictorian. He was offered an opportunity to avoid jail if he narked out other students. He declined that opportunity and instead went to jail and lost his college scholarship. He has certainly sacrificed for what he thought was ethical.

    Rob is also a long-time vegetarian. He is so because he believes in the ethical treatment of animals. He keeps his home entirely vegetarion.

    Rob's younger brother is severly mentally retarded. He is also completel mute. Although he is well into his 30s, he has never uttered a word or sound in his life. Growing up Rob spent countless hours day after day working with his younger brother doing something called "Patterning". This is a process in which someone works with the hands of the handicapped person to help them move around, copy what they're doing, and hope to make some type of communication between the two. While no one can ever be certain that his brother actually communicated with Rob. Rob believes that whenever he goes home - his brother makes eye contact with him and knows who he is.

    I remember when MPP was nothing but Rob on his bedroom floor with a pen, paper, and a computer. I cannot in good conscience allow his character to be detroyed in this way without mentioning all the good qualities that Rob has.

    I know that Rob exhibited poor judgement. I have always thought that. Rob now agrees with me (and I have talked to him at length about this and he knows this, not only because it now came out). I know Rob will be better for this experience and the help he is getting.

    I will always be proud to call Rob one of my closest friends.

  9. #9

    He may have been drinking too, but he was apparently sober enough to drive and she wasn't...

  10. #10

    Mary Jane-

    It sounds as though you are Allison Green. Shame on you for taking the side of a sex maniac when so many people were mistreated. Just because Rob's behavior was forever constant does not make it acceptable. In non profits such of these the average age of employees is low to mid 20s. Young girls (and men) have limited experience what a workplace is and how it operates, which is why it probably took so long for the staffers to come forth. Some serious red flags had to go off before any young worker would be willing to be out spoken about an incident that may leave them unemployed in this tough economy. Ms. Green is more responsible for all of this then Rob is IMO. How could a WOMAN who claims to be so GREAT at management allow this behavior to continue. Kudos to Salem for taking a stand and being an adult in this despicable work place.

  11. #11

    Rob is one of the biggest sleazes around. It sounds like he's screwing over his staff just as he has been screwing over activists for many years.

    I hope the victims in this case sue MPP and use the proceeds to fund real work that advances the cause and doesn't simply take credit for other people's efforts.

  12. #12

    This is Alison Green. This is the only comment I plan to post here or elsewhere, and I'm posting it simply to say: I've noticed that I'm getting accused of being the author of many comments on this topic all over the Internet (as just happened above), and I'm actually the author of NONE of them. (Nor will I ever be the author of an anonymous Internet comment on any topic ever again, after watching this unfold.)

    I'd appreciate if the people posting things that then get attributed to me would in some way make it clear that they were not in fact written by me. I appreciate people's support, but please don't let it get twisted into yet another attack on me. If you write something and someone yells that it must be me, please clear it up. Thank you (and thank you for whatever you said).


  13. #13

    Reading every article and every comment on this event doesn't make you an expert or mean you know even half of what happened. Do you really have nothing better to do than keep posting 10-paragraph analyses of the situation, as revealed to you by anonymous commentary on High Times' website?

  14. #14

    No Mello, I am not Alison Green. I am just using common sense. I am a middle manager in a large company. I personally supervise 27 employees who moan, bitch and complain about everything. I have had to deal with a woman in her 70's saying the security guard is sexually harassing her because he said hello to her and put his hand on her shoulder (upper management fired him for it). I have dealt with a cocaine addict getting high at work (guess what happened to her? NOTHING).

    I tell my employees that if they are coming to me with a problem, they have to have at least TWO suggestions for a solution. I have been criticized for that by my subordinates, but I tell you, it is so easy to moan and complain but no one wants to work on any solutions.

    How many jobs have you had in middle management? umm...let me guess, ZERO.

  15. #15

    What a PoS article, I agree with "you are late".

  16. #16

    @MaryJane, it's interesting to see you comparing a 70 year old woman who was intimidated by a security guard saying hello to her to a 40-year-old man sleeping with a highly intoxicated, much younger female subordinate who he's apparently always had his eye on. I sincerely hope you don't think the two situations are even remotely similar.

  17. #17

    And this is why it's a bad idea to let a colossal sexist douchebag run a company.

    Employees suffer for it, middle management suffers for it (or alternately enable it and then suffer for it deservedly) and the company overall suffers for it.

  18. #18

    Thank you City Paper for exposing the scandals and waste of money at Marijuana Policy Project. Rob Kampia may have a sex addiction problem, Alison Green maybe a sorry excuse for a professional manager in the workplace but the biggest idiot of all here is the liberal billionaire Peter Lewis for continuously making excuses and trying to cover Kampia's tracks.

    One has to wonder what does Kampia have on Lewis that would lead him to continuing to support a person like Kampia, with all of his psychological and personnel problems.

    Couldn't a billionaire like Lewis simply hire someone less problematic and embarrassing than Kampia?

  19. #19

    Hey Mr. Kampia, this is 1985 calling. Could you please return the turqoise jacket. The fellas as Miami Vice are doing a wardrobe change.

  20. #20're downplaying what happened at MPP makes no sense unless you're just flacking here.

    Allegations? Kampia has agreed to therapy...his old roommate on this comment section indicates that Kampia has ALWAYS had this 'problem' has likely been paid out for employees' silence, but you believe the whole thing imaginary.


    Why would all of these highly paid MPP staff leave during these depressed economic times? Because of dating in the office? Is that plausible?

    In DC, the first act is the scandal, the second the cover-up, third the financial impropriety and the final act is to leave DC with one's tail between their legs.

    By any fair account, a sexual predator like Kampia is not going to be 'cured' in three months, he should not be re-integrated in the workplace where the abuse happened and what employee in their right mind (other than maybe Allison Green) would ever want to work for Kampia again?

  21. #21

    I used to work in grassroots drug policy and met Rob many times over the years. He was always a sleaze, and this is totally unsurprising. Some people never grow up. Many of these grassroots drug lobby groups, while doing good work, are just about personality cults. The story about a founder/director's behavior finally becoming so intolerable that the board is forced to remove them (over their objections) to avoid embarassment / lost funds is hardly new either. The board should have grown a spine, the workers rubbed the stars from their eyes, and got rid of this greasy, self-centered slimebag.

    Oh, but he's a vegetarian? Well then.

    (And no, I am not one of the people mentioned in the article, nor have I ever worked for MPP)

  22. #22

    "Reading every article and every comment on this event doesn’t make you an expert or mean you know even half of what happened. Do you really have nothing better to do than keep posting 10-paragraph analyses of the situation, as revealed to you by anonymous commentary on High Times’ website?"

    No, it makes me intelligent and informed, and a rational human being. You should try it sometime.

    Do you really have nothing better to do than complain about someone pointing out that a public character assassination of a man is in fact flawed and full of holes? You are just angry that someone is pointing these things out, and that's why you are complaining.

    And I'm sure you are one of the handful of people making these allegations anyway, so it's silly of you to whine about someone else posting on this matter after you've all done nothing but run around making baseless accusations - most of which are demonstrably false and the others are mostly severe distortions of truth - and then post anonymous comments with more accusations and paranoid attacks on anyone who challenges you.

    If this story is worth multiple articles, including a three-page front-page story in this one, then it's worth those of us without mental illnesses or anti-social personalities to take the time to explain why this is mostly a non-story and why the people making these attacks are mostly disgruntled people carrying out a public lynching of a former employer.

    And I don't have to have been there - most of the people quoted in these articles or posting outrageous allegations in fact mostly refer to events they did not personally witness at all, either. The difference is, I'm not lying about it or claiming my fantasies about it are facts. I can see where evidence is presented and where it's not, I can see where someone speaks from personal experience and where they don't, and I can see where someone is clearly speculating - because I'm a rational person who can read.

    So stop having histrionic fits every time someone challenges your twisted perception of reality and truth. I notice you don't actually try to challenge the accuracy of anything I said, which is what's happened all along so far. Just a childish personal attack, which is the standard m.o. of the people making most of these allegations.

  23. #23

    adam, perhaps you should write your own report.

  24. #24

    yea Adam. If you like Rob Kampia so much why don't you marry him?

  25. #25

    And maybe Adam should say who he really is, instead of white knighting for Rob on every internet forum he can. The board, if they cared about MPP (and the many other organizations in the movement) should have removed Kampia a long time ago. It's unfortunate for him, yes, but letting him helm the operation for so long, knowing what he was like, made this the inevitable result.

    Any nonprofits run by their founder/directors need to deal with this at some point. It's about the movement, not about you. Learn how to run an above-board, good workplace. Look at how DPF and Lindesmith Center (now DPA) were run. You don't see them getting mired in this trash, giving ammunition to the movement's foes that it's just run by disorganized, oversexed, and unprofessional hippies.

  26. #26

    @anonymous #15 - stating an example of something that personally happened to me (the 70 year old woman) is by no means a comparison to anything that may or may have happened at MPP or anywhere else.

    It was just an example of the various complaints that come across middle managements desk that they have to deal with. I think the most frustrating thing is being in the middle, you really have ZERO control. If it had been my choice, I would have not fired the security guard at my office, I would have talked to him and asked him not to put his hand on her shoulder. And I would have done something to the employee who admitted that she was snorting coke in the bathroom at work. Once again, these are my experiences, and have nothing at all to do with anything that is happening at MPP.

    As I mentioned before, I think Ms. Green does not deserve the attacks. She did all that was within her power, talking to Rob, going to the board, etc.

    I just wanted to point out that her job is rather "thankless" just like mine and other people who do what we do. Using my examples has gotten us rather "off topic" and I apologize for that.

  27. #27

    To Jinja420:

    No, I'm not downplaying anything. I simply don't agree that what's described is the big scandal you seem to think it is, or that the behavior described makes the man a "sexual predator". This is a case of a small number of people using loaded words to attack someone in the press, and you are all going along with it and helping it happen. And I think that is a terrible injustice.

    Yes, it is "allegations". Just because a few people claim something happened or say that it means this or that doesn't make it true. And just because I don't agree that asking staff out or sleeping with them rises to the level of "sexual predation" doesn't mean I claim it's all imaginary. What's imaginary is the psychology degree on your wall, or on the walls of the former staffers quoted here. But armchair psychology is all the rage among those of you claiming to know the inner workings of Kampia's mind and motivations.

    The only things proven at all among the allegations are that an e-mail containing reference to breast massages was sent, and that the staffer who received it said she did not want to read that again; that Kampia was among those in the office who did ask out staff members and did date and/or have sex with some of them; and that Kampia was among those in the office who used crude sexual references and so on. Every bit of evidence you would use to claim Kampia is a "sexual predator" could be then applied to other staff members, it seems, if they also engaged in such comments and discussions and if they also had sex with other staffers.

    Kampia has been singled out, despite this article and the comments from those people it relies on for all of the allegations also claiming this same behavior was widespread at the office. I can easily compare this article and these claims to other articles on the matter and see where things line up.

    And I can see that despite your (and other people's, including some of those former staffers) current claims about Kampia needing to go and not come back, the fact is that he was only asked to move into a different job at MPP in order for many of these same people to remain working at MPP. If they truly felt he was a sexual predator who would not change his behavior, why were they wanting him to remain working there?

    You just again make the illogical argument that there must be truth to the allegations if people resigned over it. What you and too many other people seem to keep ignoring or not understanding is that far more people chose not to resign, so your simple logic should then lead you to conclude that those people would not remain if the allegations were true. You assume the allegations are true because people quit, and you say they quit because the allegations are true. It is the worst sort of illogical argument.

    That argument also ignores the fact that Kampia was asked to remain at the MPP. If the allegations were true, why would they want him to remain working there? This is another point that further demolishes the sensibility of your already illogical argument that seven resignations must mean the allegations are true.

    You say money has "likely" been paid out silence - the exact tactic used over and over by the people making allegations. You assume something or hear it from someone else, and you repeat it as if it is evidence. That you mention this to try and refute my statement that these are "allegations" means you have a pretty poor definition of "allegations" if you don't realize that you thinking something is "likely" is exactly what I call it - an allegation.

    It's almost all allegations without evidence, and frequently allegations in fact contrary to evidence. That's been the case repeatedly at other media outlets reporting on this story, and now it is carrying over here as well. Like clockwork, the same accusations and same claims that you thinking something or hearing the allegation made must mean it's true. And the same attacks against people who challenge any of these allegations. And the robotic repetition of illogical arguments we've already seen over and over from the people who are making these allegations.

    So what you and others are downplaying is that Kampia is having his reputation destroyed in the press, is being accused of being a "sexual predator", is having his organization dragged through the mud in public, all based primarily on the simple allegations of a small handful of people with almost no evidence to back up any of what they are claiming. And then a group of cheerleaders take to the boards to anonymously repeat the worst allegations and to viciously attack anyone who calls this nonsense what it is - a character assassination by former employees who have demonstrated a willingness to present their speculation as fact while also twisting or overtly falsifying the factual record.

    Any of you defending the behavior and methods of the people making these allegations are defending things far worse than what Kampia is accused of here. Scandalous allegations and loaded words to attack a man in the press, and to attack anyone who questions your claims or credibility, is the way dishonest people carry out their business. This is the way you go after someone when the facts and justice are not on your side.

    You don't have to like Kampia, or like his attitude or behavior. But not liking or agreeing with someone is not grounds to destroy them personally and professionally in public and the press. That's not integrity or bravery, it's cowardly and dishonest.

  28. #28

    I'm guessing both Rob and staffers were listening to the London Symphony Orchestra...possibly while high.

  29. #29

    Keep this in mind always:

    1) Unanimous Department and Green heads ask Kampia to step down.

    2) Rob says Peter Lewis' $3 million will leave with me and some of you will lose your jobs. Now revealed as an empty threat against friends, co-workers, MPP, and the 800,000 people arrested every year for pot (remember them?)

    3) Green caves to the threat, but says she'll tell the board about the unanimous decision. This is later revealed as a lie, as the board did not know this for months, when it came out in High Times and elsewhere.

    4) Rob now invents an illness, and all should be forgiven, including the years of "horrifying behavior" (Green's own words), the actual incident in question, threatening the staff with pulling $3 million out of marijuana law reform, and lying to the board of directors.

    5) Boo Hoo, poor Rob, what a victim!

    You know what's good for a progressive political movement?

    Taking out the trash!

  30. #30

    So, "Adam", why are you so interested in this particular case?

    I find it hard to believe you spend your time defending everyone who gets ripped in the press.

    Yet you've been super-diligent in coming to Kampia's defense (and bashing his accusers) in the comments of article after article.

    Seems to me like you've got a dog in this fight.

  31. #31

    Adam, your defense of Mr. Kampia seems to be based on two premises:

    A) This shit happens everywhere, so why should Mr. Kampia suffer from this one incident
    B) No criminal charges filed + anonymous internet postings of dubious veracity = you can't prove it so it didn't happen

    To this I say A) is no defense of anything. That's like saying, "People get robbed all the time, so why prosecute this one robber for this singular robbery?"

    And B), as has been said, people don't quit for no reason. Several of those quoted in the article and several others who commented have as much as admitted that Mr. Kampia has a well-known "problem" with correct sexual conduct. It is good that he is seeking treatment, but it is equally clear that it took a crisis involved the resignation of four staffers, the combined complaints of all MPP department heads and the involvement of the Board before this happened. This does not indicate to me that nothing was untoward about MPP's management.

  32. #32

    To Bette:

    Yes, because those are the only rational options. If you think Kampia is being treated unfairly in bad news stories lacking in much evidence, you should marry him. And if you dislike Kampia and are the sort of person to take the word of a few people, you should publicly lynch him.

    To Keith B:

    Complaining about someone not "saying who they are" online, and in a situation where most of you are hiding behind anonymity, is glaringly childish. So many of you attacking Kampia and the MPP are paranoid about who people are and scream about others needing to give their real names. My name is relatively easy to figure out, I'd think. And I've posted plenty of remarks here and on other stories about this matter, with my name.

    But it's the m.o. of the attackers here to cry and act like it's unfair of anyone to defend Kampia or to point out when the rest of you are being dishonest and engaging in bullying, childish behavior.

    The behavior of these people makes me wonder the extent to which they might go to attack and harass people who stand up to them. If our email addresses were available, would they spam us or otherwise attempt to abuse us? Would they try to obtain our phone numbers to make harassing calls? Would they try to find us online elsewhere and attack us? Would even those of us entirely unconnected to the situation become targeted anyway? I have no idea, but the behavior thus far doesn't give me any reason to give you or them the benefit of the doubt.

    And why are you and the others always so pushy about trying to find out the names of even people with no connection to the MPP? It raises a lot of questions and concerns, so forgive me if I don't want to give you my phone number or e-mail address to people I think are behaving beyond just irrationally.

    You want to just take allegations by former workers with little evidence to back up most of what they say? Fine. You want to believe people who have already demonstrated questionable credibility? Fine. But some of us decide to use our brains and don't just take the word of these few people. So stop whining and lashing out about it.

  33. #33

    I am waiting for the other shoe to drop (i.e. a sexual harassment lawsuit against MPP / Rob Kampia).

    Adam may be correct in his analysis. This being Washington, DC, I find it hard to believe that if the facts are as stated in the article, there aren't several lawyers salivating to pursue this.

  34. #34

    Why would the board keep Kampia, Adam? Probably because (1) No one wants to have to have an uncomfortable press release detailing WHY a man was fired by the organization he helped to found 15 years ago, and (2) sleaze or not, he works very well in public. He's good on TV, he's good at events. Just sucks for the young women who want to effect change in our drug laws, but don't want to get harassed by him. Maybe the upside to this dustup will mean more staffers for NORML and SSDP.

  35. #35

    Seems to me the people posting here are indeed determined to just obsess over their paranoid fantasies about conspiracies among other posters. You all sure keep posting a lot, seems to me you have a dog in this fight - who is paying you to post here? Who do you work for? Did the DEA offer you money to help take down the MPP? Were you denied grant money from the MPP? Why are you refusing to use even first names, while going into hysterics over other people's identities?

    We ALL have a dog in this fight. It's called journalistic integrity. It's call not supporting seeing a public lynching. It's called seeing a story spread while supported by a small group who make allegations publicly and then resort to acting like a hired anonymous mob who will ignore any of the actual comments and points other make, instead just trying to bully and attack by using more allegations with nothing but the accusation.

    So tell me who is paying you to do this. Tell me whether it's the ONDCP or the DEA who gave you money to post anonymously. Tell me if you work for another group who works against the MPP. Tell me if you are all actually the same person using different "names" here because you were denied a grant from the MPP, or because you got fired from the group for embezzling funds.

    On second thought, no, don't tell me any of that. Because only people of questionable moral character and without any other avenues to discuss the matter who get obsessed with such baseless allegations and attacks on other posters they disagree with. Rational, sane people who are concerned about the actual truth and about bullying, aggressive behavior on these boards don't need to stoop to your level of childish name-calling.

    I'll keep talking rationally about what these stories actually do and don't prove - those of you lacking credibility and integrity, with nothing but aggressive obsessions to resort to, can go on with your bad behavior. You aren't going to run me off or shut me up with this behavior of yours, you are in fact the ones who made me get more interested in following this story and posting here. As long as I remain interested and you keep encouraging me with your paranoid aggressive behavior, I'll keep reading the stories and noting where they fail to make an actual case.

  36. #36

    Adam, I didn't ask your name. I asked WHO you are. You've obviously got quite a bit at stake here, unless, as someone else said, you're just a passionate defender of the slandered. I don't care that you've signed a million articles defending Rob as "Adam" (and it appears you have, here, HT, WaPo, the NORML forum). I'm just a guy who retired from working in a movement that I believed in, but found too incestuous and balkanized (FYI, I left long before any of the events in this story). I won't tell you anything more about who I am for the exact reasons you cry about: "the mean people on the internet will harass me". Since you seem to post everywhere to defend Kampia's honor, I'd assume you'd love to take the discussion to my email, or my site, or in person if I gave you the chance. So I will not.

    You didn't respond to anything I said in my posts. What could you say anyway? You're just another anonymous source, who appears to have quite an agenda. I don't see why you expect so much credibility from the masses, while yourself slandering people from the article who used their names or would be easy to identify (the 7 ex-staffers). I'm curious how long it will be until you start accusing anyone who disagrees with you of being those same staffers.

  37. #37

    Adam = Adam Edinger.

    There, now you've been outed.

  38. #38

    Oh nice, Adam! While I was typing my reply you went ahead and accused us of being in the pay of the ONDCP. Yes, there it is. The government's paying red staters to post on to ruin MPP, and the movement.

    I hope for MPP's sake you aren't on their staff, because you sound like a paranoid imbecile. Occam's Razor would say to assume the simplest explanation: some of us have met Rob, don't like him, and think he is bad for the goals of MPP (and the many other organizations that work on marijuana, and other drug policy). Maybe other people just believe this story's anonymous sources more than the stories from the anonymous commenters.

  39. #39

    You people are the same as those who stood up at Town Hall events to scream and shout-down everyone else, to jump like a pack on anyone daring challenge you ant try to silence them through a flurry of allegations and repeating of the same already-refuted claims previously made. Stand up en mass and just start screaming, hoping to drown-out the other person or that the other person will get tired or intimidated and leave.

    That's all you are doing here, like a mob at a Town Hall trying to shout so loudly nobody else's message - especially the truth - will be heard.

  40. #40

    Adam is simply employing the typical 'kill the messenger' tactics used by hacks. If he is posting to all those sites, that makes his real agenda much clearer.

  41. #41

    maybe if we keep commenting, adam's head will explode. at the very least, he'll get carpal tunnel.

  42. You Don't Know Unless You Worked There

    As a young, female former MPP staffer, it appalls me to see so many on this message board actually defending Rob. Unless you've worked at MPP, you have absolutely no idea the type of grotesque, offensive misogyny Rob breeds there. Those department heads and staffers who finally spoke out deserve a round of applause, as does this author for finally exposing this abhorrent and unacceptable behavior.

    The fact that Rob -- the boss -- was the primary offender should not be taken lightly. He abused his power to manipulate young subordinates, then convinced them that blowing the whistle on his bad behavior is 'bad for the cause' so they would keep quiet. Of course, all his staffers are dedicated to marijuana policy reform (that's why they put up with him) which is why this is the first time this has truly to come light. What's truly bad for the marijuana policy reform movement is a manager that takes advantage of his workers, pushes highly talented staff away with his behavior and lies about it to everyone.

    To say 'all the staffers are doing it but only Rob is being called out' is a truly uninformed outlook; those staffers who have participated in the sexually charged exchanges have only done so because Rob has spent years laying the groundwork and setting terrible examples, he's failed to put in place any policies to prevent it, and in fact he's incredibly hostile toward anyone who tries to speak out against this type of workplace environment.

    The one thing about this story i don't quite understand is how, according to Alison and Peter, Rob's behavior 'isn't illegal'. Last time i checked, sexual harrassment in the workplace is illegal under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The law makes certain employers responsible for preventing and stopping sexual harassment that occurs on the job.

  43. #43

    Adam, I do not see how you have refuted anything. You have insisted that four people quit over nothing, and that the only thing the citypaper article "proves" is that Mr. Kampia has a tendency to write inappropriate emails, and say inappropriate things, but that's okay, because everyone else did that too.

    You fail to address the fact that every MPP department head asked Ms. Greene for Mr. Kampia to be removed. You also fail to acknowledge or comment upon the fact that Mr. Lewis obliquely threatened to remove his financial support with Mr. Kampia. You ask why "only" seven out of thirty people departed? I ask why even one person felt the need to quit, let alone a group all at once.

  44. #44

    Town Hall residents! Boy did I call that one. Maybe I am "Adam"?

    Adam, you seem like a decent writer. Perhaps you can do some research, and write a report for next week's drug war chronicle: "Red-state ONDCP goons paid to be mean to me and Rob Kampia on the City Paper website". Bust the case wide open. You read it here first!

    Get over yourself, and get over Rob. Get out there and try to make a change. If you can't, donate money to a group that is.

  45. #45

    The paranoia runs deep, as do the lies. No, JB, that's not my name.

    Keith B, oh so you mean asking who I am wasn't asking for my name? I apologize, I only speak "rational person" language. Pretending you didn't want to know who I was when you asked who I was is childish.

    I didn't respond to your comments about why you think "probably" people didn't ask for Kampia's full resignation because (a) it's nothing but your fantasy speculations, like all the rest, and (b) it's an irrational claim since now they are in fact demanding Kampia's removal as if all along it was obvious he shouldn't be allowed to work there. With so much personal opinion being presented here as fact by you and others, it's a lot to respond to so I'm not inclined to attempt to address every paranoid rambling you utter.

    Complaining about me accusing you of being paid by ONDCP is the height of hypocrisy, not to mention demonstrates simple allegory and comparison flies over your head. I didn't say you were paid by them, I just asked the question. You know, it's just speculative questions, that's okay here, isn't it? Would it help next time if I put "probably" in front of it? Like "you probably don't even realize how illogical and immature you behave"? I'll use the probably from now on if that makes you feel better.

    I'm done arguing over how to discuss things with people lacking simple skills at normal, sane human interaction. I am interested in the articles and the story itself, and the fact that this appears to me to be a terrible case of some bad behavior and bad decisions resulting in attacks and retribution far out of proportion to what actually transpired.

    A man's reputation and life are being destroyed here, through the use of ugly tactics. I find that important, and only came to this conclusion precisely because when I first read about this and remarked on it, a barrage of rabid attack dogs set upon me and others for voicing any disagreement. I'll try to keep my remarks to the actual real issues at hand, and do my best to ignore the aggressive and irrational behavior of the attack dogs.

  46. #46

    To the question of what I have or have not "refuted" - firstly, I'm not the one making the initial claims and accusations, other people are. It is up the person making an assertion to provide proof. What I've done is point out that there is mostly a lack of actual evidence, and that many of the claims make no sense and/or are inconsistent with other claims and with some evidence we have seen. Go to some other articles on this subject, where I started following this story and posting questions and noting certain evidence that was already posted and in the stories.

    For one example, the claims about department heads demanding Kampia be removed ignore the facts, demonstrated elsewhere and never denied or challenged, that (a) in fact they only initially asked Kampia to take another job at the MPP, and (b) it was no longer "unanimous" when some department heads decided they weren't going to request Kampia stepping aside just due to threats from other workers. The fact that the "unanimous" recommendation was in fact no longer in effect, and thus was not presented to the board, is included in detail in other places where this story ran. Yet here, like elsewhere, the false presentation of these events continues by several posters.

    That's one example of several instances of overt falsifications of what actually happened being advanced by people attacking Kampia and the MPP. Another is for example the claim that Kampia said he would "take" donor money with him if he were kicked out - this was referred to as what the e-mail supposedly demonstrated, but it is entirely a fiction of that particular poster's imaginings.

    More examples can be found by going and looking at the other stories and the comments sections, where it will become quickly obvious that there is very little actual evidence of any of this, it is mostly just allegations that are in fact denied and/or refuted by a lot of other people (and many of the staffers at the MPP have been willing to put their real names out in public to correct the false allegations and to supply actual evidence).

  47. #47

    Who's complaining about your ONDCP payroll accusations? I think it's pretty hillarious. Kampia's reputation was ruined long ago, to anyone who met the guy. Him and the board are just reacting to the story getting out.

    Adam wrote: "So tell me who is paying you to do this. Tell me whether it’s the ONDCP or the DEA who gave you money to post anonymously. Tell me if you work for another group who works against the MPP."

    Allegory and comparison, yes! Perhaps satire too? Your bon mots, sir, are too delicious for a mere cur like me.

    "I’m not inclined to attempt to address every paranoid rambling you utter."


  48. #48

    I think Adam needs to get a day job. He spends far to much time defending his buddy Rob...unless, of course, that is job

  49. #49

    "I didn’t say you were paid by them, I just asked the question. You know, it’s just speculative questions, that’s okay here, isn’t it?"

    Okay, you now officially sound just like Glenn Beck. "I'm not saying the President *intentionally* set out to destroy the US economy, I'm just saying the economy is horrible, and has been since he came to office, so maybe someone should look into that."

    Here is the logical fallacy, for those keeping score at home: Correlation =/= Causation.

  50. #50

    MPP isn't even that great an organization. Look them up at MPP receives a one-star rating and it's inefficiencies are detailed.

    This alone is enough to cause me to support NORML, DPA, SSDP or LEAP directly, rather than an org run by a misogynist.

  51. #51

    So, K, you officially sound like someone who doesn't comprehend satire?

    Can you seriously be missing the point that my comment is a joke meant to reflect precisely the tendency of you and others to use random questions and claims about other people to make allegations? People just throw out questions and claims to try and suggest I am being paid, or have a "dog in the fight" because I happen to disagree with them, yet when I do the same as a rather overt joke to point out your own behavior, you fail to see what I'm actually doing?

    The point isn't that I think Keith and others are on ONDCP's payroll, it's that this is the type of outlandish behavior and accusations the rest of you use against anyone who dares post a comment disagreeing with you. To wit, just read yet another such speculative accusation against me from Carly right above your own post.

    Yet you seem to think it's fine to just make such speculative accusations without any foundation in reality against me or others who you disagree with, but when I do the same to show you how childish and outlandish it is, you are going to cry about it? So just say what you mean, then: you and others can outright suggest anyone arguing against you are being paid to do so, but nobody should make any such accusations about your own obsessive postings attacking Kampia and the MPP. That's what you're saying, plain and simple. And it's why I don't have any respect for the ways in which you choose to post. You are bullying hypocrites, nothing more.

    Don't worry, I am keeping score of the logical fallacies being posted here. You would all make Wilt Chamberlain envious with your high scores thus far.

  52. #52

    I'd say all the evidence anyone needs to see that Adam has a "dog in the fight" can be easily found by looking around the internet at any site that covered this story since last week, and allows comments.

    WashPo site
    High Times forums
    NORML Forums

    There's probably more. You've already said you're the same "Adam" from all these sites. You've been a busy, busy, bee sir. Maybe when your logical fallacy scoresheet gets enough points on it, Rob will magically be restored to the directorship of MPP, he'll stop being a creep to his employees and in general, and MPP won't have to live with this taint on all the future work they do.

    Keep the dream alive!

  53. #53

    The claim that I'm saying Kampia's behavior was okay because everyone else did it is a logical fallacy, since K and I are keeping score. It's a straw man argument.

    The point isn't whether or not discussing sex at work, making crude remarks, and having sex with workers is acceptable or not. It's that these articles and the sources assert it was common behavior among a lot of people at their office. But the only person being actually attacked and criticized for that behavior is Kampia. That's obvious, and shouldn't need to be pointed out to anyone with the ability to read and to think logically.

    Moreover, the description of what happened is mostly related to asking people out and/or having sex with them. Those things are not inherently evil or harassment in and of themselves, and unfortunately for all of you most businesses and people who work in offices agree with me, judging from the policies at workplaces and the frequency of this sort of behavior. You don't have to like it, but just because you dislike something doesn't mean it should be banned. I find it ironic that this point needs to be made to a bunch of drug reform activists.

    There is precisely one instance noted in this entire article where there is evidence that Kampia's behavior resulted in any employee telling him they didn't like what he said (and he said it about someone else, not that employee). There is not one claim made that anyone's job or salary was threatened or even perceived to be related to accepting or tolerating Kampia's behavior or advances.

    Instead, we mostly hear that he talked about sex a lot and sometimes used crude language, and we are told that the same is true of employees throughout the office. We are told that he dated and/or slept with two women from the office, not in violation of any policies at that office (or a large number of other workplaces).

    The claim that any such behavior by other people is Kampia's fault for creating an environment for it is outlandish and nothing sort of infantilizing of other people and their ability to make decision. Suddenly nobody else is really responsible for their own behavior, it is all about making them victims and claiming Kampia must take responsibility not only for his own behavior, but for the behavior of the entire staff.

    These people are adults, regardless of the behavior of some of them falling far short of mature at this point. They either chose to act in that way or not. It could easily be argued that perhaps it was the willingness of everyone else to engage in the behavior that encouraged Kampia in a belief that the behavior was okay with most people.

    If people were offended by it, they are adults who should've spoken up or filed complaints. But I'm sure they will argue they were too weak and helpless and needed someone strong and in charge to give them the "power" to speak their own minds, despite the fact that it is clear from the article that most people were walking around saying exactly what was on their minds and what they wanted to say. It's an attempt to accuse one person while alleviating any responsible for others.

    It is the extreme way this has been dealt with, the fact that simple personal interpretations of behavior and accusations are being presented as facts, and the use of inflammatory language like "predator", while the actual evidence of this is mostly just accusations by a handful of people and the equal or greater number of people denying it are not given the same attention or trust for their own comments, that makes me feel that the response is disproportionate.

    Don't just ask me to accept as gospel simple allegations from a handful of people, and to ignore evidence and other comments from a large number of people saying the story is being misrepresented.

  54. #54

    He's their boss. Also, the story is about Kampia, not random staff.

    "claiming Kampia must take responsibility not only for his own behavior, but for the behavior of the entire staff."

    he runs the goddamned place, have you never had a job?

    "These people are adults, regardless of the behavior of some of them falling far short of mature at this point."

    Read the quote on the cover and we'll talk about being adults AT WORK.

  55. #55

    You say Kampia is being unfairly dumped on when everyone in the office did this? I'm sorry, but there is a difference between the office jackass saying sexual suggestive things and the office jackass also being the boss. Furthermore, there is a HUGE difference between two co-workers of similar age & position being in a sexual relationship and the Executive Director escorting a woman who is not only 20 years young, but also his subordinate, home for a one-night-stand (if that is what happened) after drinks.

    And no matter what you say did or did not happen, or how many people may or may not have engaged in similar behavior, the fact stands the four people quit en masse as a result of Kampia's behavior, a drastic measure to take at *any* time, but especially so during the worst recession in 20 years. And nothing you have said negates the fact that many (if not *all*) of the department heads of the company asked for Kampia to be removed as Executive Director. So it wasn't a request for him to be fired outright, and it wasn't unanimous? That is your claim, which no one has any reason to believe, but further, what would your boss have to do for you to ask for him to step down? A few comments about some else and their tits ARE NOT the usual justification for this. You want the people in the office to act like adults? Sounds to me like the only person who didn't act his age in this case was Mr. Kampia himself.

  56. #56

    This sounds like would happen if you put someone with the emotional maturity of a 12 year old, gave him the sex drive of an 18 year old, put him in the body of a 41 year old, and then put him in charge of a company. Weird how the marijuana managed to kill his brain cells but not his sex drive.

  57. A Former NORML member

    If MPP is closed down because of this, it will be interesting to see what will happen to the movement. Since NORML does nothing but fight internally, backstab and do absolutely nothing to change the laws, I think the movement will be dead. I can't tell you how many NORML meetings I have been where nothing has been accomplished.

    After all, who has worked to change the laws? Who has fought for medical MJ? Who has actually spent money on these things? hmmm.

  58. #58

    Adam is this what you do over at Vote Hemp? Holy crap I want to puke. You are defending something that is pretty much indefensible.

    Kampia may not have said the I'm taking the money if I go, but he sure as hell indicated that might happen.

    What does Rob help you raise money at Vote Hemp?

  59. #59

    This stuff happens all the time I would think. It has nothing to do with the good work that MPP has done in the Cannabis Law reform movement.

    I think it is now not practical for Rob to be a public spokesman for them now. When he comes back it might be a good idea to work behind the scenes, and well, not be seen.

  60. #60

    Okay, I went back and took Keith B's lead. Keith B is right about Adam. He is clearly a PR hack. He is obviously in the HT forum as well. So now the question is whether or not MPP is doling out any funds for this PR hack.

    If it is you Eidinger, I feel sorry for you. Freakin A, I gotta go puke some more. What the hell did Washington DC mess with your neural synapses? Does the money wash away your ethical compass?

    Amanda do us a favor and check over at Vote Hemp with Adam Eidinger. Try to find out if he was retained to run damage control and by whom? Great article by the way.

  61. #61

    >A man’s reputation and life are being destroyed here, through the use of ugly tactics.

    Adam....Kampia's well earned reputation and the inability to control his penis is what is destroying him here not the Washington City Paper, Washington Examiner, Washington Post, and High Times. Who is next? CBS, CNN, Fox? (Why be in denial here Adam when Kampia cops to the WashPost that he is 'hyper-sexualized', that he needs treatment, blah-blah-blah).

    Scandal is a terrible thing, usually brought on by personal failings (or, possibly in the case of Kampia as he acknowledges a 'sickness'), but attacking four media sources, demeaning and obscuring the hushed resignations of seven high paid employees and lamely trying to blur the lines between text book sexual harassment and adolescent-like behavior at no less than a multi-million dollar non-profit public organization is intellectually and morally flaccid.

    The shear number of your bizarre defenses of Kampia across numerous webpages speaks to either your naked partisanship and or amorality. If you consider yourself a marijuana law reform activist, the marijuana law reform movement is harmed by folks like Kampia and you.

    And some wonder why more women are not involved with marijuana law reform? With guys like Kampia and you, why would they feel welcome, or even safe?

    Like most tawdry and unseemly Washington DC scandals....the press needs to stay on the story and 'follow the money'. MPP's supporters and marijuana activists have a right to know how the money is being spent at a public, as compared to a privately run non-profit organization, regarding any financial payments made to these employees (especially the employee who brought Kampia's behavior to the attention of MPP's board of directors. How much did she get paid to go away in silence?)

  62. #62


    Adam is a PR pro. He is either returning a favor or being paid.

  63. The Real Adam Eidinger

    Decide for yourself who is credible. Here is Adam:

  64. #64


    I posted above and I'll post again since it seems that posted are added and added (and mostly by the same few people).

    As I stated above, I was Rob's roommate around the time of the incident. I have also been a good friend of Rob's for a long long time.

    I wrote above to draw a different picture of Rob's character than that which he is now being potrayed. I am not in anyway trying to defend his behaviour or justify it. For the record (and not that it makes it ok), but even Rob has come clean about his shortcomings. If nothing else, Rob has been extremely truthful about the bad actions/judgement that he's displayed in the past. He didn't have to talk to reporters. However, he did...and he admitted to everything negative that he has done. Again, this doesn't make it right...I am just trying to show that Rob is not the horrible person that he is being portrayed to be. He is also getting the help he needs. I think that is a very good thing and I'm sure it will be very helpful for him.

    As I stated in my post above...there are a lot of good-actually great qualities about Rob Kampia. I have listed a few of them in my post above, if you want to go back and read that post, please do so. I think people who are so critical of Rob should also know the positive qualities that he does have...and many have nothing to do with marijuana.

    I can also tell you that besides all of the good qualities I listed above...Rob can actually be a completely hysterical person. I can't tell you how many times he's had my laughing half to death. It's true that his humor is often sexually charged and definately innapropriate for office chat (particularly if you're the boss). However, I can also tell you this....Rob didn't say anything to intentionally make anyone feel harrassed or uncomfortable. He simply talked to staff the same way he'd talk to his best friends. He isn't trying to be hurtful and threatening to anyone. I do not believe that.

    Now, with regards to Rob's hitting on staff members and interns....That's true. Again, he's admitted to this. He has absolutely never forced anyone to do anything that they didn't want to do. Is it appropriate for the boss to hit on staff? No. However, his behaviour was actually less than "predatory" as it has been suggested. He basically hit on staff members outside of the workplace. Still...poor judgement, but if they are hanging out together at a bar after work or in the evening...I think most would agree that the environment is very different than at work.

    Also, while not right...his actionas are certainly nothing unique. It wasn't that many years ago that our own President of the United States, Bill Clinton, had oral sex - IN THE OVAL OFFICE - with an intern. Now...that's not only hitting a subordinate at work...that's actually getting it on right in the office too (to say nothing of the additional fact that he was also married). We're not talking about the executive director of MPP here...this is the President of the United States. Even Clinton kept his job. More recently David Letterman (also married), admittedly, hit on (and slept with) lower-level staff members at his work. David Letterman is still on TV.

    Again, Rob has too many good qualities to allow him to be chastised in this way. He's actually sacrificed for the cause he believes in...and that was long before he had any professional carreer on the horizon for him.

    I may be a minority opinion here...but I do know Rob extremely well...and I do think that he's a good person and he is someone that will be a much better person in the months ahead.

    I am empathetic to anyone who has been hurt by Rob. However, as I said before...Rob both never intended to be hurtful to anyone and he certainly never forced anyone to do anything they didn't want to do. He may have a crude sense of humor, but he wasn't really acting differntly with employees that he was with his close friends. Obviosuly...bad decision.

    If anyone here really thinks that Rob Kampia is an awful person...I am really at a loss. Rob is one of many people that have allowed sexuality to create problems in his life. I am sure with the help that he's getting...he'll become much more sensitive and appropriate at work and also just in general.

    For the record (since "adam" is getting accused of a PR campaign) I have not been asked by Rob or anyone to post here. I am only posting here because I know a different person than the one being potrayed in this any other articles.

  65. #65

    josh, no one gives a shit.

  66. #66

    Josh, I'd like to take a moment to remind you that lots of people even think Roman friggin' POLANSKI is "a good person" and "has too many good qualities to be chastised this way." So, the fact that you think that someone is a good person is totally irrelevant to what they actually did...people have done much worse than your friend, and still had people defend them because they refuse to acknowledge that someone who seems like a nice guy could be so harmful.

    Furthermore, your complacent attitude (and that of many people like you) that exists in denial of extremely hurtful people who take advantage of women (to whatever degree) is what allows men to continue to victimize women and not have to face consequences...because people like you will say "he's a nice guy" and try to get in the way of accountability.

  67. #67

    Yup, that be Adam. PR puke. Is he on the payroll or is he doing a favor for funding?

    And Josh, its a fricken shame about Rob, but apparently plenty of people hold a diametrically opposite opinion of the guy. Or maybe living in that mansion has jaded your opinion?

  68. #68

    By the way, anyone notice the anti-marijuana ad on this page? How annoying is that?

  69. #69

    I have my disagreements with Rob Kampia (like his denials that I ever gave serious money to MPP in the 1998 - 2000 period) but I have to say that MPP has achieved far more in the field of marijuana law reform than any other group, possibly all other groups combined.

    So Kampia is crude at times in his close-range dealings. Its insignificant compared to the achievements of MPP, a group he essentially founded & ran. Focusing on disgruntled employees over-all trivial complaints does not even put a crack in the superb job MPP -and Peter Lewis through his sponsorship- have done for marijuana law reform.

    I think this attack on Kampia is a way to damage the organization that has performed the most competently in the field of actual political achievement. Its a tool of our enemies to perpetuate this trivial, petty, and distracting in house matter into a scandal that denies funding and support to the best lobby organization the cannabis culture has in the United States.

    Many activists and organizations have always been jealous and envious of Kampia's access to Peter Lewis, the parties at Playboy Mansion, the success of MPP, etc. and now they can pile on and add their vitriol.

    Anyone who wants to damage the Marijuana Policy Project is an enemy of the cannabis culture, and is an ally to the prohibitionist cause. I refer to High Times Magazine as a principle agitator, and this exaggerated tabloid insignificance printed in the Washington Paper is even sleazier.

  70. #70

    To Ronda, If no one give a shit...then why are you even reading this article, the comments, or even posting on it...just read something else.

    To Everyone else who might give a shit,

    As for living in Rob's "Mansion"...I no longer do. Also, I've know Rob for quite a long time...longer than the MPP has existed.

    I am not in anyway trying to justify Rob's actions (any more than I'd justify President Clinton's or David Letterman's). I am just explaining that Rob is not this horrible person that these articles and posts indicate. He has done some pretty bad things, agreed. However, that only tells a part of the story in terms of the person that he is. I do believe that his therapy will help. Plus, I know this horrible experience is waking him up to how his actions and comments have hurt others. Wouldn't this experience leave a lasting impression on anyone?

    Again, Rob's intentions were not to hurt or even to harrass others. He unfortunately did both...however, I do think intent is important too. (yes, I know his intent was also to have sex with some staff members, that's well known..however, his attempts were basically after work and at social events, not right to do...but less than predatory).

    I am just stating that Rob isn't this monster as he's being described. I have known Rob to be very sensitive and ethical at many times and in many ways. Clearly, sexual/workplace sensitivity is an area that he was terrible with. Rob has gone so far as to admit this, so there is no question about it. I do think it is unfair to just throw Rob overboard. I would absolutely not say this if I didn't think that Rob could improve in those areas.

    I know that because Rob has had some poor judgement and done/said some hurtful things....some people will not be able to feel good about Rob as a person, fair enough. I hope that many will consider the whole person that Rob is and allow him to work on the areas where he does have a problem.

  71. #71

    Left side positive...I like my Clinton/Letterman comparison to Kampia much better because they have all hooked up with subordanates. The Polanski comparison isn't fair because he's a child molester. I know some people are really sickened by Rob...however, dont' go crazy here and make that comparison. Rob's admitted to everything wrong that he's done/said and there is a lot. No need to start making that type of comparison - there is plenty of real things that he's done, don't you think?

    Anyway, I know Rob is a good guy and has a problem that he's trying to address.

  72. #72

    Josh, I was in no way drawing equivalency...I was clearly referring to "people [who] have done much worse than your friend." My point, though, is that this whole "good guy" stuff is BULLSHIT. Many people are totally incapable of seeing the harm that their friends do and try to help them evade consequences, and that this "good guy" excuse is used to cloud people's vision of the most heinous crimes. Are you so dense that you think that someone who abuses his power couldn't also seem like a "good guy" to a lot of people? I am so fucking sick of enablers like you who tolerate bad behavior because a guy is nice to you.

    You shouldn't think "He's a good guy, so he couldn't possibly mistreat women." Instead think, "He mistreats women, so he couldn't possibly be a good guy."

  73. #73

    Rob is not irreplaceable. Large nonprofit organizations change executive directors all the time, and normally they're able to grow because of it. That is nothing new.

    To suggest that the former MPP employees should have kept their mouths shut for the good of the drug policy reform movement is absolutely absurd. It's also absurd to suggest that they are enemies of the movement for stepping up and battling sexual harassment (and possibly even worse). Rob is the bad guy here, not them. His actions caused this. He is responsible. Stop blaming the messenger (in this case, messengers).

    Not predatory? He waited until the female coworker in question broke up with her boyfriend and had gotten trashed, and saw he had an advantage that he never would have had otherwise. He saw an opportunity and he pounced. How exactly is that NOT predatory? Isn't that the very definition of the word?

    Rob needs to go. For good. Those who are truly worried about the future of MPP and the drug policy reform movement in general should realize that reform cannot succeed in the hands of people like him.

  74. #74


    I see your point. You do make good sense and I don't totally disagree with you. I do think that intent is important...and I don't believe that Rob's intent was to be hurtful. Also, as bad as Rob's actions and comments were...I'd stop short of calling him guilty of heinous crimes...mostly because (as I mentioned before) he only talked to staff like he would his close friends. That's poor judgement, but not someone who was out there to hurt someone. Additionally, his bad actions were basically confined to social type events. I am not saying that is right either, but less than heinous.

    I don't think Rob has acted so terrible that he can't benefit from getting some help. Do you really think he's that bad? Do you believe that he's beyond getting help?I've known his a long time and that's pretty hard for me to imagine.

    Also, I've mentioned that Rob has a lot of good qualities...he can even be very sensitive in some areas. Clearly treating staff/women is an area in which he needs help. I am not trying to be an enabler...instead I am suggesting that he gets help and becomes a better person for it. I don't think that is unreasonable. I also think that it is unfair to suggest that Rob is somehow so far gone that he is beyond help. That's just not true.

  75. #75

    I don't think that describing Rob's actions as being a "Predator" are correct. That would be like suggesting that the woman isn't an adult capable of making her own decisions, she is. Her ex-boyfriend (regardless of how recent it was) does not own her body. Yes, Rob made himself available for sex with her and I'm sure tried flirting with her and suggesting that they go back to his house....However, don't think for a second that she didn't want it too. She's an adult and not the property of an ex-boyfriend. I know it may be hard to imagine...but someone women (sometimes) actually do want to hook-up with Rob.

  76. #76


    I appreciate what you have done and I appreciate what you have to say, however if I'm reading sentiments correctly, mine included, its not so much about the sexual problem, kinda sleezy yeah, but much more about the initial reaction to the department heads' recommendation to step aside. Kampia's response appeared incredibly self-serving. And, now based on what this article is reporting, it appears more like a genuine threat.

    I am sorry but I wasn't aware that the funding was all about one person. I thought it was about the organization's mission. Then to read about Greene's handling of the matter. Jeez please.

    Furthermore, I disagree that MPP has been the force for change that you believe it has been. Sure they have won a few battles, but many seem to believe that MPP takes more credit than they deserve. Likewise the biggest victories have occurred on fronts where MPP was not in the lead. Also many question the current legislation that MPP is sponsoring - monopolies for dispensaries. Finally, it just seems like a budget of $6 million annually could accomplish a whole lot more. If it has been half that much for ten years that would still be $30 million. That's a wad of cash.

  77. #77

    In this case, if she was so intoxicated that Rob made her pull the car over so he could drive, it's doubtful that she was, in fact, capable of making her own decisions. Also, yes. I do agree when you say it's hard to imagine that any woman, especially a woman twenty years his junior, would have any interest at all in hooking up with Rob.

  78. #78


    Someone such as yourself should be embarassed to say what you just did. The point isn't to decriminalize marijuana at any cost. Reference the Polanski argument in the other posts. That's like say "Well he made great movies; it was worth a little rape". Rob's a disgrace, everyone saw this coming, and now MPP has a black eye because of it. Drop the outrage you're-with-us-or-you're-against us crap. Kampia can be replaced, the fight will go on, maybe he'll get the help he needs and come back a better, and less in the spotlight person.

  79. #79

    The heinous crimes was referring to Polanski, for the record...I'm trying to convey that there's no "upper limit" to what people will tolerate in a "good guy," so the entire concept is meaningless.

    Yes, I do think he should try to get help (I don't know him, so I honestly can't speak to how sincere his interest in getting help may be). BUT I am not about to think we should give him another opportunity to abuse his power for another decade, at least. Maybe he could do his cause some good writing a blog, being an independent consultant, or any other position that does not give him access to any subordinates of any kind. If people actually cared about sexual harassment and sexual assault (and what happened to that intoxicated subordinate looks very much like assault), they would not allow people with histories like this to be in positions of power in organizations. Otherwise, people like this can get everything they want with no consequences of any kind.

  80. #80

    @Josh, about the "maybe-she-wanted-it-too," remember that the accounts indicate that she was too intoxicated to drive, and therefore highly unlikely to be able to give real consent. That is, by definition, predatory. Also, it is fundamentally predatory to take advantage of people who work under you. It is also, while legal, a totally dickish thing to try to pounce on someone who is extremely emotionally vulnerable after a break-up.

  81. #81

    WTF...amazingly, she did want to hook up with Rob, be amazed. Maybe you're disapointed or even shocked by her decision. It was her decision and she absolutely did want to hook-up with Rob. She even asked Rob to have sex with her multiple times that night, even when he was exhausted. Maybe Rob should stick with women his own age.

    Keith...Rob's no disgrace. He's put a lot of himself into making a difference. Rob also has a problem. He's trying to get help. Are you so perfect that you can't allow someone to have personal problems and try to improve as a person? I'm not. I am sure that Rob's going to get better from this whole experience. Yes, maybe it took all of this to make Rob wake-up. However, the end result is the same...he's getting help - he'll be better off. I think that's a good thing.

  82. #82


    What's up with "someone women (sometimes)" comment?

    Also, what's up with the "made himself available for sex" comment?

    The more I read about this episode the more I wonder what that girl has stay.

    Who out there has ever had sex with a drunk woman and then have her inquire what happened the night before? In my case that would be my better half. This can and does happen. I have known plenty of guys that take advantage of this type of situation. Its one thing when that's your significant other but when its not that's another story.

    Please continue. . .

  83. #83

    Holy crap Josh were you spying on them? Was this a three-way or what? My god is there a videotape?

  84. #84

    Josh, if it was so consensual, how come she and several other staffers resigned in protest?

  85. #85, there is no videotape. However, I sure wish there was because it would demonstrate how Rob isn't trying to take advantage of anyone.

    John. I think my first comment may have been me just rambling, I'm not proof-reading what a type so give me a muligan. As for the "made himself available for sex", well, I don't think it is that hard to figure out. Rob clearly wanted to hook-up with her. So he flirted and offered her to come back to his house. That's making himself available. He didn't twist her arm, she wanted to be with him too. It was her decision, he just made himself available.

  86. #86


    Several staff members was her, one was her ex-boyfriend, one was his roomate, one was the person that had convinced her to change her story...all of them were people that were close to each other. Additionally, most of them (if not all) were planning on leaving MPP before this event happened.

    I think Rob acted inappropriately. I think he acted piggish at work. I don't think he's so heinous that he's beyond help. I also don't think this whole thing makes him such a terrible person when I know that in many areas of his life he's a great person.

  87. #87

    Josh. In your response to WTF you are so emphatic. It was like you were right there when the deed was done. So is this a first hand account or your roomie's recollection of events? Seriously how the hell would you know that she was begging for more sex? Are you gonna claim that she was a screamer next and kept you up all night?

  88. #88

    I'd say any boss of a non-profit, that is always asking around for people to send their financial support, who then causes this much embarassment, grief and damage to their organization and their cause is a disgrace.

    Yeah, I'm not perfect either. But you don't see me blowing up my life's work, many people's volunteered time, donations and all that because I couldn't keep from banging the drunk help. Rob feel terrible? Oh gee. He didn't think this would be the end result of his behavior?

    "It's the movement, not the people"

  89. #89


    I am not going to make any crude claims. I think Rob has already made enough crude comments and he doesn't need his friends making additional crude comments of their own.

    This is not my first hand account. However, I did know about this encouter before it was a marijuana media circus. This woman is an adult and did want to hook-up with Rob. I am emphatic about that fact. I do not think that night should be the major part of this whole story...because it was two consenting adults. It is a part of the overall story.

    I think the real story is Rob's often inappropriate behaviour at work. I think he's not a horribe person and he is getting help. He said and did a lot of things that were harmful. He's not denied any of this. This is something that he can address with therapy. He's doing that. I am not a professional therapist (or even an amateur), but I do believe that he is taking this seriously and I do believe it is going to help.

  90. #90

    But, then to suggest that the money would evaporate when he was threatened, if that ain't self-serving, then dip me in shit and call me a rose.

  91. #91


    "Then dip me in shit and call me a rose"...that's totally funny, I am cracking up, thanks.

    Anyway, Rob is a proven fund raiser. There is no denying that. He also built MPP from his bedroom floor. He's made real sacrifices for this cause. I think it isn't really out of bounds to think the organization that he created would fall into financial (and other) hardships if he left.

    I can't say that I ever thought in my life I'd be up after 1 AM defending Rob on the Internet....I guess if you live long enough anything is possible.

  92. #92

    1. thank you for posting, at least the outside character stuff about Rob, which I didn't know. It is important to remember even someone who has done something unacceptable is still a whole person with good points.

    2. yes, MPP has done a lot of great stuff, and this shouldn't be an opportunity to deny that.

    3. I disagree with the rest of your defense. You were not there. you were not in the room. You, therefore, cannot call this consensual. you were not the one consenting. I was not in the room, so thus i don't know that it was nonconsensual. but, if he felt that she was too drunk to drive, and he encouraged her to take a cab home, then actual consent is not clear. he clearly felt he was more sober than she was, or he would not have taken the wheel. and he was much older. and not vulnerable in the same way she was in having ended a major long-term relationship two days before. and having her best friend leaving the organization. so, knowing all of that, and his supervisory relationship over her (it didn't matter whether he directly filled out her evaluation, he had hiring and firing discretion over her), for the purposes of this discussion, it doesnt matter whether there was actual full lack of consent, or if there is criminal liability. what matters is that the woman in question felt "sexually taken advantage of" the day after. but still, even that may not have been enough to call for his full firing at that point. but then he orchestrated a coverup by getting Peter Lewis and the Board to agree to brush it under the rug. i mean come on! where is your defense for that part of the article/story?

    4. again, your personal knowledge. where the heck do you get off saying that the four people who left (and actually, to remind you, it was 7-7 people, each with at least 3-8 years of MPP experience, the core of the organization) were "already planning to leave"? were you in their heads? because, from any information I've ever heard from the former staffers, they have never expressed that it was in their plans to leave. all at once. in the worst economic climate since the Depression. so, please don't make statements like that in your defense that you can't back up (which you can't, because it's not true).

    5. lastly, I can again accept that there are parts of Rob that are really good, and thank you for making my understanding more whole. But even while i can feel sorry for the fact that this is happening to him, as I do understand how hard he's worked, and I do give him his due for that work, actions have consequences. at the time with the Board, maybe him accepting a demotion to major fundraiser would have worked, and been enough. but he refused to accept consequences then, and now the consequences are that he cannot be MPP's Executive Director anymore. if you acknowledge that what he did was wrong, even if not "predatory", then you shouldn't be arguing for his reinstatement. we should both be agreeing that we want him to get better, and that he finds success in another sector, after he's better. but he should do the right thing, and wish MPP well to move beyond him, as sadly, he has lost the right to lead them.

  93. #93

    Josh, Rob is real lucky to have a friend like you.

  94. #94

    Alright, so I have a few points.

    First off, the only other two articles on this site referencing anything related to cannabis are "Sexual misogyny...weed," and "Weed culture is boob culture."

    This site is biased as can be, and shouldn't be taken so seriously. Please stop with all the infighting and petty picking please, as this is a bad political situation during a crucial year for reform and there's no reason to start the year off with a scandal that rips the community apart.

    First off Keith, Marc said that, in his opinion, the MPP has accomplished more than any other activist group. While I'm inclined to agree, based on the record and my knowledge of the reform movement, I do see your point that Marc may be wrong in fully defending Rob's inappropriate actions.

    However, as a leader of a prominent reform group, you must be held accountable. If your actions are potentially embarrassing or inappropriate in any way shape or form, and you do not correct them, then you should step down. And despite Rob's success, right now is not the time for him to be basically boasting of his immunity to repercussion. That only hurts the MPP and the movement in general.

    So while yes, I think the MPP has done a tremendous amount of good for the movement, how they handle this political embarrassment, in such a crucial freaking year, is going to be important. This is exactly the kind of freaking news that pigots need to jump on to scare people back towards prohibitionist views. Their only strategy for justifying prohibition, now that damn near every myth and unbiased claim has been disproven, is to use more scare tactics and finger pointing. Why give them ammo?

    This is playing into Pigots hands, and is NOT something the leader of such a prominent organization such as the MPP should be engaging in. At the very least, show some remorse publicly. I don't care if you feel it was justified or not within the office. Shut UP, and quit running your mouth to "news organizations" that are just trying to sell a story. How will publicizing your private indiscretions help the movement at all? It won't. It will only hurt it. And that's all that matters. Politicians encounter bumps in the road, but there's no reason to make a small bump a huge pothole.

  95. #95

    I would also like to add that I agree that NORML is an organization that, despite its many successes, causes a lot of infighting. I don't want to go into detail on why I feel this way as it will only cause further problems, but ANY kind of infighting or ridiculing of each other that is NOT PRODUCTIVE during this crucial year is nothing short of selfish and prideful, and just plain stupid.

    There will be plenty of pats on the back and hoorahs to be had once more progress has been made, but right now, I don't give a damn if NORML, the MPP, or the 80 year old neighbor from when I was in high school get credit, just free my damn plant, and keep the momentum going by thinking with our heads and not our...well, ask Kampia, he probably has a cheeky quip about the situation. All of this is just in my humble opinion, of course.

  96. #96

    Ok, and re reading all these long arguments, I have a suggestion.

    Shut the heck up about whether or not the act was consensual or if people were offended or blah blah.

    How is that productive????? It happened. The boss, crossed the line, of business ethics, and got caught. So now, we can defend him (which I am all for, people make mistakes) and play right into Pigots hands while we fight within our ranks and make a big mess out of the situation, or we can calmly assess what the best option is for the good of Rob, of the MPP, and of the movement overall. No one wants to see this happen, but it has. Blindly defending someone to get his reputation back is NOT how politics is won. Take note from some of the politicians who have gotten caught up in sexual scandals before. The thing to NOT do is exactly what's going your mouth publicly, to fuel the speculation and gossip, try and justify obviously wrong and unethical behavior, and then allow the organization and people you represent to fight amongst themselves over your initial stupidity.

    The thing to do here is to gather together, support a fellow activist as he attempts to recover from his personal issues and public (possibly legal) issues, and then MOVE ON. Or, we can all fight and let things fall apart at a time when we're making greater strides than anyone thought possible.

    So what's the best road to take from here? What will help to advance our goals of allowing the truth to be heard, and political, legal, social, and constitutional wrongs to be made right? Fighting over one man's justification of sexual misconduct will do nothing but hurt us. So let's play politics, the way they should be played. These things happen, unfortunately, due to human error (read, stupidity). Don't exacerbate the situation please, as millions are depending on proper leadership right now.

  97. #97

    sometimes good people do bad things. if you do the crime, be prepared to do the time. the cause is what matters. if you believe in it, be willing to step down & let others lead the charge if it would benefit the movement. try 12 stepping your problem in conjunction with a support's worked for many people. you will have to atone for your sins, even those committed against people who might have restraining orders against you. find a way to say you're sorry, and truly work to change your negative behavior. good luck, and thank you for the positive things you've done.

  98. #98

    Rob appears to be doing what he needs to do, apologize, get help, and stop the inappropriate behavior. Time will tell. The Marijuana Policy Project is a large organization and so is the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. These two orgznizations have lots of good members and those members are still doing good work every day. MPP needs to get a sexual harassment policy in place and remove anyone from the payroll who can't follow it. Simple.

  99. #99

    One thing that really stands out in this story is the connection with alcohol. It's not surprising that lust turns into dirty deeds when a drug like alcohol is involved. So, here we have a culture of folks representing marijuana users and their drug of choice is the most destructive drug on the planet. Go figure.

  100. #100

    Guys are sexually attracted to gals,because that's how nature keeps the species from becoming extinct. The only difference between Rob and the rest of the guys is that Rob has an alcohol problem. If he keeps denying it and claiming he has a sex problem, he's going to keep doing the same thing until he figures it out.

  101. #101


    "Guys are sexually attracted to gals"

    did you just... forget gay people, or

  102. #102

    I'm sorry. I would be opposed to sexual harassment of homosexuals for exactly the same reason I'm opposed to sexual harassment of heterosexuals. Everyone deserves to be treated with respect.

    So, do you think there is an alcohol connection, or not?

  103. #103

    I am not Adam Eidinger, and it is pathetic and disgusting that all of you are now asserting as fact that I'm him simply because we share the same first name. You talked trash about him and he's had nothing to do with any of this.

    THIS is exactly the behavior and "evidence" of the people making these attacks, to the rest of you readers who are (a) intelligent, and (b) not mentally and/or emotionally disturbed.

    As anyone with half a working brain would know from simply looking at my posts elsewhere, my last initial happens to be a "C". So all of these people just attacked another man based on their strong evidence of me having the first name "Adam" and not agreeing with their opinions.

    You are liars, plain and simple. You are cowards hiding behind your own anonymity while throwing out lies and accusations against other posters you disagree with, including an obsession with trying to discover who they are.

    So let's play the game in reverse. Which of you is Salem Pearce? Step forward and identify yourself. Which of you is Dan Bernath? Come on out. Sarah Hench, which one is you? Or are you all people actually unconnected to the entire situation at the MPP? If so, I've got some questions for you as well...

    And which organization(s) have paid you to attack? Are you taking money from another drug policy reform group, or from a government agency? You're hiding your identities for a reason, and you clearly have a vested interest in attacking Kampia and the MPP. That is absolutely clear, if I assume your arguments on the matter are valid, so you yourselves are essentially claiming to be hired paid thugs. So name yourselves and who is paying you for coming here to wage these attacks.

    If any of your methods against me are legitimate, then they are legitimate if applied to you as well. The difference being, I'm just one man. You are a gang working together. Who looks more like they have a real vested interested or stake in this, and that they are being paid? That's right, you do.

    I'm not paid to be here, I don't work in any way with MPP or with any company or business that works with MPP. I don't even work in any way drug policy reform, for that matter. You are all absolutely just crazed, immoral attack dogs let off their leash. The only question now is who let you off the leash.

    And of course, my comments everywhere have mostly focused on pointing out what the articles say and then noting how much the attackers are lying. You don't address most of what I say, instead just obsessing over thinking I'm people I'm not, and merely engage in trying to shout me down and attack me personally instead of the content of what I've said.

    Which is how dishonest people with low moral character behave, and you long ago demonstrated that that's all you are.

  104. #104

    Everyone reading these articles and posts needs to consider this: when any person takes interest in these articles and comments and happens to disagree with the people attacking, those people instantly start claiming you are this or that other person, and instantly start trying to find out your identity or demand you identify yourself. They insist you should not post and that if you do so, you must be getting paid or must be connected to the story yourself.

    But of course, they all post repeatedly all day, on different stories about this, and refuse to identify themselves and make no claim that the people posting attacks with whom they agree are being paid, are connected to the story, must identify themselves, and so on.

    It's dishonest, hypocritical, and ridiculous. They are saying nobody could be interested in this story enough to comment unless you agree with them.

    Who would behave that way and act in such a manner, and coordinate their attacks in that fashion, if they had integrity or honesty on their side? This is far removed from the questions about the actual stories and allegations themselves, and in fact it is an attempt to prevent critical thinking about the stories and allegations.

    Using their own logic, anyone spending time to read these stories and post comments but using an anonymous name -- or an actual name, for that matter -- must be getting paid to do so and must have a vested interest in the events, so that would include the people posting attacks here as well. It's their own logic, after all, and it might tell you something about them rather than the people the attack.

    Think of this: if you are standing on a beach drinking coffee, and someone walks up standing knee-deep in the water drinking beer, what would you think if they said "anyone standing knee-deep in water and drinking beer must be a dishonest person" while pointing a finger at you. The claim is outlandish, of course, and you aren't in the water or drinking beer. But they are... and they just told you how they define people doing it. The claim itself may have no actual merit, and may not apply to you, but what's it tell you if that's what they think of their own behavior? They're the ones saying it, so if that's what they really think then who does it really seem to apply to?

  105. #105

    Alright, I apologize to Eidinger for the errant association. I find it incredibly difficult to believe that he would associate himself in this PR mess. I am extremely relieved it is truely not you.

    However, Adam, you are clearly running some sort of damage control on multiple threads. You are also a very gifted debater, which makes me suspect a professional PR background, as you have mastered the art of defusion.

    So what gives?

  106. #106

    Uh... after that opaque beer-drinker-vs-coffee-drinker-on-a-beach scenario, "gifted debater" is not the first term that comes to mind to describe Adam.

  107. #107

    The story is that, for years, Rob Kampia permitted and participated in egregious sexual harassment of MPP employees -- something that Kampia, Green and Lewis all concede as true.

    This isn't about the former MPP staffers who spoke out.

    It isn't about the comments in this or any other thread.

    And it sure isn't about you and your as-pro-Kampia-as-possible interpretation of the articles, your baseless insinuations that Kampia's critics are on the DEA's payroll or your attempts to spin this in a way such that Rob is the victim and not the perpetrator.

    Get a grip.

  108. #108

    @K - Alright, how about defuser or obfuscator? Not sure if that second one is a word or not.

  109. #109

    It's a little strange that this article didn't mention that Alison and Rob were previously involved. I'm not sure of the exact context of their relationship (when and what), but it was general knowledge around the office.
    You can still mention her management credentials but I feel like that's a pretty big conflict of interest to overlook.

  110. #110

    Actually, if you go back and read what Adam has written, he has simply pointed out there there's more than one or two possible interpretations of the information that is actually factual. Not every interpretation is negative.

    However, there are a group of people consistently posting in the comments section of these stories claiming that their personal (negative) interpretation of said facts are in fact what happened, when it's not actually possible for them to know this as they weren't there.

    As soon as he's said that, people start ripping him a new one.

    Basically you can't use our own mind to decide what the actual facts might mean, unless it ends with a conclusion that Kampia is a horrible person. Anything else means you're an MPP shill of some sort.

    The truly disappointing part in all of this is while the MPP 7 left for moral reasons, they've since dumped all over their moral high ground. There are comments being posted here, at HT etc. that are factually not true, and I know that some of the MPP 7 have been reading them. Rather than step up and set things straight, they're either ignoring them or they're the ones writing them.

    4 of the initial 5 were willing to come back if Rob just wasn't the boss, but did fundraising instead, so his specific behavior wasn't enough for them to quit, rather, they're angry that they feel his punishment wasn't severe enough, and now they're going for their pound of flesh in the court of public opinion.

  111. #111

    Marc Emery is calling something or someone "sleazy". Now I've heard everything. The man must not know the meaning of irony. The sleaziest man in marijuana defending the second sleaziest by calling his accusers sleazy? Priceless.

  112. #112

    Alison Green, one quick question for your US News & World Report column:

    I'm a manager at a multi-million dollar NGO and my boss is serial sexual harasser and possible abuser. Should I brush his malfeasance under the rug, or report it to the Board? Keep in mind that this boss is the source of most of our funding and that funding comes from another man with sexual proclivities of his own.

    Jeez, when the flacks at US News read your real-life answer to that, how could they continue to run your column on how to manage companies? Your column should really be about how to cover up sordid acts in order to keep the money flowing. Shame on you.

  113. #113

    Although it looks like Alison/Rob did effectively prevent the board from getting the full picture from the aggrieved staff members, it is VERY hard to believe that the staff could find no way to get their concerns to the board other than going to the press and making this a public spectacle.

    One of the aggrieved staffers was MPP's membership director. You think she didn't have phone numbers and e-mail addresses for the board members?

    Why did she choose to call High Times instead? Seems awfully vindictive...

  114. #114

    While Rob sounds like the kind of guy I'd like to grab a beer and go cruising for co-eds with, there's really no way around him stepping down. Regardless of what happened behind closed doors with an employee, 4 people quit the next day. Four people quit their jobs because of what they heard the boss did. Either he did something pretty bad, or there was a pretty bad rumor, and his credibility was already so damaged it was believed.

    Now think about how strongly you would need to believe a rumor to quit your job.

    It's clear that Rob has many friends and admirers, and he's behind a great cause, but he can't stand at the front of the MPP amidst all this, even if they were all baseless allegations (which by his own admission they are not.)

  115. #115

    Adam is back with his "satire"! Ah yes. So your last two posts pretty much just complain about your treatment here, that "anonymous thugs" are hurting your feelings (despite you being essentially, an anonymous thug; if you disagree with the thug part, re-read your last few messages).

    What do you want, Adam C Packersfan? I can't respond at all to your message, because now I'll assume it's all dramatic hyperbole. I'd accuse you of talking nonsense, but you'd just say you don't believe anything you write anyway. As to your bizzare beach analogy, I can only say: we're BOTH knee deep in the water drinking beer. Get over yourself, you're just another anonymous troll on the internet.

    postin' this for free, on my own time~~

  116. #116

    To DP:
    Yes, and my point there is that the article says the behavior was widespread and frequent among staff, but the only allegations and stories are focused on this one person. The fact that the story is only about Kampia is what I'm talking about, when the same story and sources claim the comments and behavior were common among staff. When most of a staff engages in that behavior, and there's no evidence of formal complaints, and the evidence shows people did feel free to push back if they didn't like something that was said, it makes little sense to single out Kampia and pretend his behavior merits destroying him in the press and ending his career.

    Kampia running the place does not absolve others of their own behavior. Your comment suggests that he is in fact responsible for other people engaging in that behavior. If nobody files complaints and nobody comes to him to demand other staff cease their behavior, it is ridiculous to say he is personally responsible for that behavior and should be singled out for it. That he took no action against the behavior of other staff easily arises from the fact stated in the article that the behavior was widespread and didn't lead to formal complaints, and there is no evidence Kampia was approached about someone else's behavior in these regards.

    Perhaps some staffers prefer to be absolved of their own behavior, and to be treated as infants with no control over their own actions and to complain that they lacked the power to speak their minds, but the fact that people did directly state to Kampia that they did not want him to make those remarks to them is a clear indication that any claims of disempowerment and personal weakness or absolution of their own personal responsibility have little or no evidence to back them up.

    And the fact that nobody has claimed or provided any evidence that anyone's jobs or pay were ever threatened or perceived as "at risk", and in fact one two people directly assert they did push back at Kampia and there is no evidence or claim that it resulted in any reprisals, further discredits the notion these were a bunch of weak people who needed someone else to give them power to speak their minds and/or who had no control or responsibility for their own actions. It is infantilization and disempowerment of themselves to avoid responsibility for their own behavior, and to advance the notion that Kampia alone is personally responsible. And it is not backed up by any evidence, and is in fact contradicted by the evidence and the explicit claims of this article and its sources.

    I not only read the title of the article, but also the article itself. And the article claims that the quote in the title is just one of a pattern of such comments and behavior among most staff. To whatever extent you feel the quote doesn't reflect adults at work -- to which I'd then ask you if you've ever had a job -- that inherently means you'd have to say the same of the other behavior and comments of other staff as well, since so many apparently engaged in exactly the same behavior.

    Which again goes to my point that one person is being singled out and attacked, and said to not deserve his job or to work with other people anymore, and that he's a predator, and those claims and views should rationally be directed at everyone else who likewise worked there and engaged in that behavior. It's in fact even more true that those other people must not be real adults in a workplace, by your definitions, since added to their behavior is the claim that they aren't responsible for their actions and are too weak and powerless to be able to speak their minds (claims that contradict the actual assertions on the matter).

  117. #117

    To K:
    First, the age difference keeps coming up, and that is purely your and others' subjective opinion about age differences between people who date or have sex. Your own morality might make you cringe at it, but it is in fact extremely common. You may feel your own moral views on older people dating/sleeping with younger people who are legal adults in professional office settings is inherently bad and reflects on the older person's character, but your moral views are not evidence and certainly not a controlling factor. I could say a bunch of young people having sex with people their own age outside of wedlock is equally immoral and speaks ill of their character, but that would be another subjective opinion that I'm sure you'd balk at.

    And no, in fact there is not much difference between an office jackass who is a worker and an office jackass who is the boss, when in fact it seems there was an entire office of what you'd call "jackasses" who perpetuate the behavior and nobody files complaints about it, and most in fact participate. Again, you are using omissions to create a false impression of a single "jackass" in the office instead of a stable full of them in which nobody complains about the braying.

    It's not just what I say "did or did not happen" -- the question is what people going to the press say did or did not happen. You dismiss my own comments about what did or did not happen, while just accepting other people's word about what did or did not happen, despite the fact those people's assertions have clearly contradicted their own claims, the evidence supplied in these stories, and one another.

    And it is the claims of a small number of people, claims denied by a larger number of people. When a few people make claims that don't always hold up to comparison to evidence or even to their own other claims, while another larger group of people make claims and provide evidence that backs up their own claims, then it's ridiculous to act as if I'm unfair for granting at least equal weight to both sides making assertions and speculation.

    You again resort to the empty assertion that people resigning is evidence. And you again ignore the fact that your own logic -- the number of people taking action gives inherent weight to their claims -- should obviously make you and the rest of us give more weight to the other side, since more people chose not to quit.

    In addition, I keep seeing the same small set of people being quoted making these assertions, and I can look at the number of people using their real names who are making counter-claims and offering evidence, and the number of people arguing against the claims of the former staffers is larger. Their evidence is also far stronger, in part because it actually refutes several assertions being made in the attacks against Kampia and the MPP. With more people by name making more counter-arguments and offering more evidence including revealing some of the attacker's claims are false or distorted, it seems clear to me which side should be given more weight by rational, intelligent people following this story.

    You say nobody has reason to believe my "claim" that it wasn't unanimous and that people didn't demand Kampia resign -- so I must assume you've not in fact bothered to read the public comments and evidence presented by staffers who demonstrated that my "claims" are in fact completely accurate (since I made my claims after that evidence had been made public, which is why I made the claims in the first place, of course). People can go to High Times and see the evidence posted there for themselves, as I did. The course of those events is laid out clearly, has evidence backing it up, is made by people using their full names and job titles, and has not in fact been denied by any of the people attacking Kampia or the MPP.

    So right there I can demonstrate an demonstrably false assertion in your comment about me and about the evidence. It obviously suggests you either in fact are not at all linked to the group or the people who resigned, and have also not even read all of the stories and evidence, so you are speculating and speaking from a position no more informed than I am, and in fact less so since you didn't bother to read everything or see all of the evidence. Or, you are connected to the story and simply made a false assertion under the assumption nobody would bother to check. Or you are connected to the story but despite that you were unaware of the evidence in fact proving what I said and disproving the claims of the other people you are connected to who are making these attacks.

    If it's the first option, then go get more informed before commenting further and telling me I'm wrong or lying. If it's the second option, that means you intentionally tried to cover up the truth about the matter and lied about me and the evidence. If it's the third, it means you are part of this and are angry and backing people whom you did not realize had been making false claims and who may have also been lying to you personally (so you should question whether they lied to you about anything else in order to get your support).

    If I can use these stories, the quotes from sources and the evidence supplied by both sides and easily figure out that some of the claims were demonstrably false, there's no reason someone directly involved shouldn't be able to do the same thing. If you are involved, actually, then you have a lot more of a moral burden to find out these facts and realize these obvious inconsistencies and falsehoods, since you are lending your comments and support to at least some things that are untrue. Someone unconnected to all of this who is just reading and paying attention shouldn't need to direct another person actually involved in the story to the facts and evidence, so I hope that's not what just happened here.

    You say it sounds like the only person not acting his age was Kampia. So, you definitely didn't read the articles. And certainly you couldn't have read this article you're posting to, since it in fact explicitly states the behavior was widespread among the staff. Or you did read it, and do realize it was widespread, but you think only Kampia wasn't acting his age because the other people are infants not responsible for their behavior and unable to control themselves. Or you actually do think other people also were not acting their age, and you simply don't care and are falsely saying only Kampia acted immature.

    Is it that you didn't read the article, that you don't think other people were acting immature because you think they are so infantile they are incapable of acting mature, or that you just don't care what the actual facts are? I don't see any other rational option to explain your comment.

  118. #118

    To K's other comment:

    I saw Kampia's remark about being "hyper-sexualized". Know what I did? I looked it up (am I the only one here bothering to take five seconds to look things up? to compare quotes to other claims? to compare claims to published evidence?).

    The fact that you directly point to Kampia's statement and his seeking of treatment is very important here. Because actual hyper-sexuality is in fact a clinical condition, associated mostly with bipolar disorder or actual neurological disorders. Meaning that, since you point to Kampia's statements as evidence to back yourself up, you are accepting the existence of a clinical disorder and then claiming he's just a "jackass", sleazy, a predator, or whatever other loaded word you want to use to describe your subjective view of his behavior.

    So I am guessing you will now reverse yourself on pointing to Kampia's remark and treatment as evidence for your own argument? Or will you admit that you pointed to it as evidence of an "admission" and problem, and that in fact accepting it strongly indicates you are making a drastic error in characterizing it as just "jackass", sleazy, and so on?

    Since you go further and again reference Kampia's behavior as possibly brought on by sickness (which you put in quotes, being a medical professional who disagrees with the clinical diagnosis of this as a real disorder? just wondering -- would you also call for example drug addiction a "sickness" in quotations?), it seems you are somewhat aware of the implications of Kampia using the term and getting treatment, so if you are actually acknowledging a possible neurological condition while also calling it "jackass" and such, your view on the matter appears distorted and questionable.

    My "bizarre defenses"? Certainly you and others seem to think that pointing out logical inconsistencies and assertions disproven by evidence is "bizarre", but I doubt most other people would share your definition of the word. What have I said that's "bizarre" -- is it my point that there is little actual evidence of these assertions beyond the word of the same tiny number of former staffers, my point that evidence has been provided by a larger number of people proving some of the claims are demonstrably false, my point that speculation and unsubstantiated claims are not enough "evidence" to destroy someone in the press, my point that the claims about resignations by a small number of people is not actual evidence and is in fact logically negated (using your own logic, that is) by the larger number of people who didn't resign and who contradict the attacks, or what? Show me the bizarre claim, since I've more than shown you the bizarreness and deeply flawed nature of your own.

    What harms drug reform movements, or any movements, is when a small group of people take to the public square and demand a lynching because they said so. Your own standard for what is or is not enough evidence, and your willingness to treat resignations and assertions as self-perpetuating evidence, is simply not one I happen to agree with.

    I do not accept simple allegations and a smattering of supposed "evidence" that is frequently (and demonstrably) false, distorted, circular ("the allegations must be true because they quit, and they must have quit because the allegations are true"), and/or not backed up by evidence beyond the same claims of the same tiny group of people.

    What has been demonstrated is that the MPP had widespread use of sexual and crude language (without formal complaints), lots of dating and/or sex (without formal complaints), that Kampia was one of the people involved in those things (having dated a few workers over the group's 15 year history, and having had sex with two employees in that time as well), that on one demonstrated occasion he sent an e-mail that resulted in an employee objecting to the language he used and telling him so (but again without formal complaints), that he most recently had sex with a staff member, and that this encounter led to the woman resigning, her ex-boyfriend resigning, and his friends and roommates resigning.

    What has also been demonstrated is that at some point, department heads initially wanted Kampia to voluntarily step into a job as fundraiser but not the top job at the group. He declined to do so, and noted in some way that he believed donations would dry up if he were not in the top position. Some department heads decided they did not support forcibly removing Kampia, and there was no longer a unanimous agreement among department heads to take to the board of directors of the MPP. The board of directors was informed about what happened, they asked that people provide statements to the chief of staff and that she send it to the board, and the board of directors decided to institute several changes and directives to the MPP and to Kampia personally.

    Three more people then also resigned from the group. A firm sexual harassment policy was instituted, training on sexual harassment was given to the staff and to Kampia, Kampia agreed to undergo sensitivity training, and according to all public comments by current staffers, the environment at the MPP changed for the better, Kampia's behavior changed, and there have been no further problems or instances of such behavior for the last five months.

    Those are the things that have in fact been demonstrated. How one feels about each or all of these things is a matter of subjective opinion, much of it based on not personally even being involved, and certainly most of it very much a matter of interpretation and how much you allow other claims -- almost all of which are entirely speculation, armchair psychology, lacking in any evidence whatsoever, and gossip or rumor stemming from unsubstantiated claims that have mostly been made anonymously in comment threads.

    If you wish to assume the worst, to take into account rumors and claims that lack evidence, to ignore the fact that many of the claims were refuted, and to ignore the manner in which your "friends" (or cohorts or whatever you want to call them) around here are making baseless personal attacks on me and others who simply disagree with you and your standards of evidence (and making false claims about who some of us are, dragging other unrelated people into public attacks), then that's your choice.

    But don't complain because some of us want evidence to back up assertions, are unwilling to just assume there must be truth to some claims based simply on "people quit, so they must have a reason", and other such speculation and unsubstantiated assertions or claims that contradict other claims (or that were roundly disproven).

    My problem with all of this is how little actual evidence is being provided, and that we are being asked to just take the word of a handful of people about what happened and how to interpret it. Assertions without evidence, especially when some assertions do not fit other claims or are refuted by actual evidence, is not a good enough basis on which to publicly destroy a person's reputation and life.

    You interpret some of this one way, I interpret it another. You are more willing to accept people's word for things, and to grant them the assumption that they had good reasons for this or that action. I am not so willing to take people's word for it or assume good reasons for actions, when the stakes are a man's life. Why does this bother you so much? Why are you upset and angry that I would want more actual proof, and why would you react so harshly to me merely comparing claims and evidence and noting that a lot of it is wrong, distorted, or contradictory?

  119. #119

    Green needs to be shown the door as well.

  120. #120

    Holy crap Adam. I hope you are being paid for your time.

  121. #121

    To John:

    No, I'm not running a PR campaign. I see these stories, I started to post on a couple of them when I disagreed with the way some of the articles presented allegations and how some people were posting comments, and shortly after that I started getting attacked myself while even worse claims were tossed out that had less and less relation to the actual truth.

    So you people attacking me, trying to figure out my name and post it publicly (which was always honestly a bit funny when it was just the paranoia that I was "in the movement" or "being paid", but became nasty when an entirely different man was named and falsely accused of being me), have only increased how much I read and looked up this stuff. And once it became clear that some people were intent on trying to bully me off the comment threads, I became more determined not to let liars, cheats, and cowards think they succeeded in pushing the truth out of the way or shouting me down.

    I care because this is wrong. It's not simply a case of what kind of person Kampia is at heart, and some of you don't seem to get that. My problem is that this is all happening in the press and in public, with some of the worst accusations you could make about a person, but with almost no evidence other than people making the accusations. When those people and their supporters behave in ways that include acting like thugs and abusing other people who disagree, posting totally false claims, and making up and posting new allegations and claims without any evidence or even a hint that there is a real basis for the claims, then I get suspicious and get more interested since it's all helping attack and destroy someone in public.

    It is not enough to say someone uses crude language at work and dates/sleeps with coworkers. Even repeated and consistent behavior of that sort does not inherently rise to the level of making someone a "predator" or deserving of having their lives ruined in public. There are different opinions about what is crude, and about when it's okay to have sex with a coworker or subordinate -- that's why such very different polices exist at different places, and why some places have very little policy about those things.

    Much of this is subjective, and just because a person is in fact honestly offended by certain language or behavior doesn't make it inherently predatory or worthy of firing. As I noted, some people would say that unmarried young people having sex is immoral, some might complain that the use of the word "damn" and "hell" is obscene, some might complain that certain styles of dress are obscene, and so on.

    I have not seen enough evidence to make me think that Kampia's behavior and comments come even close to approaching a level that makes this public lynching acceptable or moral. So long as that remains the case, I will continue to object to it. And so long as my objections result in a handful of people making vicious attacks against me personally, or perpetuating falsehoods that have already been disproven, I will remain far more inclined to keep posting and reminding everyone when the lies and liars pop back up. You all asked if I have a "vested interest" in this -- you should stop asking now, since by personally attacking me and lying about me, you're definitely giving me one.

  122. #122

    Ah, and again with the "being paid" comments.

    This from someone who is among those repeatedly posting and apparently digging around to try and find out people's names so he can post them publicly -- even when it's utterly false and attacks another person.

    I'll say again, keep implying that all you want. It's a lie, I am pretty certain you know it's a lie, and if that is your own operating set of definitions and logic, it implies that you are getting paid to be here. I'm not making the accusation, you are, after all.

  123. #123

    Does no one respond to my points?

    It appears Adam is trying to claim that the whole of MPP is a dishonest organization. Who is this Adam guy, with the gift of gab?

    Why are people attacking each other? The cannabis community is not the one in power. Does no one see the Babylon Zion conflict going on here? Or have I just been wearing a tin foil hat for too long?

    This is just great. Way to work together in the interest of the movement.

    I'd just ignore Adam from now on, as no one who has to post essay after essay on the internet is someone I'd call a "great debater" in this age of instant information. Not many people have the time to read all his blabbing.

    But hey, let's throw out "sleazy" insults, argue over morality, and go ahead and forget all the people that are counting on good leadership from reform groups this year. Hell, let's have MPP throw a Playboy party, with tons of booze and sex orgies, how would that sound? Let's go ahead and try and make this situation as politically distasteful as possible. Invite underage college students to the party too! And a few cute high school girls, just to make the story juicier. Go go go!!!

  124. #124

    Oh, and for the record, to demonstrate my standard of evidence that I find relevant here: I also don't care about assertions regarding Kampia's past, either. He could drive nuns to poor villages to feed the poor, perform free surgery on children in impoverished nations, and donate all of his money to building houses for the homeless for all I care. It won't affect what I think about this story or the issues and evidence involved. I don't want rumor or assertions without evidence, from either side.

    A person is publicly accused and being called horrible things, so the evidence needs to be firm and consistent, and there needs to be a good amount of it, before his life is ruined over these allegations. Facts and evidence are what matter, and if you argue strenuously against that, then it doesn't make me inclined to take your comments or claims seriously.

  125. #125

    Poll: Should Rob Kampia Step Down Permanently?

  126. #126


    If your point is for us to stop bickering with each other, I think that's a good thing. Unfortunately, this juicy article creates a stir and that's to be expected.

    Overall, I think Rob's character is not terrible. I have explained above in countless posts that I agree he's acted innapropriately, but he's getting help. He's not somehow that's twisted anyone's arm to do anything.

    For whatever it's worth...if you read my comments about Rob's character (and I do know him quite well) - you'll see that he does have an icolated problem that he's trying to address. I don't think he's acted so horrible that he's beyond repair. That's just not true.

    I think it would be good to just let this die and let Rob get himself together. Who wouldn't be in favor of someone getting therapy if they need it and becoming a better person for it? I don't think it's reasonable to just trash the guy like he's not worthy of support. He's no angel (as he's conceded), but he doesn't deserve to be characterized in the way he is and he does deserve and chance to improve upon his short-commings.

  127. #127

    Why isn't it mentioned anywhere in this article or in the comments that Alison Green is Rob's ex-girlfriend? It's portrayed as if she's a "professional" brought it to clean up Rob's mess -- hardly. As a female who worked at MPP for years, I can attest to her lack of professionalism as well as Rob's psychoses. Ninety days of therapy is certainly not going to be enough. None of this comes as a surprise to me, except that it took so long to come to out in public.

  128. #128

    Yikes, Adam be fighting mad. Can we agree on one thing?

    Kampia's version of events is the only one that has been related publicly.

    If this is true, which it is, then why are you so willing to throw yourself in front of the proverbial bus for the dude without knowing the other half of the story?

    I'd say that is a huge leap of faith on your part. Your only motivation is moral outrage?

    Here you are getting all preachy with us, yet you totally discount the victim who has yet to surface and tell her story. At the same time you appear to have plenty of speculation to put forth as to why she would leave.

    Did your moral compass lose its bearings or is something else clouding your rush to judgement?

  129. #129

    I think the poll should be for Green not Kampia. His egg is fried so to say. Too bad so sad.

    Josh, I hope Kampia realizes how kind you've been to him coming to his defense.

  130. #130

    Adam, I think you're having difficulty telling apart the various people who disagree with you/are "attacking" Mr. Kampia, understandable in your position. While I am not the same person as Jinja420, altho in the main I agree with their points.

    If Mr. Kampia does have a diagnosed medical disorder, it is clear, by his own admission, that this interfered with his ability to be an effective executive. If this is the case, it was beyond irresponsible of him not to step down until a major crisis resulted, involving all MPP department heads & the Board of Directors. And I stand by my "jackass" statements. If someone is a jackass while drunk, for example, there are very few people willing to forget that behavior once that person sobers up.

    And I don't buy any of this "it's bad for the movement" for these staffers to come forward rhetoric. Ignore personally intolerable, possible criminal, definitely unprofessional behavior for the sake of a political position? Please. What is/was bad for the movement was Mr. Kampia's conduct, medical condition or not.

  131. #131

    Just a shout out to the photo editor at the City Paper for selecting that picture of Alison. In her role as Chief of Staff, Green functioned as an enabler, and is culpable as Rob for the fact that his actions were allowed to progress to this stage. I would also venture to guess that the fact that no legal action has been entered into by previous employee-victims because....Alison ate them. Srsly? I think she's put on, like 30 pounds since I last saw her.

    Charachter assassination? Nah, just keepin' it real.

  132. #132

    To John:
    I'm fighting mad? Coming from people going into histrionics at anyone who disagrees with them, making personal attacks and getting so angry simply because I don't agree with your standards for "evidence", that's a rather silly comment for you to make.

    To say Kampia's version of events is the only one related publicly is laughable. Either you've not even read the news stories and comments, or you read them and are simply making another dishonest assertion.

    So it's not true, which automatically negates your next outlandish statement. And your definition of "throwing" one's self "under a bus" is as ridiculous as your other remarks. I started out disagreeing with the way a story was written, and with how comments were being posted. Then I was attacked and saw a lot of accusations made, so I did what rational, intelligent people do and read the rest of the news stories and comments. Then, still deciding rational, intelligent action and thought was the best course, I noted inconsistencies and outright falsehoods coupled with childish, bullying, dishonest behavior.

    So I commented further on those things. I was attacked again for it, and responded since you don't just get some special free privilege to attack whomever you want without any reprisal. And since, as noted repeatedly, you're all resorting to malicious, dishonest methods and using lots of demonstrably false assertions. Don't cry because someone isn't letting you scream and lash out at them, that's just what happens when you behave this poorly.

    I've posted comments and points in response to the articles, comments, and points the rest of you have resorted to en mass for many days now. I'll once again point out, since you seem incapable of grasping the point, that since you are the ones asserting that repeated interest and commenting on one's opinion is -- by your definition -- evidence of being paid or having a personal vested interest, then that standard seems rather logically to apply to yourselves.

    I don't adhere to your ridiculously paranoid and accusatory notion, because it's false as it relates to me, but it is relevant that if that is indeed your actual view and definition of the situation, it is only logical that having that view of the matter could strongly suggest something about why you and others keep repeatedly posting such extreme and harshly-worded comments on the matter yourselves. If you think constant commenting and having a strong opinion only arises from self-interest and/or payment, how do you explain yourselves?

    Luckily, I'm not a shallow enough person that I only care to comment about what I think is an injustice if I'm paid to do so. You are apparently the ones who feel that's the standard for being interested and arguing a situation, but I'm not obligated to share that type of shallow, self-serving view of justice.

    I care enough to post comments on the Internet because I think publicly destroying someone in the press using such questionable and frequently dishonest tactics is something we should all at least have the decency and integrity to speak out about, when it is easy to speak out by typing comments online. If you are not the kind of person to stand up and speak out about something you feel is wrong, unless you're paid to do so, that's your own standard and certainly doesn't apply to me.

    You say a "victim" has not surfaced to tell her side -- and of course, you expect me and others to take your word or the word of other people (mostly anonymous) that there is even a "victim" at all. No, try to understand this, I do not believe there is any evidence that a "victim" exists. There has not been any such evidence whatsoever put forward, and moreover none of the actual sources who went on the record assert an actual "victimization". Those claims are made anonymously, through rumor and innuendo, and have no merit so long as they are without evidence and are merely claims from secondhand or third-hand "sources" unwilling to name themselves or how they supposedly came to these conclusions.

    So long as you and others give us preachy speculation filled mostly with distortions or outright dishonest claims contradicted by evidence or without any evidence whatsoever to back up your accusations, then yes I am absolutely free to point out that there are other ways to interpret the basic claims and evidence. I prefer ways that involve honesty, integrity, consistency, and logical, rational thinking. You are free to keep resorting to hyperbole, histrionics, distortions, falsehoods, claims that what you think has to be true, claims that accusations equals proof if it supports what you already believe, and other such nonsense.

    But don't cry because I am not willing to downgrade my standard of evidence just to suit you, or because I find the public destruction of a person's life in the media to be unnecessary and immoral when it lacks credibility, evidence, and consistency.

  133. #133

    What light if any can you shed on the working environment or this specific incident that hasn't already been put forth?

    Where you there at the time of the incident?

  134. #134

    To Former Staffer:

    You're a juvenile creep, maybe someone needs to do a news story about you. That's exactly typical of the nasty little public attacks that define the tone and mentality behind most of the attacks on Kampia, the MPP, and anyone who defends either.

    Notice how now that people attacked Kampia, they are trying to turn attention to their next target, a woman who didn't agree with them and their tactics. They are picking targets and engaging in character assassination in public to exact revenge for whatever slights real or imagined have made them obsess over this group and its employees.

    It is sad that people are having to endure such childish behavior in those kinds of attacks, but at least it reminds everyone that most of the people engaging in these attacks are some of the worst sorts of people, judging from their methods. Readers take note, that's precisely the sort of mentality and behavior behind the allegations and attacks. Every time these people speak, they do more damage to their own credibility.

  135. #135

    To K:
    I definitely have trouble at times being sure who is who, in light of the ever-changing nature of names the people attacking prefer to use.

    Regarding Kampia's admission about his problem, admission of the condition is not an admission that it prevented him from effectively managing the MPP. All evidence is in fact to the contrary. There has been no evidence whatsoever that any of these allegations or behaviors resulted in inefficiency or ineffectiveness in Kampia or the MPP's ability to do their work. Nor has it been at all demonstrated with evidence (or, for that matter, any actual examples or instances even alleged) that other workers were less effective due to Kampia's behavior. Or the behavior of the others in the office engaged in the same widespread behavior.

    I do not think there is anything to suggest that the behavior or events had any negative impact on the effectiveness. Merely claiming it did is not evidence, and is just another example of making a outright assertion devoid of merit if it lacks any proof whatsoever, and especially since the evidence in fact points to the opposite.

    If it didn't cause ineffectiveness, if Kampia and the board and many staffers and several department heads did not feel it should cause Kampia's removal, then there's no evidence or logical reason presented so far for Kampia to step down or be removed.

    Assertions by a few people is simply not enough evidence, however much you and others want it to be. Nor is there evidence that it rose to a level that the opinion and interpretations of a handful of people mostly without evidence to back up their assertions should outweigh the evidence and views of a larger number of people who disagree. Certainly not enough that it is necessary or morally right to fire the man and publicly destroy his life.

    You are now guilty of explicitly tossing out defaming suggestions, things nobody has had the nerve to make with their names attached -- and which nobody has presented any evidence of. The method has been to point out that the man talks crudely and has sex with a couple of staffers, and then anonymously to make outrageously inflammatory assertions of the worst nature. You are trying to make the basic claims of sexual comments and sex with workers influence people into believing anonymous extreme claims of far worse things, and that is absolutely not a valid or honest way to behave. That is the m.o. throughout by Kampia's and the MPP's attackers, and it is vile.

    But I certainly agree that once people behave like utter jackasses, it's hard to forget they are braying jackasses.

  136. #136

    In this thread: Adam bawws about people being petty, calling him names, lying and asking for his identity. Also, Adam bawwing, being petty, calling people names, lying, and asking for their identity. And then trying to claim he's better than everyone.

    Adam C wrote: "You are free to keep resorting to hyperbole, histrionics, distortions, falsehoods, claims that what you think has to be true"

    Nicely summed up your own missives there, Adam. Thanks for the Cliffs notes. Too bad Mumia didn't have you on his side.

  137. #137

    You are obviously the same blowhard windbag from the HT forum, no doubt. I am sitting home with the flu, what's your excuse, "moral indignation?" Bravo, but how can you be so damn sure of your self-proclaimed moral high ground buddy?

    I quote page two of Hess's article: "What happened at Kampia’s home is a matter of competing accounts. But according to Kampia’s version of events—the only one that has been related publicly—the evening concluded with “consensual sex” between himself and the female subordinate.

    Note —the only one that has been related publicly—

    There is only one other possible account, the one that you, Adam, are not taking into account, the female party's version of events.

    Neither you nor I have any insight into this version. Agreed?

    I don't know but with only one first hand version among a total of two possible first hand versions, I'd say that is taking a big leap of faith on your part.

    So what happens if the second first hand version surfaces? You are rolling the dice buddy. As you stated so eloquently over on HT there are multiple scenarios to consider.

    I say we take a poll. Who here thinks Adam has more at stake here than just his "moral indignation?"

  138. #138

    Rob Kampia's excuse: he thinks he's "hypersexualized"? Oh, please. He is a misogynist with deep-seated anger against women and pervasive feelings of insecurity. (Look at him! He would f*ck that voluntarily?!)

    I would advise no young people to work for a "grassroots" organization like this--as someone else said, it's invariably run like a cult, by someone who can't hack it in an established organization.

  139. You Don't Know Unless You Worked There

    Is there one single person on this thread (other than Alison) who has actually worked there, and is still willing to defend Rob? Seems the every single former employee (not just in the article, but on this message board) is in agreement, so I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around how all you outsiders seem to know sooo muuuch mooore about the issue than the people who were actually involved and victimized.

  140. #140

    Can you be more specific please. To whom are you referring as knowing so much?

    And are you suggesting that we don't have a right to want to know what's going on at the nation's number one org for marijuana reform?

  141. #141

    To #137

    I'd be willing to take a glory bet that he sexually assaulted her. Drunk girl, can't drive, instead of taking her home, he takes her up to his house? And then he pulls the "lady doth protest too much" about how consensual it is when she quits, along with several other people who know her, including an ex boyfriend.

    Let's look over this for a second. Several people all quit their jobs at once, in a massive recession, several people dedicated to advocacy for legalization all leave their jobs. At once. Immediately after a person, who admits to having serious problems with sexual harassment and inappropriate sexual behavior, took one of them, nonfunctionally drunk, to his house and had "consensual sex".

    Hmm. Right. Something smells awfully fishy here.

    3..2...1... go Adam's apologism and wild speculations!

  142. #142

    @recursiveparadox: yea, I think that part is clear to reasonable, intelligent adults here. Pretty tough to deny "consent" when you're passed out or nearly so, isn't it?

    Unfortunately, in many cases, it's pretty hard to prove that a rape occurred.

  143. #143

    Editing my previous post": (Look at him! He would f*ck that voluntarily?!)

    Should read WHO would f*ck that voluntarily

  144. two wrongs don't make a right

    ALERT: THERE ARE PEOPLE SITTING IN PRISON TODAY FOR POSSESSING A PLANT! That's the real scandal worthy of a City Paper cover story and attendant outrage.

    If we are to win this fight, we must agree to keep in-fighting IN. Otherwise, it's out-fighting. That's what we are supposed to do with our political opponents.

    All the players in this story have exhibited incredibly poor judgment.

    Everyone, including Rob Kampia, agrees that his words and actions were unacceptable. I agree he should be held accountable.

    What's also unacceptable is airing dirty laundry in the media. There are plenty of non-public ways to hold people accountable for bad behavior. Lawsuits, appeals to the board of directors, and appeals to current employees.

    Public shaming is a shameful, archaic, and counter-productive tactic...especially for political allies.

    Rob Kampia started a campfire where he shouldn't....then supposed political allies came running in with buckets of gasoline to pour on it. If this were an arson investigation, who would be considered more culpable for the wildfire?

    This is a sad chapter in the movement to legalize marijuana that I hope we all learn from.

    Let's keep our eyes on the prize.

  145. #145


    4 of the 5 (all but the woman involved with Rob) said they would come back to work for MPP if Rob were moved over to major fundraiser instead of executive director.

    So, whatever happened, it was bad enough for them to want Rob to no longer be the boss, not so bad that they didn't think they could keep working with him at MPP under slightly different conditions.

  146. @two wrongs don't make a right

    It's very possible that the employees quoted here DID try to go to the board of directors and also appealed to current employees. I'm sure if they did decide to sue, it could take years, and anyway, it doesn't sound like money is the issue here. Maybe they didn't come forward until months after it happened because they WERE trying other avenues. The board had a chance to force Rob to step down, but didn't until the media became involved. It sounds to me like talking to the press may have been their only option.

    Personally, I think these guys should be applauded for making sure this behavior doesn't continue.

  147. #147

    Maybe it should be the Alcohol Policy Project

  148. #148

    The last paragraph of the article is interesting. Bernath says that Alison Greene "is not very sympathetic to women who put themselves in vulnerable positions."

  149. #149


    Dude, you talk too much.

    You're basically saying that there isn't enough evidence yet to fully understand the story, and that High Times and this site are being irresponsible journalists by publishing this story. They are publishing this story for nothing other than attention.

    You are completely right, and I completely agree.

    However, you whining and moaning continuously is obviously not working. You seem smart. Go start a blog. This isn't your personal preaching ground, and it's not getting anything accomplished but making people angry.

    Everyone has a right to their opinion. You're not going to change people's opinions by screaming at them here. So just stop. You've been heard.

    This is about politics, not logic. There's a difference.

  150. #150

    @Jacquie Johns

    My understanding of sexual misconduct cases are normally accusatory on both sides.

    It's the man's fault because he's a predator, according to the women involved.

    According to the accused man, the women were flirtatious, horny, whory, etc, and he was only being naturally social and it was completely consensual.

    That quote you put was just showing one of the people in the defensive position setting up for the argument. It was consensual and regretting sexual acts after the fact is not proof of misconduct. This is just a news article. The actual ramifications of this event will not be nearly as outlandish as the coverage.

  151. #151

    Adam, you missed the point: if you're NOT getting paid to rebut, you're an fool spending the better part of 2 working days whinging ON THE INTERNET. Ha! Like any of this matters. Plus, you'd have to be a complete sadist to read every single paragraph you've written (thrice as long as the original article!).

    Amanda- thanks for writing this, my day is brightened, and not just bc I can imagine the bad mood Adam has been in the past 24hrs.

    BTW @mary jane: why is it the majority of HR and mid-mgr types I've ever met has this complete martyr complex and seething contempt for their subordinates (even that term itself drips with disdain)? Your accounts read full of hostility obviously beyond your own self-awareness and I suggest a change in careers.

  152. #152

    @Carl Olsen "Maybe it should be the Alcohol Policy Project"


  153. #153

    This is the worst recession since the thirties. Jobs, especially jobs that provide one with a sense of fulfillment, just aren't that easy to come by these days.

    Did you ever consider that they (the 5) might be decent people and actually respect Rob for the good things that he accomplished but just didn't want to feel compromised by his being the boss?

  154. worked my ass off, screwed by MPP

    The sad thing about this all this is that Rob's management ability and leadership qualities are all just as bad as his moral behavior!

    He is the classic egotistical micro-manager. This kills the productivity of the people below him. He will not hesitate to an kill an important reform project over a petty dispute or insult. He will choose the person who shows the most fealty to him over the smartest, hardest-working person every time. He will divide and destroy volunteer groups he doesn't like, or turn two groups against each other.

    This is ESPECIALLY bad in a public policy advocacy organization, where there are 10+ grass roots volunteers out there for every paid professional. An effective leader should empower the volunteers and take advantage of their abilities and perspectives, which are ALWAYS more than that what one individual can offer.

    Even now, MPP has made a (unilateral) decison to drop patient cultivation from their medical marijuana bills, reneging on 10 years of telling people that patient growing was the critical lynchpin to every successful medical marijuana bill.

    Please Mr. Lewis, bring in a new professional leader to run your group. Maybe someone with a track record of success, who's worked at more than one organization for the last 20 years?

    Marijuana MUST be bigger than any one guy - I thought we all learned that with Keith Stroup in the Carter Administration. We should have learned to NEVER be in a position to let the fate of 100 million potsmokers ride on a single individual. We deserve better.

  155. #155

    No shit Sherlock, why do you think that there is such a unanimous rant of outrage?

    What do you think the rest of the nation is going to think about the reform movement?

    The lead organization, MPP, evolved into an incestuous interoffice hanky-panky gang bang.

    Do you know your history? Deja vu back to the late '70s coke party on the second floor of the NORML house with Bourke (Carter's Drug Czar) and Stroup (Founder/Head of NORML)?

    What did we get? Two and half decades of Marsha Mann, DARE, ONDCP, Just Say No, Reagan, Bush, more prison, etc.

    Get the point? Would have expected Kampia to understand this as well.

  156. #156

    I've seen Rob come into this state and meet many people. Every one that I talked to afterwards was like "wow, he seemed really unimpressive".

    the movement can do better folks. We're talking about someone at the head of a $6 million per year budget.

  157. the patient growing thing

    so glad someone brought this up....what am I supposed to tell my friends in wheelchairs with MS, who have come to countless hearings and meetings for the last 15 years to ask for their medicine?

    who have risked their subsidized housing and disability payments to come out in the open and tell their story?

    Sorry, your brother can't grow the herb for you. You'll have to find a way to pay a dispensary $400 per ounce for the next 20 years, even though you only get $600 per month in disability and you need 1/2 ounce per week.

    Thanks Rob!

  158. #158

    If this hook-up wasn't consenual....then why did she give Rob oral sex? That sounds like a woman that was interested in hooking up with Rob to me.

    Sorry for being so crude here. I didn't want to say any gross details. However, since some are posting here that she may have been too drunk to give consent....wouldn't you then likely also be too drunk to give a BJ?

    This whole ordeal is unfortunate. Rob's actions and language are also unfortunate. However, Rob is not the horrible person he is being made out to be.

    It's funny that Rob's probably the only one here that's made real sacrifices for the cause - put his professional life on the line to make something good happen - and has actually made progress on this issue...and now he's the villian???

    How many posting and reading here (honestly) supported kicking Bill Clinton from the White House? My guess is a lot of posters/readers didn't want to see Pres. Clinton tossed. Pres. Clinton not only hit on an intern, not only was it at the office, but he actually hooked-up at the office!! and he was married. Rob may have been the Executive Director of MPP, fine. We are talking about the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. He does something worse than Rob...and he's still our President AND he has the support of probably many of these same posters calling for Rob's head?!?! Where was the mad rush to throw David Letterman off TV? He hit on (and slept with) subordantes? Plus, he's married too.

    I am not in anyway trying to defend Rob's behaviour. He acted in an innapropriate way. However, this is something that he can/is getting help with. That is the appropriate step.

    I metioned in my first post on this thread that Rob has some amazing (good) qualities. His professional dealings with females are not one of them. He has admitted to this...and that's usually the first step in getting better.

    I will continue to support Rob because I know he's not this awful person. He's no angel, but this characterization of him does NOT tell the whole story of the person that he is. I've listed in my initial post 'some' of Rob's good qualities so that readers will know the full picture of the person that Rob is. Rob's got a problem, sure...dont' we all. Rob has come completely clean with his problem. He came clean to staff, the Board, the press, etc. etc. He didn't "lawyer-up" and try to deny anything he did that was wrong (he's only denying what's not true).

    Let he who is among us that is without sin cast the first stone. (I'm not religous by the way, I just thought it's a good and appropriate quote :).

  159. #159

    I don't know what's more discouraging - the sleaze explosion at MPP or the lunatics actually DEFENDING Rob and Alison!

    Have we as a movement totally lost our moral bearings?

    So depressing...

  160. #160

    Yes! That is a problem we need to focus on, is how to get the medicine to patients in a cost effective way! And the cheapest way is to grow. What's wrong with that?

  161. #161

    Guys, everyone would like to have patients to be able to grow their own marijuana and have dispensaries.

    But, as the medical marijuana climate in states continue to change, many states are either allowing dispensaries or GYO, and in most cases, legislators are just more comfortable with dispensaries since the Obama DoJ memo. So, MPP is supposed to just refuse to compromise and insist on GYO, even while thousands of patients can be helped by dispensaries? Wouldn't it make more sense to make sure dispensaries included a sliding scale for low-income patients, then to always be beating the GYO horse? And if we want medical marijuana to eventually be seen as medicine by the whole country, wouldn't it make more sense if it came from a standard process through a middle man who tests it, as opposed from your, or your neighbors' yard? GYO has worked amazingly, but we may, in these next several years, see a rash of laws that include dispensaries, and not GYO. we can then work to improve them, but let's see if they work first, before deciding that they're useless.

  162. #162


    Yes, someone can be too drunk to consent, even while giving oral sex.

    and the major difference with the Bill Clinton and David Letterman scenarios and this one was, the women in those two episodes were very ready and willing to hook up with their bosses. Now, there were clearly some abuse of power issues there too, but unlike in this case, no question at all about lack of consent, and not really any credible history of sexual harassment or negative attitudes against women. So, continuing to bring up those two examples, where, neither of the women felt the need to quit, because if they hadn't been outed by Paula Jones or a blackmailer, probably everything would have been fine (at least until someone else complained that Monica or Letterman's woman got preferential treatment, which again, would be grounds for a civil lawsuit)

  163. #163

    @Josh & Anonymous, if that's even true to begin with. Sounds to me like Rob is bragging to his buddies about his sexual conquest. Incredibly sleazy, for one thing, but it also shows that he's actually not THAT remorseful after all. Shocker.

  164. #164

    Hi bud, this is John, that is pretty revealing man and I would not be saying that type of shit, seriously. Here is why.

    I took advantage of my better half about a week ago under similar circumstances. She was dropped off at home intoxicated. I was horny. It was simply too easy, bro.

    Here's the difference. We've been together for tweleve years and it's okay to play speak to the microphone. Especially when we've been apart for two weeks due to work and vacations.

    Playing speak to the mic with a vulnerable woman who's your subordinate at work, clearly intoxicated, and significantly younger, now we are stepping into dangerous territory.

    Don't do anything to incriminate your good buddy and remember that what you think happened is secondhand, unless you actually witnessed the whole event.

    I am sure Kampia appreciates all your support, but don't put your foot in your mouth.

  165. #165

    John again buddy, with Clinton, no really cares whether he got a bj from whats her name, it was the fact that he perjured himself, not unlike Rob saying that the money would go away when threatened. Letterman was blackmailed by a jealous douchebag.

  166. #166

    GYO is the only way to go. Look at the mess with licensing and such. Prices are still blackmarket. It is a joke. We need to drop the prohibtion name marijuana, return to Cannabis americana, and end the past 7 plus decades of madness. Total freedom, just like it was before prohibition when the government told us how to grow it, before Anslinger censored USDA. This whole dispensary thing, while it is an improvement, it is not the solution.

  167. #167

    OK, I got thow whole "I wasn't there" thing. My point is this....If I shouldn't comment on what did or didn't happen because I wasn't there...then everyone else who also wasn't there should not comment either. I'll agree to not post about that night - if everyone else (who also wasn't there) agrees to not post about that night. I think that's fair.

    I think it's pretty clear that Rob's admitted to what he's actually done that's wrong. I think that he is also trying to get help. To me, that's the real story. I also know that Rob has a lot of good qualities and shouldn't be thrown overboard as a person.

    By the way, what President Clinton did was worse than what Rob did. Not only was he in much more of a power position than Rob (and thus more able to abuse his power), he not only hit on an intern 'at work', but he also had oral sex with an intern right there at work (something even Rob has never done). Plus, President Clinton was also married at the time,which Rob is not. Additionally, the age discrepancy was greater in President Clinton's case. Also, President Clinton lied about ever hooking up with her the first place. He blantantly lied to not only public officials - but to the media/whole country. Talk about a guy who was trying to do whatever it took to hold on to his job....I think President Clinton easily takes the award for first place in this category. President Clinton didn't come clean and try to get help...quite the contrary. Rob has done a far better/more honest job of facing his shortcomings. Let's not also forget that President Clinton - WAS THE FRIGGEN PRESENT!?!? Rob Kampia was the Executive Director of a non-profit. Even if you want soooo badly to see Rob's head on a platter, it is absolutely the truth that President Clinton - who both hooked up with an intern right at work AND tried desperately to LIE his way out of it...did/is worse than Rob.

  168. #168


    When you're drunk, it isn't hard to guide you into a given position and then just do things. The blowjob wouldn't be fantastic but it could still happen when she's nonfunctional. It would just require Rob to be a massive scumbag to actually shift a girl into place. Of course, there's also the possibility that the sex started out consensual and then quickly became nonconsensual. Just because you start having sex with someone doesn't mean you want to keep going and what started out an enjoyable experience can quickly become a terrifying ordeal.

    And then there's always the case of fear and intimidation. Many women will simply give up resisting because we're afraid that the guy will become violent or do worse sexual actions then what is simply happening.

    Victim blaming is not a stand up sort of thing to do and you're really just incriminating your buddy further.

    I'll support booting Bill Clinton as soon as I find out that some of his trysts were less than consensual. Having sex with people isn't the problem. Coercion, harassment and rape are. If he was harassing women in the white house and out? Boot him. If he coerced people into being sexual with him? Boot him. If he raped someone? Boot him.

    Josh, you are defending Rob. Don't be a fool. Every word you've said is to downplay what he did so people can see him as a "decent guy" (you aren't exactly succeeding in that respect). Be honest about your purpose here. You don't like seeing your friend being viewed this way. And then figure out if you're okay with your victim blaming statements in an effort to back that up.

    Without sin? I've never raped anyone or coerced anyone into sex. I've never sexually harassed anyone. And being that I'm transgender, I have had the opportunities with my time being viewed by society as a man. So yeah, I'll cast plenty of stones.

  169. #169

    Rape is a serious allegation, let's drop that shit. If the girl comes forward and says otherwise then that's another story.

  170. #170

    Josh, you can't expect everyone to keep their mouths shut, you can only do your part, but it was way out of line to divulge more personal details about the situation. Blabbing won't help your friend. I thought stoners knew better than to run their mouths, especially in situations that could have legal ramifications... wow.

  171. #171

    Didnt Bill Clinton and David Letterman admit to the same thing? Are they considered sexual predators and dangerous? When did consensual sex become illegal in the US? Please let me know because I missed this new law. Here are stats below

    Sex in the Workplace

    So we are all aware of the urban legends about consensual sexual encounters in the workplace, but how often does such conduct actually take place?
    While there will never be a precise answer to that question, Time's Work in Progress blog points to a recent study by staffing company Randstad USA for some answers, at least as far as flirting and dating. Some of the more intriguing statistics:
    • 37% of working adults have flirted with a colleague
    • 8% currently have a secret crush at work
    • 17% of working adults have secretly dated someone from work

  172. #172

    With the amount of clear organizational control, disproportional funding and Kampia ass covering this guy Peter Lewis asserts, maybe the group should be called MPPPL...Marijuana Policy Project of Peter Lewis.

  173. #173

    @ #169:

    I'm not tossing in any allegations. I just feel confident that something wasn't right about that night what with what happened after. Hell, he could have just been a really insensitive asshole to her during and after the sex. Or maybe they didn't have sex at all but he told everyone they did. I know I sure as hell would quit a job if my boss started telling everyone he fucked me when he actually dragged my drunk ass to the couch and left me there to sleep it off.

    It's speculation on what happened that night, but something sure as fuck didn't go right, if more than 3 people quit right after in this economy. And the guy's record does not bode well. So like I said, something fishy is going on. Rob's got some explain' to do.

  174. #174


    You're right. However, politically, it's stupid to talk to the media at all, even if you didn't do anything wrong. People are going to attack you without all the facts, as made obvious by this article's bias, the High Times bias, and other people's admitted disdain for Kampia's actions. Whether he had the right or wrong intentions is not the point. He acted unethically in a business setting in an organization that is a leader in cannabis reform activities and has a lot of political weight. To mess that up is irresponsible as a leader, and I have yet to see someone offer a justification for that. Sex is most often consensual and scandals of this nature get blown out of proportion at first, yes. But why does Kampia have a right to stay a leader of the organization, and how will that benefit the organization and the movement overall politically? Or would it be better for him to stay in a fundraising position?

  175. #175


    In your comment you caterogized my statements as "victim blaming". You've also gone so far (more than once) to throw the word "Rape" into the discussion.

    I think it's appropriate for me to ask you....Were you there???

    If you weren't could you call the other party to the incident a "victim". Could it be that perhaps she decided at the moment to hook up with Rob Kampia and later regretted it? Don't you think that happens plenty of times? The reality is that if she didn't have a recent ex-boyfriend who also worked at MPP...this accusation would never have even been made. She just regretted her own decision.

    The young woman involved is no "victim".

    I think many readers/posters are so appauled by Rob's other bad behaviour that they just want to believe the worst about him. The reality is that Rob was very bad in many ways. Rob's admitted to all of this. However, Rob did nothing wrong that night. She was absolutely 100% the sexual aggressor. If you want to believe that somehow Rob is so bad that he must have taken advantage of the situation...remember - you weren't there.

    As for my motives...YES ROB'S MY FRIEND AND I DON'T LIKE TO SEE HIM CHARACTERIZED IN THIS Rob, I have no problem with the truth.

    Rob has come clean with all that he's done. Rob's getting help. Rob has a lot of good qualities too as I've listed in my first post. He is not this crazed lunatic that he's being made out to be.

    I'm sure a lot of people calling for Rob's head are hypocrites who supported Bill Clinton after his lies to try to keep his job and/or people that are somehow attached to the girl or ex-boyfriend involved. I am sure that there are some people that are just outraged by Rob's actions and comments and that is fair - it's pretty outrageous. I can tell you this...his intent was not to hurt anyone. He just talked to staff the way he'd talk to friends, which can be vulgar at times. This doesn't make it right, but intent is important too.

    I think Rob is a great person for many many reasons. I also know that the way he's treated women on his staff is not one of his good qualities. Rob also knows that. I think it's good that he's getting help. He's being very candid. Even the reporter that wrote this story was surprised by his candor (he didn't even have to take the interviews and he did and admitted everything to the reporter that was true). He's hiding nothing. He'll get better because of all of this.

  176. #176

    Sex with someone who lacks the capacity to consent is rape.

  177. #177

    I've been following this story mainly because of the boss acting unprofessional/perhaps abusing his power in the workplace angle. Based on what I've read, and what Mr. Kampia says, it is extremely disingenuous to bring up the word "rape" without further information (which does not seem to be forthcoming.)

    Some have claimed that I wrote defaming things about Mr. Kampia, but to bring up rape, even in the context of "that's one possibility," is defamation in my opinion. Let us recall that Mr. Kampia himself was intoxicated... we don't know his level of competency to consent either. So please, keep this a discussion about workplace ethics & professional standards for management. Not rape.

  178. #178

    We do know that he was at least sober enough to drive, and she couldn't. So I'd say that's plenty of information.

  179. #179

    Have none of the "harassed" women hired a lawyer yet to sue the shit out of Kampia? Holy Christ. Would have been the first thing I did.

  180. #180

    Maybe that's why the victim here hasn't come forward.

  181. #181

    Joan, K, PK, Others,

    Since none of you were there....then none of you should be making these accusations. It seems that you all want so badly to believe that this young woman must have been drunk out of her mind and taken advantage of - that you're willing to just assume it. Regardless of how innapropriate Rob's office language was...what you're suggesting is not at all reality.

    This young woman is no "victim". I am not "victim blaming". She is responsible for her own behaviour and because she later changed her story and lied about things...I think her behaviour is less than approriate.

    Again, if you were all means...say whatever you want...however, in the event that you weren't there, i.e just making shit up - please refrain from your uninformed conjecture. I think somewhere in this mess there needs to be a place for honesty.

  182. #182

    No, actually, you *are* victim blaming, by accusing her of being a liar and even denying that she is a victim at all.

    And, as Rob's friend and (former?) roommate -- you are not exactly an impartial commentator.

    The fact remains, Rob assessed that she was too drunk to drive; it's not "just making shit up" to ponder whether she might have been too drunk to consent.

  183. #183

    Please elaborate on your comment: "...she later changed her story and lied about things…"

    Is this in the article?

    You keep throwing stuff out that I would assume would require "the victim's" actual testimony.

  184. #184

    If you weren't there - you're either just making shit-up or at least, you're using conjecture.

    I think we can all pretty much agree that it doesn't take much to be over the legal limit to drive AND - Rob was drinking too. That really doesn't mean too much in this whole tale (other than Rob was more willing to risk a potential dui/accident than she...they are both idiots for getting into a car after drinking, but that's another issue).

    Yes, I am both accusing her of being a liar (she is) and I'm denying that she's even a victim at all (she's not). Additionally, since no one else was there....I don't think anyone is a position to disagree with me (unless you were actually there).

    Am I defending Rob because he's my friend and because I trust that what he's told me about the night (long before it was anywhere in the news). I am absolutely certain of this.

    Do I think Rob has acted awful by using his foul (and sometimes disgusting) mouth at the workplace, I do. Do I think Rob was wrong to both flirt and hit-on members of the staff, I do. His hitting on staff would have been even more egregious if it was done at the office more than at out-of-work functions. However, I agree that his doing that was NEVER appropriate.

    I do think Rob is doing the right thing in terms of admitting to all of the bad things he's said and done. I also think it's good that he gets help. Do you now agree with that?

    I am sure that some people will be so horrified at what he did do...that they'll just assume he's this awful monster of a person and anything anyone says about him must be true....I guess he's put himself in that situation. I can tell you (as I've tried to in my initial post and other posts) that Rob is a person with a lot of good qualities too. He is not this monstreous person out to hurt others. That's just not true.

  185. #185

    I am just wondering, but whatever happened to blowhard Adam?

  186. #186


    Josh, you weren't there either. So it impossible to take the tone that you are, saying that the woman is making anything up, and that she's a liar. Only Rob and she were there. Rob told you what he thinks happened. You believe him. That doesn't make it true. And that doesn't make you qualified to evaluate the truth of what the woman said or allowed to call her a liar.

    So please stop.

  187. #187

    By the way, yes she did say something different and changed her story later - initally in an attempt to salvage a relationship and then later because she was prodded by others. No, this isn't in the article, the reporter isn't clairvoyant.

  188. #188


    I'll be happy to stop defending Rob, because I wasn't there, if others who were also not there would stop accusing him of things.

    Don't you think that makes sense?

  189. #189

    Defending him and asserting that you know the definitive truth of what happened that evening are two different things. You need to stop saying that you're sure about what happened in that bedroom.

    You can say I suppose what you think happened, but you need to back off on your certainty, and your assertions that the woman is a liar. You simply can't back that up, as you also were not there.

  190. #190

    The people who quit did so pretty much immediately. That doesn't give her much time to change her story.

  191. #191

    Okay if you know that she changed her story, then what were the two different versions that she gave?

  192. #192

    The people who are "Accusing" Rob of things are doing so based on the facts that have been reported in this article (which Rob had input in), not anything that the girl has said. As far as I can tell, she hasn't said anything at all, at least not publicly.

  193. #193

    Exactly, anonymous 2, that is a fact. So anyone speculating beyond what is reported in the article is simply voicing their opinion.

    Josh on the other hand is privy to a deeper understanding than the rest of us, albeit secondhand direct from one source, Rob.

    Now, though, he is saying that the female party didn't keep a straight story, which is new. So please, praytell, what were the two versions of her story and how do you know?

  194. #194

    Yes Josh, it would be nice to hear your input of how the woman's story changed. Please include as much salacious detail as you can (did she swallow? did he eat her out? were they banging in the bedroom, or also the living room too?). I miss the content and tone of your previous posts.

  195. #195

    My point is that the girl's story doesn't even matter at this point. It's not included in the facts of the article, and it has nothing to do with the conclusions people are coming to.

  196. #196

    I'm sure Josh has talked to her personally, too. His knowledge of how her story has changed I'm sure will be based entirely on first hand knowledge.

  197. #197

    Is this true, Josh, have you personally spoken with the woman in question? And, no we don't need the specifics of the act. I think the point here Josh is that while we are disgusted and outraged, we also respect the work that Rob has done, and unfortunately some of us are probably even envious. So, the point being is that if you have some first-hand info that might spare Rob from this public indignation, then by all means man, speak the fuck up.

  198. #198

    Except the only information he has is going to be coming from Rob, who definitely has a vested interest in saving himself from this public indignation.

  199. #199

    @Keith B: LMAO, yeah, I wanna hear a Penthouse article about the sexual acts that evening.

    @Josh: Man, I asked you why you were running your mouth, and you've yet to respond to any of my points. You have interesting information I'd like to hear about this changing story, but overall, you're coming across as a jackass. Not very effective damage control if you ask me. Again, why are you running your damn mouth so much? Why don't you just write an article about it if you know so much information that should be made public?

  200. #200

    Not necessarily if actually talked to the woman. How does he know the woman changed her stories? My point exactly, is it Rob or her - second hand or first hand?

  201. #201

    I have at this point posted everyhing that I can. I've been candid - as has Rob. If you choose not to believe what I am saying...that's fine. I can't control what others speculate. I know Rob is a good person.

    I'm done with this message board. I wish everyone a happy 2010.

  202. #202

    Okay, I'd say it is safe to assume that Josh did not talk directly with the woman so his changing stories post must be secondhand, probably from Rob, which makes everything that Josh has said highly suspect and certainly biased.

    As candid as a one-sided story can be.

  203. #203

    Yeah, he seemed to get pretty uncomfortable as soon as he was asked for specifics and his source.

  204. #204

    Josh, maybe your affection for your friend is clouding your judgment, but everything you've said--about how you think you know what the truth is based on your friend's (inherently self-serving) side, how someone changing her story necessarily invalidates it, downplaying what happened at the office, how he couldn't possibly have done anything wrong because he's a good person, etc., etc., etc.--is classic for the resistance that women face when trying to hold someone accountable for sexual misconduct.

    Maybe you're sincere and don't realize how damaging your attitude is to victims who want to come forward.

    At the very least, these allegations need to be taken very seriously and accountability is vital. Even in the (relatively unlikely) event that these allegations don't pan out, if women everywhere see that allegations made in the workplace are going to be so eagerly swept under the rug, they will be very afraid to report their experiences.

  205. #205

    No doubt, what's up with that and what happened to the blowhard windbag Adam? It seems that as soon as someone points out that there is only one version of what happened that night, the dufusses disappear.

  206. #206

    [I am speaking as an individual and not on behalf of any group or organization]

    This type of behavior is unacceptable, not only in this movement or the workplace but in all aspects of society.

    As a member of the NORML Women’s Alliance, I feel that I have a responsibility to advocate for individuals to speak out about this matter. It is necessary that women and men involved with cannabis reform would have the courage to speak out to support their fellow worker. These are the people fighting for cannabis legalization, one of the most important civil rights and social justice causes in America.

    The threads of exploitation are woven very intricately through the fabric of our society. This process of unweaving takes continual vigilance. The three-month leave Kampia is taking and the implementation of a sexual harassment policy at the Marijuana Policy Project can only be the beginning. This incident represents the pervasive imbalance in how sex is exploited throughout our entire society and within the cannabis culture. When women in the movement have been so openly objectified, how can we engage as equals among our male counterparts?

    To not address seriously the long-told tales of harassment and sexualized atmosphere throughout drug law reform organizations does a far more serious disservice to the movement than acknowledging improprieties and simply moving on. Nobody who is appalled by the scandal and supports drug law reform is glad to see any sort of negative publicity in our ranks, nor does anyone trumpet the news in hopes more sick people are arrested and incarcerated people violated. Some of us work very hard for far less pay (and many more are volunteers) trying to overcome negative stereotypes held by the mainstream against drug law reformers. If the movement is so narrowly-funded it can be brought to its knees over one man's unfortunate scandal, perhaps that speaks to a need to broaden the movement's donor base.

    Support for legalization of marijuana nationwide is finally topping majority support in the Gallup poll for two demographic reasons: Baby Boomers and women. Women's support rose twelve points from 2005-2009 while men's support rose only a point. Yet any cursory scan of the boards and membership of most drug law reform organizations and movement media will find a 90% male demographic. We can no longer afford to turn a blind eye to sexual harassment and must make every public relations effort to make our
    movement more open and comfortable to women.

    The NORML Women’s Alliance was formed by women who have long been involved with marijuana law reform in once capacity or another. NORML, the ACLU, the Drug Policy Alliance, Students for Sensible Drug Policy, Americans for Safe Access and MPP will always continue to work together on every front to legalize marijuana and reach out to bright, ambitiousness, compassionate women ready to put an end to prohibition once and for all.

    The fact that the Marijuana Policy Project has not made a statement, nor did they take any action to remedy the issue upon its occurrence, and waited until the issue went public, is questionable and disappointing to say the least. I do not take any pleasure in the fact that women in the movement have been victimized and I cannot accept the fact that this is not a big deal. I hope that my colleagues over at the MPP can effectively address any internal problems and we can continue to work together to stop the arrest of over 800,000 Americans a year for pot – many of whom are women and mothers made to suffer through senseless prosecution of themselves and their loved ones.

    I can only wish the best for the women who have been exposed to such an awkward and hostile environment and are now forced to deal with the after-math, both publicly and privately. I hope that Rob can find it in himself to gain a healthy respect for women and that the movement can emerge from this tragedy stronger, more unified and more diverse than ever before.

  207. #207

    Keith B said: "Nicely summed up your own missives there, Adam. Thanks for the Cliffs notes. Too bad Mumia didn’t have you on his side."

    So now you're crying about how I characterize you and others due to your behavior? You engage in that behavior, and then I point out your behavior which backs up my characterization of you, and you have a tantrum because you think I used the behavior you used? Thanks for continuing to prove my point.

    To the anonymous: "You are obviously the same blowhard windbag from the HT forum, no doubt. I am sitting home with the flu, what’s your excuse, 'moral indignation?' Bravo, but how can you be so damn sure of your self-proclaimed moral high ground buddy?"

    Since I explicitly identified myself as the same Adam from High Times, so great detective work, Mr. Holmes.

    I need an "excuse" to comment on the Internet? Yes, because I'm obviously the only person posting comments online, and nobody else does so unless it's from home due to illness. "Moral indignation" might be a bit strong to identify my disgust over the behavior of you and others like you resorting to these thuggish tactics to slander and libel Kampia and the MPP, but it's better than "immoral self-serving lies" so I'll take "moral indignation" over what you and the rest have as your motivation, thanks.

    And you appear to be missing something: I'm not claiming certainty about any supposed "belief" or "side" in this matter - the absolute assertions of fact come from you and your friends, and that's kind of the point you appear to be missing. I'm not the one saying "I think this and that is what actually happened, and since I think it and someone said it, it is therefore fact." If you want to whine about anyone claiming absolute moral certainty, go whine to the people you seem to agree with.

    I've only claimed "certainty" about whether or not there is evidence to back up these public accusations, and whether or not many statements have been distortions, lies, or lacking in evidence. It's demonstrable that there is mostly no evidence other than "somebody said it", it's demonstrable that a lot of distortions or outright falsehoods have been claimed in many of the accusations, and I've pointed this out. Then I pointed out that with mostly just unsubstantiated accusations, many falsehoods, and a large lack of evidence for most of the accusations, it is wrong to just assume and assert that the claims must all be true. And that leads me to the main point, which is that it's a pretty flimsy foundation from which to publicly destroy someone in the press.

    I don't claim to know for a fact which if any accusations are true or untrue. I simply oppose those of you telling me and others that we should just take your word for it, or you will attack us like an angry, ignorant lynch mob determined to silence anyone disagreeing with your claim that believing something or wanting it to be true is enough to demand we all believe it or face your wrath.

    You make my point by quoting a sentence from the article about Kampia's being the only version made public, and using that as if you think it's inherently evidence that some "other" version exists from the woman herself. Have you spoken to her personally? If not, how would you be able to assume another version must exist? Without evidence that it does, you are saying "prove something doesn't exist even though there's no evidence it does exist." Which is an argument without any merit, obviously. You and others are the ones asserting some "other" version exists from this woman, so either present evidence for the existence of something you are claiming exists, or accept that it's not up to me and others to disprove your unsubstantiated claim that something exists.

    I will take something into account only if it exists, or if I have reason to actually believe it exists. And you or someone else besides the woman herself saying "it exists" is not evidence, however much you all want to demand that the rest of us accept your assertions as Gospel.

    I do agree that neither you nor I have insight into something that neither you nor I even know exists. Yes, it is entirely rational for you to point out that we lack insight into things we don't know exist. Good job again, Mr. Holmes.

    I'm taking a leap of faith in not assuming the existence of something that nobody has shown exits? Show me evidence that another side of the story exists, then. Not claims from people who were not there, and who lack any evidence to even back up their claims of how or why they'd know in the first place. I mean real evidence, under the definition that rational people with integrity use. You know, the kind you'd want if you were being accused of something horrible, or even if you were just accused of giving marijuana to someone. Evidence besides a secondhand source just claiming it's true and demanding people believe them.

    BUT, regardless, I've not at all stated any certainty or investment in the matter. I've merely noted that terrible things have been said, and so far it's based only on assertions that mostly lack any evidence and which frequently contradict evidence. And the willingness to make claims in contradiction to other claims and to demonstrable evidence has served to damage the credibility of those making the accusations. Add to that the bad behavior of so many of you in comments, and the willingness of so many of you to just take assertions as Gospel and then attack anyone who disagrees, and I find increasing reasons to put little or no stock in any of your claims until you cease dishonesty and distortion, cease personal attacks, cease demanding we take your claims as Gospel, and start making rational points backed up by actual evidence.

    I'm not rolling dice on anything here. I'm just expecting a level of maturity and integrity that so far is lacking among those making accusations and those defending them. Because if this is an acceptable standard of "evidence" and behavior to attack someone publicly and possibly ruin their lives, you have no more grounds to complain about the tactics used against drug users. When you are hauled into court and charged, convicted, and sentenced to jail because a few people get on the stand and claim you gave them drugs, don't cry about it if you find the same methods acceptable here.

    You either believe that people should not be attacked and accused publicly of terrible deeds by the press without actual strong evidence, or you don't care. If you don't care, then don't complain when it happens to you or other people. Or, be a raging irrational hypocrite and expect treatment far better and entirely different than that you use against other people to destroy them.

    And finally, the repeated claim that I have "more at stake" is an outright lie, period. I think you and others know it's a lie, and you don't care -- which if true would likewise say something about your other assertions and whether they are also lies you don't mind spreading.

    As I've already noted for people intelligent enough to grasp simple logic, the fact you are making such claims only impugns yourselves -- if you think concern in this issue and willingness to speak out and argue the merits is evidence that someone must have a vested personal interest, the fact you assert it and feel it's true must first be seen for how strongly it informs us about your own actions here. You are the one asserting it and that you think it's the case, so if that's what you see as the motivations for posting and arguing this issue, it suggests first that you and others are the ones hiding a personal vested interest at stake here.

    I don't accept your childish claim, and it doesn't apply to me. But you clearly accept it, so you must believe it, and you are doing exactly what you suggest is evidence of "more at stake", so I will now assert that by your own logic you presumably have a personal vested interest at stake here. Why don't you share it with us? Or is it a secret you need to keep hidden? You're the one asserting this stuff, so don't cry about it being applied to yourself. And if you have no actual personal stake, then stop lying about other people having one. Or keep it up, and I'll keep noting what a hypocritical liar you are.

  208. #208

    Very well stated, you are exactly right on all points.

  209. #209

    To "You Don't Know":

    Oh, you spoke with every single former employee? You know the identities of every person posting here, and know they are also former employees? And you know that the handful of people quoted in the press so far and the handful of people posting comments (whom you know the identities of and know are former employees) are all in agreement?

    Funny, reading all of the articles, I can only account for seven total people speaking to the press (and that's assuming there's no overlap between named sources and anonymous ones) and (again assuming no overlap among posters claiming to be former employees, and no overlap between posters and the people quoted in the articles) perhaps five former employees posting comments. That would be a total of 12 former employees, assuming every single instance of someone identified specifically as a former employee is an actual totally different person than the others.

    So can you provide us evidence that the MPP has only twelve total former employees? And that you factually know the identities of everyone posting comments who claims to be a former employee? And that each of these are completely different individuals? Thanks, the evidence will be very helpful.

    Then do please explain why the assertions from all twelve of the MPP's former employees, mostly without actual evidence to prove the assertions, are more relevant and true than the assertions of current employees who have identified themselves and provided a lot of actual evidence refuting the claims of former employees or showing those claims to be distortions.

    Because I'm really interested to know why I should take one set of assertions as Gospel even when most of the claims lack actual evidence and many of them contradict themselves or are demonstrably false, and why I should ignore another set of assertions even if they provide evidence that debunks a lot of the first group's claims. What is it about the former employees that proves they have no "personal stake" in making assertions and that they should be taken at their word, while the current employees must have a "personal stake" and should not be taken at their word NOR believed when they back up their comments with evidence that disproves the former employee's claims?

    Explain that to me. Thanks.

  210. #210

    Oh crap, he's back, ugg!

    Only one version of what happened has been printed - Rob's version. Everything else beyond what has been printed is speculation, including your own long winded explanations, bud. You have no moral basis for assuming anything further until the second version, the woman's version, is known.

  211. #211

    Hear, hear.

  212. #212

    What are you an idiot? Of course there is another version, her version. Maybe it concurs with Rob's version, maybe not, you don't know and neither do I. You're blowing so hard, you're going to hyperventilate.

  213. #213

    That last post #212 was @Adam, the diehard windbag defender of Rob.

  214. #214

    To recursiveparadox:

    You have the gall to say "3..2…1… go Adam’s apologism and wild speculations!" after making wild speculation of assault?

    Utterly, ridiculously shameless. I don't know how you people can even stand yourselves. This is beyond just lack of integrity, you are really lacking some basic aspects of human decency at this point.

    No rational, decent person publicly accuses someone of such a crime, using wild speculation, and then resorts to accusing someone else of "wild speculation".

    That Jaquie Johns would then go into even wilder speculation (or slander, or libel, depending on how you want to look at it) that "it's clear" or that the woman was "passed out or nearly so", raises the very simple question:

    Which of you are the woman involved in this specific incident with Kampia? If neither of you are, then you are guilty of perhaps the worst behavior thus far on this entire comment section. Unless you have evidence to back up those terrible statements, you destroyed any credibility you might have by acting in such a manner.

    This is EXACTLY why public lynchings need to be confronted -- so that liars or people willing to just accuse you of horrible, criminal things are not allowed to do so publicly just based on their personal and uninformed beliefs about things they were not involved in or present for.

    Anyone still asking why I bother posting here, look no further than those two people's inexcusable behavior and there's your answer for why I think it's important to speak out against publicly destroying someone with nothing more than the claims of a handful of people who think that if they believe gossip or rumor, however much there's no evidence to back it up, that it's okay to spread it and destroy people's lives over it. If the people posting such things are lucky enough not to have endured it themselves, at this point I almost want to say that I hope you eventually do face the same thing, dragged into court and accused on nothing more than the slanderous word of people who think you did something and so should be accused of it publicly. I almost want to see you ashamed and humiliated, publicly dragged through the mud for something horrible and similar, to find yourself subjected to the same abuse and accusations without any foundation in evidence.

    I ALMOST want to see it happen to you. Except that I don't, because I think it's wrong even when it happens to the worst sorts of people (and rest assured, in my opinion you fit nicely into that category based on your behavior and comments now). I think that even if I know someone is shameless and has a bad character, they should not be publicly lynched and have their lives ruined with the worst sorts of accusations, unless and until there is actual real evidence to back up the accusations.

    As for the rest of your comments, the only reason to even address them despite your disgusting remark is to note why you lack logic and factual basis even for the least-vile of your accusations. To wit:

    FOUR people resigned soon after Kampia had sex with the woman. One was the ex-boyfriend, two were apparently his friends and roommates, and one was the woman herself. Several staff members have in fact repeatedly explained (with their names attached to their comments) that the woman left out of embarrassment over having had sex with Kampia and due to the reactions of other staff members. We don't know if those claims are true or not, because the woman herself hasn't spoken about it -- including NOT speaking publicly to make ANY accusation about "consent" and so on. The point is, there are plenty of rational reasons that a person might quit their job after a sexual encounter with a co-worker or boss.

    The ex-boyfriend quitting is so obvious in terms of motivations that it's ridiculous to even pretend there is some deeper meaning. But we don't actually know for sure, since he also has not spoken out publicly about the event. But again, there are plenty of rational reasons an ex-boyfriend might quit when their ex-girlfriend has sex with their co-worker or boss.

    The two friends and roommates quitting, just like the two above instances, are explainable with rational reasons related to closeness to the ex-boyfriend, so there are plenty of rational reasons they might quit as well.

    Those four instances, then, are hardly overtly indicative of some scandalous, mysterious, criminal situation. Four people very close to one another resigned, and reasons of friendship and jealousy and embarrassment are immediately obvious as possible influences.

    Moreover, simple math and a quick Google of some of the names makes it seem obvious which of the people who resigned were the two roommates (not saying I know for 100%, but it appears very obvious, since they are among the seven total who resigned over this and three of those can immediately be ruled out due to where they live -- Mirken in California, according to interviews that come up in searches, the woman and her ex). The point being, none of the people who are likely the roommates and who made public comments in any of these news articles stated anything involving the issue of "consent" as a factor in resigning.

    Without any evidence whatsoever that any of those four has claimed that Kampia's description is inaccurate, there are no grounds on which to assert that their resignations had anything to do with your claims about "consent". It is an unsubstantiated claim that is contradicted by the evidence so far -- including public statements from people who are likely the roommates regarding their resignations, which did not make any claim about "consent".

    And as I've noted repeatedly whenever anyone has made the ridiculous claim, the fact that several people resigned is not "evidence", and is not more meaningful that the fact that far more people didn't resign. There is no logic to it, and only people who cannot make rational, logical, honest assessments would claim otherwise. Your resort to mentioning it again, like a parrot among your flock of parrots elsewhere on this thread and others, and the combination of that unintelligent and irrational argument with outright claims and speculation presented as fact, makes it clear how flawed and questionable your views on this matter really are.

  215. #215

    To Jaquie Johns again: you find another unsubstantiated assertion about Green to be "interesting", huh? No surprise, you can't tell the difference between assertions and evidence, between true and lies, and apparently between right and wrong (in light of your terrible willingness to outright assert lack of consent and passing out etc).

    To jsnsoc8: So of all of the people to point at, tell to shut up, to stop "preaching", that "everyone has a right to their opinion", that they are "screaming at people", and so on, you decide to say it to me?

    Tell you what, I'll take you seriously when you aren't ignoring the people attacking, screaming, bullying, making gross accusations of criminal conduct in public without any evidence, and so on. Wag your finger somewhere else. With a thread filled yet again with a mob of liars, ignorance, and unsubstantiated accusations of the worst sort, I happen to think it's important that anyone who disagrees and thinks it's a horrible situation to actually speak up about it. Which I'm doing. Because it's my opinion.

    I don't need "friends" who tell me they agree, and then preach at me and whine at me to leave the angry pitchfork-welding mob alone and let them have their lynching. If you agree with me, and you are not blind to the behavior of these people, then either turn your attention to actually speaking up as well, or at least don't bother the people who are doing so.

    I don't care if you think I talk too much. Go write your own 10 paragraph comment again, and I'll write mine. And keep right on trying to change people's opinions, as you've done every single time so far, just as I will keep doing as well. Thanks.

    To the "John" talking to "Josh" -- You don't understand, the fact is that by the arguments claiming "no consent", you in fact just admitted to rape. It doesn't matter how long you've dated or been married, because women can and are raped by boyfriends and husbands, so if something equals rape then those things don't matter. And the claim is that even if the woman consented, if she was drunk to the point of not being safe to operate a car, then she was too intoxicated to give "real" consent because she was not in the frame of mind to make responsible decisions.

    Under that equation, then, they are claiming that having sex with her is rape -- and before you ask, no, it doesn't matter if you were drunk or even if you were in fact more drunk than her. Being drunk does not in any way remove your own responsibility for what happened. These arguments were specifically made at High Times. Go read them, and then remember that the claims about consent being made here began in the context of an argument that explicitly says YOU admitted to raping your girlfriend, by their definition.

    So while you are right to tell that guy to be careful what he says, you also should be aware that you should be careful as well, because those accusing Kampia are very likely to accuse you as well now.

    To the Anonymous person telling Josh to "back off" and to stop saying things as fact etc: your comments are laughable in light of the fact that Josh is only making such remarks because other people explicitly stated as fact that consent wasn't given, that the woman is "a victim", and so on. If other people keep asserting their own opinion as fact, Josh not only can but in fact should keep insisting his opinion is fact as well. If only because you and others are so freaked out and angry about it, which is a good enough reason at this point due to your hypocrisy and terrible behavior.

    Those of you demanding evidence and details from Josh are so beyond ridiculous I don't even know what to call you. When I say I'd like evidence to back up claims, you rip out your hair and scream at me. You post speculation and opinion as fact, claim the worst things without evidence, and then have the gall to denounce someone unwilling to give you details. Hypocrites who demonstrate every time you open your mouths how devoid of merit and integrity your claims -- and you personally -- are.

    As for "blowhards", it's childish coming from people posting here 24/7, not to mention the ignorance of logic and basic facts you've demonstrated alongside your utter lack of (and contempt for) integrity.

  216. #216

    What are you, John, 12? So you think if there is one version, and then someone else says the same thing confirming it, that makes "two versions"? No, John, that makes two ACCOUNTS, both of which are the same VERSION of events.

  217. #217


    Go away. We don't like you here, and we don't care what you think.


  218. #218

    And I have every moral basis to assume "anything further". When you and other intellectually deficient people are leaping to conclusions and saying "I dun readed it on the internets, so it must be true!" then those of us who haven't burned out our brain cells can say "I think I'll only pay attention to things that I know exist."

    It's how intelligent, grownup people think about things.

    And since you seem too mentally deficient to grasp the concept, what I'm "assuming" is that there are no grounds for people to assert as a fact that it was "not consensual" if so far there's no evidence of that at all. People stated as fact that it wasn't consensual, so smart people will notice "Hmm, that's funny, there's no evidence at all that suggests that" and will think "wow, they shouldn't claim that when there's no evidence at all." Saying "but... but you don't know what evidence might exist that nobody knows about because they don't have any reason to think it exists" is moronic, stunted reasoning.

    I suppose you'd also say "There might be evidence that Obama is a robot, so until we find out what evidence might exist proving it, it is morally wrong for you to assume he's not one just because so far there is no evidence to make the claim" -- right? You'd think that is a perfectly logical thing to say?

    I say "You shouldn't claim something like that when we have not seen any evidence to suggest it".

    You say "You can't say there's no evidence until you see whatever evidence might exist that right now we don't know exits".

    Which one of those is rational, and which is the ramblings of a moronic juvenile who doesn't understand simple logic? Hint: he goes by "John".

  219. #219

    To Anonymous: No, I won't go away. Why don't you and your lying, thuggish hoard pack up and go away? Because you aren't wanted here.

    I'm sure you'd prefer that people explaining the truth, pointing out your lies and distortions, and noting your vile behavior would just "go away". But that's not how it works. I won't need to comment if you and your little band of slander-mongers take a hike, but as long as you remain around you've given me quite a reason to stay.

    I know how crazed it makes you, how paranoid and angry you are getting, and that it's why you and your little friends have focused attacks on me and a few other people. But the angrier, crazier, and more pathetic you get, the more angry and crazed you'll become, because it will only encourage me to keep pointing out how angry, crazy, paranoid, and pathetic you all are.

    It's simple: either back up your allegations with fact, and stop posting demonstrable lies or claiming unsubstantiated gossip is fact, or get a handle on that little temper of yours and deal with me and others continuing to call you the liars and irrational people that you are. Your choice.

  220. #220

    To Sandra:

    You said "This incident represents the pervasive imbalance in how sex is exploited throughout our entire society and within the cannabis culture."

    How do you know that's what it represents? We know the nature of some of Kampia's remarks, but not the details about most any of the rest beyond dating and having sex. To assert factually that it represents the things you say is conjecture, especially since in fact we get little to no explanation about the nature of the rest of the widespread "behavior" at the MPP. Do you know factually that it represented an "imbalance in how sex is exploited"? If you don't have evidence, then it is just another example of assertions masquerading as "fact". And I'm tired of people pretending that because they personally think or believe something, that it is therefore fact.

    Will you retract the assertion of this as fact, and at least point out this is your opinion of what it represents, lacking actual details about most of what happened?

    You said "nor does anyone trumpet the news in hopes more sick people are arrested and incarcerated people violated"

    Again, how on Earth can you possibly claim to know this? Do you have evidence proving the identity and intentions of all of the people trumpeting this news? Do you know factually and demonstrably that none of the people trumpeting these stories and allegations are in favor of continued drug prohibition? This is yet another example of just asserting that what you believe is fact.

    Will you admit this is is only your personal guess, and retract the assertion of fact?

    You said: "The fact that the Marijuana Policy Project has not made a statement, nor did they take any action to remedy the issue upon its occurrence, and waited until the issue went public, is questionable and disappointing to say the least."

    It certainly is questionable -- I question it since in fact it's not at all true. You just stated "the fact" (FACT) that the MPP didn't take "any action" (ANY) "to remedy this issue" and that they "waited until the issue went public"". That is completely, demonstrably false, yet you boldly proclaim it as "fact". There is a list of what the MPP did many months ago to remedy this issue -- you may not personally agree with that remedy (too bad for you that at least three women working at the MPP went public with their names to champion the remedies taken many months ago to address the situation), but just because you don't agree with what happened doesn't make it right or true to claim nothing happened at all. Which is what you just asserted as a "fact".

    Will you retract the assertion, and note your claim was in fact false?

    You said: "I can only wish the best for the women who have been exposed to such an awkward and hostile environment and are now forced to deal with the after-math, both publicly and privately."

    Will you acknowledge that part of the "hostile environment" includes the attacks against several of the current female employees at the MPP, who have been subjected to terrible and often offensive (including in this very thread, just have a look at the comments directed at Green) attacks with baseless accusations? And will you also wish the best for anyone who may be now publicly being accused -- without any evidence, in some of the most inflammatory ways imaginable -- of terrible actions including criminal conduct? Do you think it is right at all, helpful to the movement, or supportive of social justice for someone to be publicly accused mostly by entirely anonymous people of committing among the worst possible actions, accusations stated as fact despite no evidence? Do you support or oppose the continued accusations being made now, in the way they are being made, to attack and destroy a person's life (because that is what it very well can do)?

    If you are going to stand up and speak out like this and wish the best to people you feel were/are being unfairly mistreated and victimized, out of desire for social justice, does that extend to a man currently being viciously attacked and accused of far worse than what the article claims? Or does the victim of such things alter your principles on the matter?

    I'd really, really like to see you stand up against the most recent claims and attacks, which lack any foundation in evidence or even actual assertions from anyone directly involved, because they are of the most harmful nature. If your principles are only on display if you happen to like or agree with the person under attack, and those principles can be pocketed when you find it inconvenient to make use of them, then they are worthless.

  221. #221

    To jsnsoc8:

    My apologize for the harshness of my response to you. But it is worrisome to me to see such a sea of falsehoods, other long posts, accusations and opinion presented as fact, and so on, and to be not only subjected to such bitter attacks by those people but also from people who seem otherwise to be more rational and even opposed to the way the attacks are carried out here.

    I should have made my points to you in a more friendly manner, and I must admit that part of my tone was due to not fully believing you were entirely in agreement with much of what I've said and that you were just claiming to be. Regardless, even though I thought your comments to me were misdirected due to the rest of the comments here, and were harsher in tone than I'd expect from someone who says they mostly agree with me, I still shouldn't have responded in that manner to you.

  222. #222

    Adam, you seem to have some difficulty understanding the difference between a "public lynching" and "a bunch of people commenting anonymously on the internet." Lynchings, figuratively or literally, usually end in someone being hung. Mr. Kampia has already been on leave from his job as a result of this incident, long before the CityPaper article was published. Are you worried that he is going to get into some sort of legal trouble based on the speculations of the internet commentariat? Are you afraid his reputation will be ruined? (Horse, I'd like to introduce you to the barn door. You left so fast on your way out, I don't think you had the chance to become acquainted.) What, exactly, are you so terrified will happen to Mr. Kampia as a result of internet chatter?

    The other thing I don't really understand is why you continue to insist that "a handful of people" from MPP are making "unsubstantiated claims" about the situation at MPP and the events of August, 2009.

    Firstly, how many people, people who are involved in the org, & have worked with Mr. Kampia, need to say that his conduct was unprofessional and possibly harassment before this is credible in your opinion? In other words, if a single staffer complains of harassment & poor conduct, but no one else does, in your opinion it didn't happen? What if five staffers complain? What about ten? What about every department head? As I already said, I'm interested in this story as an example of how far office harassment can go before anyone does anything about it. If one person's word isn't enough for you, what kind of message does that send to anyone who is suffering silently, for fear that they will not be believed?

    Secondly, what are people saying that you think is untrue? Mr. Kampia himself, and a close friend of his who posted here, as well as Ms. Green & Mr. Lewis of the Board have all stated that, regardless of specifics, Mr. Kampia's judgment was poor and his conduct was, in Ms. Green's words, "horrific."

    I completely agree that the speculations about consent on the part of the commentators is just that, speculation. But you don't seem to understand the distinction between the author of a published article and the nameless people who then comment upon it. One of those parties is bound by journalistic ethics of truth and verifiability. The other is not. To ask people to "retract" blog comment posts is beyond absurd. It might be a better use of your time to pull your finger out of the dyke and walk away.

  223. #223

    Adam, dude you have no concept of speak to mic, guess you never played with a significant other, not rape, dumbass, nothing malicious or evil, all fun and games.

    Two versions, two accounts, whatever, symantics, shemantics. Chirst, there is a draft in here, Adam blowing our straw houses down, help.

    You totally discount the other account, dude. The one none of us can speak to because none of us know.

    Bottomline it does not really matter at this point, except that we might wake up tomorrow and discover that the number one reform org is under legal assualt for the leader's actions.

  224. #224


    The word victim isn't only used for rape, man. But something bad definitely happened because she quit in this recession. That is simply too extreme of a response to make any of positive speculations make sense.

    Regret is something that happens a lot. But it's also not something that people quit jobs over in this recession. Good try though.

    Also, for someone who also wasn't there, you're pretty adamant about how she's no victim. Practice what you preach, Josh. We're all speculating until she comes forward.

    "She was absolutely 100% the sexual aggressor."

    For someone who wasn't there, you sure do talk a lot of shit like you were. Prove this. Prove she was 100% the aggressor. If you can't, then take the same tact I am. The tact of speculation. Remember, you weren't there either.

    Rob has downplayed all he's done. So have you. You and he have both made excuses. I do not find myself inclined to believe those excuses in the face the past lies he's perpetrated. Or in the face of the fact that you're acting like you were there when you weren't.

    Actually, Josh, intent is completely irrelevant to harm done. If you shoot me in the face accidentally, your intent does not magically heal my dead ass. What intent does mean is whether a person can fix the situation. So, if Rob's intent is good, then he has the chance to change into a decent guy. If it isn't, then he doesn't. But none of that changes that he did some really douchebaggish, awful things to women. And those things don't bode well for the things that are in doubt.

    @K: Fair enough. I'll just say that I feel something bad happened that night, something bad enough to compell her to feel that she needed to quit her job. I won't say rape, or speculate on what thing did occur, but I feel safe in asserting that /something bad/ did occur.

    @Josh on comment 181: Erm... what? What the fuck are you talking about? Do you have any damn proof she's lying or changed her words? Or are you just talking out your ass like you claim we are?

    Here, let me repeat this for you: YOU. WERE. NOT. THERE. So everything you say about her is conjecture. And not very well backed or coherent conjecture at that.

    And in a few comments down you disappear as soon as people ask for evidence that you spoke to her. I am left concluding that you are entirely full of shit. Oh well. Too bad for Rob I guess, that he has such crappy defenders.

  225. #225


    Like I care what a concern troll thinks is galling. I made speculations that /something negative/ happened. Rape was one of the possibilities. In no way have I levied an accusation.

    Good try though. Also, you're late.

    Four people did indeed resign. In the worst recession in how many decades? I can't quite recall. All four of them were close to the woman in question, which does not in any way negate their reaction (in fact, it explains their reaction, would you resign if something bad happened to a woman you didn't even know? I doubt it.)

    Several staff members have... explained what? You believe that these staff members have genuinely come here? Adam, this is a message board. Do you know how many liars and sham artists come here? If you are so stupid as to believe the words of people in the comments claiming to be the people involved then I really don't know what to do with you. Especially since more of these so called staff members have backed this so called "public lynching" of Rob, then they have his version of events.

    But I suppose you like to pick and choose who's actually a staff member or not? Try to be less delusional.

    Plenty of rational reasons? Adam, have you ever been unemployed in a recession, as a woman? There are very few rational reasons to justify not only leaving a job in a recession this bad but leaving a job that you enjoy, working for a company that does work you believe in.

    You are making absolutely ludicrous statements.

    Considering the ex quit at the exact same time as her, I'm disinclined to believe it was regarding mere sexual relations. And the foolishness of attempting to claim that perfectly rational reasons having nothing to do with severe bad conduct on his part could have anything to do with friends quitting in this recession is beyond the pale of foolishness.

    Do you read what you write before you post it? I really don't think you do.

    Friendship? Sure. Jealousy and embarrassment? Not so much. In fact, those things would likely just lead to conflict in the workplace, not a mass quitting all at once. You are making nonsensical statements.

    Also, Adam, if a rape happened, IF, if a rape did happen and she was unwilling to come forward (for which there are a host of reasons, like the low conviction rate, the backlash on victims of rape of any gender, and the inevitable response from Rob, because if he did rape her then he would not respond well to accusations being levied) do you really think the people close to her would just blab out the reason?

    If she was raped and if she feared reprisal and didn't believe she would ever get a conviction, then if those people gave even the slightest shit about her, they would keep silent too, in order to protect her from a response.

    This is basic rape victim 101 stuff here, Adam, learn the ropes before you climb the tree.

    Actually Adam, there was no claim of rape. Merely speculation as to a negative event and further speculation that it could have been rape. As for there being a negative event, well, four people resigned all at the same time in a massive recession, and you have absolutely no rebuttal to downplay that. The evidence does not sit against this, since Rob has lied in the past to hide his actions and has only come clean now about his apparent hypersexualization.

    Oh Adam, it's cute how you claim that I have little grasp of logic when your entire argument is based on a complete lack of comprehension of economic fraility that lower level workers face that makes quitting a job very very very risky and your complete lack of knowledge about the situations around sexual assault, rape, and harassment. Your "logic" is nothing more than fallacy laced garbage.

    Not that I expected much more than that from a concern troll, but well, you get the idea.

  226. #226

    Any time there is sex between a boss and a subordinate, especially one who is drunk, you can not call it consential sex. The subordinate is intimidated; read
    up on your psychology. I mean, for God's sake look
    at him...he doesn't look like he has anything big
    enough to be proud of, or for a woman to desire,
    and that goes for his brain as well. So he must be
    out to prove something. That's just my opinion.

  227. Former Staffer 3 (4? 5?)

    Speaking as another person who put my heart and soul into MPP, and was pushed out for clearly bogus reasons mere days after being subjected to numerous inappropriate behaviors from Rob -- all this hype and speculation is only adding to the negative portrayal of the movement If you haven't worked there, you don't know, period! Why continue to waste all your energies on this, ultimately adding to the problems that Rob's behavior has created?

  228. #228

    MPP was a place where a lot of people said 'shit' or 'fuck' in frustration or coworkers dated each other, but Rob was the only person there using MPP resources and time to be a creep, telling his female ssistant quoted above to leave time in his schedule for him to "try to bone" a woman, treating MPP's database like his black book with notes about who had had breast surgery and who he boned (or tried to bone) and who had a hot wife or secretary. Others who used "crude language" or had sexual relationships were doing it with coworkers who were also friends. Rob wasn't anybody's friend and he was doing it on company time in ways that employees' job requirements wouldn't let them ignore him or walk away.

  229. #229

    @Former Staffer N

    I completely agree. I couldn't have said it better myself, thank you.

  230. #230

    You say you are speaking for yourself, yet you state "As a member of the NORML Women’s Alliance, I feel that I have a responsibility to advocate for individuals to speak out about this matter." Then you quote the group's mission.

    The NORML Women's Alliance has been in existence for all of one month. It consists of a list-serv. Those who post to the list-serv are not in agreement on this issue, the entity is not issuing a statement on it, yet you feel compelled to invoke their name and mission? As if to suggest they would back your position?

    That's disingenuous, at best. There is no valid reason for you to invoke a group that you are merely a member of as a basis for your individual position when that group, as an entity, has not agreed with your position.

  231. #231

    all these rambling postings and cirucular arguments sure do demonstrate the deleterious long term effects of pot.

  232. #232

    Wow Mike, it's almost like you have a valid, fact based point. Good one.

  233. #233


    You have very valid points. However I must again state, if you want to write a book about your opinion, go to a publisher. These long posts, while having many valid points, really come across as "trolling," a term used on the internet to describe someone who is intentionally derailing discussion about a topic by doing any number of things. One of the best ways to troll is to type long, long walls of text, and rant forever, so as to stifle discussion and whatnot.

    However in this case, stifled discussion is what's needed. So I'm not necessarily disproving of your effectiveness. Obviously this is an internal problem that has gotten slight media attention...although I would hardly call this blog legitimate media...either way, this needs to be handled by the MPP so they can continue to move forward and do more amazing things for cannabis reform. I'm still dumbfounded that a sexual scandal like this even was allowed to happen. I expect better out of our movement's leaders. But Kampia will most likely learn from this and move on. I'd advice him to read SAFER's book about how alcohol is much more damaging then marijuana, for a start.

  234. #234

    The more we here from the former and current MPP employees/staffers the more I fear for the organization that Kampia started and helped build into the number one reform org.

    In a city like DC, chalk full of lawyers, I wonder what type of litigation may be in the pipes waiting to burst.

    MPP is clearly positioned to funnel cash into the CA tax and regulate debate. Take a look at the board if you don't believe me. But now because of Kampia's actions, the org has been exposed to possible litigation that could tie up that money.

    We simply don't know and cann't know what is going to happen, because the 2nd party, the girl, has not surfaced to tell her account. Why?

    Could it be on the advice of her lawyer? God, I hope not, but lets be realistic. She had a job, was put in a compromising position by the boss, and then resigned under circumstances that have not been made fully public.Throughout all of this she has maintained silence. More importantly, she certainly has not come rushing to the defense of Kampia.

    Combine that with the fact that MPP is sitting on a massive warchest, then you get the picture. While this story has been waiting to break for months, you can bet that the legal sharks were probably already on the scene.

    Now that the story has broken onto the national media circuit, it is probably only a matter of time before we see the hammer of litigation fall squarely on MPP's shoulders.

  235. #235

    @Jean on comment #226:

    That's a little extreme. People can have drunken consensual sex with a subordinate. It isn't impossible. The risks are just extraordinarily high that intimidation will keep the subordinate quiet if they don't want the sex, especially when drunk.

    I really really don't like how people say that having sex while drunk means you're automatically being raped (or with a subordinate). I've had consensual sex while drunk. Perfectly wanted, perfectly in my will. I was also raped while drunk. The situations are completely different. The alcohol is merely a risk booster, it does not guarantee that rape is occurring.

    The only time alcohol guarantees rape is when someone is unconscious or completely nonfunctional. Then just attempting to have sex with them is rape since they aren't capable of consent. But being drunk doesn't guarantee either of those two conditions.

  236. #236

    Exactly its all relative to the given situation. Likewise it all speculative until we get the full story.

  237. #237

    Rob is soley responsible for the sad state of MPP and for his inappropriate actions. Rob also is suffering from the consequences. Sadly, others are suffering as well....the current staff whose jobs are tentative at best and the activists that are funded by MPP. Ultimately, these people will pay the price. The bomb might have landed on Kampia but the schrapnel is hitting many innocents.

    Kampia certainly is responsible for most of the damages but there's blood on the hands of the MPP martyrs too.

  238. Former Staffer 3 (4? 5?)

    Current MPPer #237:

    Well said - thank you.

  239. #239

    MPP martyrs? Are you referring to the 7 who resigned? I am not sure I follow what you are saying and I am interested in what you have to say. Likewise I applaud you for putting in this situation in this context.

  240. #240

    1) A reminder, the people that did the damage are named Kampia and Green.

    2) Your "rationale reasons" for the resignations of the four staffers are purely speculative.

    3) You totally discount Bernath's explanations.

    4) As for reading into the comments between "Josh" and "John" you demonstrate a continued failure to realize that there are always two accounts when two individuals interact.

    The example presented by "John #164" is an example of two consenting adults in the long-term monogamous relationship. If asked both individuals would present concurring opinions about what happened.

    The point that you apparently failed to grasp is that in the case of Kampia we only have one account that the encounter was consensual, that'd be Kampia's account.

    Yeah, its me John, hi Adam.

  241. #241

    "Any time there is sex between a boss and a subordinate, especially one who is drunk, you can not call it consential sex. The subordinate is intimidated; read
    up on your psychology."

    That's nonsense. Besides, there's never equal power between two people in a relationship. A subordinate may be interested in having sex with her boss for that simple reason: she's drunk on his power.

    Having sex with someone who's too incapacitated to move much less to respond is one thing. I'd still not be so sure to call it "rape". Having sex with someone who is a subordinate who at least claims to willingly participate? That's desperate self-victimization to call it rape. To say it *has* to be rape is utter nonsense. All she has to do is not sleep with the guy and if he pursues her anyway then she can deal with that like any woman who doesn't want to have sex with her boss would deal with it.

    Are you claiming that women can't fend-off their bosses' sexual advances? That they are helpless and powerless to resist? Or would it just be "difficult, annoying, dangerous, possibly uncomfortable and complicated"? I'm sorry but generally that's what "fending off a rape-attempt" is.

    So next you want to say that anytime a woman has sex with a man, it's rape for the same reason?

  242. #242

    "Having sex with someone who’s too incapacitated to move much less to respond is one thing. I’d still not be so sure to call it “rape”."

    ...and just to make it clear, it's one thing if a guy dopes or drugs a woman and has sex with her, quite another if she does it to herself in his company and then he has sex with her.

    But hell with the logic the OP is using, any woman who gets a job working for a man is setting herself up to be raped by him, and even if she claims to have sex with him consensually it's still rape. Simply because he's her superior in the workplace.

    God help a woman who gets drunk with her boss!

  243. #243

    To recursiveparadox:

    Are you off your meds, is that your problem?

    You said "I made speculations that /something negative/ happened. Rape was one of the possibilities. In no way have I levied an accusation."

    Lie. You stated to Josh "But something bad definitely happened". That's an accusation, not speculation. Do you just let words fall out of your mouth and not pay attention to what they are and what they mean, and then deny it later?

    You said: "Four people did indeed resign. In the worst recession in how many decades? I can’t quite recall. All four of them were close to the woman in question, which does not in any way negate their reaction (in fact, it explains their reaction, would you resign if something bad happened to a woman you didn’t even know? I doubt it.)"

    This obsessive parroting of "they resigned in a recession! they resigned in a recession!" is laughable. I'll not for the upteenth time, that's evidence of nothing. People resign, and when they do it for emotional reasons or jealousy or anger, they don't typically stop to rationally consider things like recessions. To pretend this is just some incredible piece of relevant evidence is beyond moronic.

    And to claim it "explains" their actions and make the comment -- again -- about "something bad" happening is equally moronic since you're just making it up. YOU. WEREN'T. THERE. Remember? What you know is that her ex-boyfriend quit, and his roommates quit with him. They quit because the ex-girlfriend slept with the boss. If you are too blind and too unaware of human nature and emotion to comprehend why the resignations are just as explainable due to reasons unrelated to "something bad", you shouldn't be interacting with other humans.

    Lacking any evidence whatsoever beyond the stupid and baseless wild accusations and speculation of a bunch of online thugs, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to pretend "something bad" is a reason for the resignations. There have been stated reasons, in articles naming the sources, that give reasons for resigning that make no mention at all of any "something bad", and instead give reasons that fit far more rationally into other explanations. You all just like the story better if "something bad" happened, and you prefer to fantasize that it did. Or you have ulterior motives and are trying to help propagate a scandalous rumor to attack your target(s).

    You said "Several staff members have… explained what? You believe that these staff members have genuinely come here? Adam, this is a message board. Do you know how many liars and sham artists come here? If you are so stupid as to believe the words of people in the comments claiming to be the people involved then I really don’t know what to do with you. Especially since more of these so called staff members have backed this so called “public lynching” of Rob, then they have his version of events."

    Hmm, someone's talking out their ass now. Try this -- read the other articles. Staff members posted their names, job titles, and details of what happened. The people claiming to be involved or be staffers but going nameless are in fact mostly the ones making the assertions you are latching hold of as Gospel and believing. And the total number of staff members naming themselves and refuting the lies about the "unanimous recommendation" and the board's actions and Green's actions and harassment claims and the sex aspect happen to equal or outnumber the people making the accusations.

    Yeah, so who exactly is "stupid" here? I'm guessing it's the person who didn't notice how I kept referencing that people need to go look at what's been said at those other articles, where the staffers I referred to have posted. Take your own advice, and "try to be less delusional."

    You said "There are very few rational reasons to justify not only leaving a job in a recession this bad but leaving a job that you enjoy, working for a company that does work you believe in. You are making absolutely ludicrous statements."

    So people only quit their jobs for rational reasons? Please provide your evidence for that rather moronic assertion, thanks. And you just said "leaving a job that you enjoy", but I thought you're all claiming the place was one giant harassment factory? Which is it here? If you are delusional (to use your word) enough to think young workers don't quit their jobs for bad reasons -- like being embarrassed over everyone finding out you slept with the boss and your ex and his friends quit because they were so pissed off -- then you should stop posting remarks that embarrass yourself.

    You said "Considering the ex quit at the exact same time as her, I’m disinclined to believe it was regarding mere sexual relations."

    Yes, because ex-boyfriends who find out their ex just slept with the boss would have no reason to want to stop working there. For all you know, she told him, he went ballistic and told his friends, who also went ballistic, and the resignations came the same day (as opposed to your assertion of "the exact same time" as if it was simultaneous and together) that she quit precisely because of their reactions and maybe them telling other people as well.

    Speculation? You bet it is. Rational speculation for which there is actually more evidence than your claim that it was due to "something bad happened"? You bet it is, like the fact there's no evidence "something bad" happened, and the quotes from the named staffers make no mention of "something bad". Your inability to grasp this simple little concept is "foolishness" (your word).

    You said "Friendship? Sure. Jealousy and embarrassment? Not so much. In fact, those things would likely just lead to conflict in the workplace, not a mass quitting all at once. You are making nonsensical statements."

    That's so asinine I'm stunned even someone as asinine as you is saying it. You are actually going to say that an ex-boyfriend and his friends being told that his ex-girlfriend had sex with their boss just wouldn't lead to the guys quitting out of anger and jealousy? And that a woman who sleeps with her boss, regrets it, tells her ex, and the ex and two other people quit, would not maybe be embarrassed enough over people knowing about the sex and about the guys quitting, that she might resign?

    You are incapable of even thinking logically or rationally about any of this. To be unable to grasp why the woman might quit over embarrassment and regret, while the ex is jealous and angry and his friends are likewise angry, just demonstrates that your views on this are so distorted and illogical as to be worthless.

    You said "do you really think the people close to her would just blab out the reason?"

    So you are now stating that Kampia saying it was consensual and the other people NOT mentioning it is somehow potential evidence that "something bad" happened. That is the most ignorant, illegitimate bunch of tripe I've ever heard.

    See, that's why this crap is so obnoxious and stupid, and why I have increasing lack of respect for those of you peddling it. To make such a mentally deranged argument and keep pushing it, and attacking me for noting that there's no evidence for your assertions and speculation, is nearly sociopathic at this point. Seriously, get some fucking help before you hurt someone.

    You said "This is basic rape victim 101 stuff here, Adam, learn the ropes before you climb the tree."

    No it's not. It's "demented liars fantasizing and making shit up then claiming lack of evidence is evidence 101". And don't worry, I'm getting a crash-course in it from you right now. But hey, good call mentioning ropes and trees during your continued lynching.

    You said "Actually Adam, there was no claim of rape. Merely speculation as to a negative event and further speculation that it could have been rape."

    You're a liar. You didn't just "speculate as to a negative event" and then speculate "that it could have been rape". THIS is what you said earlier:

    "I’d be willing to take a glory bet that he sexually assaulted her."

    That's not speculation that a speculative bad thing could have been rape. That's far beyond "speculation" about "speculation", and you're a liar to try and backtrack now to claim you were just doing some innocent little speculation.

    You said "four people resigned all at the same time in a massive recession, and you have absolutely no rebuttal to downplay that."

    Yes I do, you silly moron. I've demonstrated it repeatedly. You're just not intelligent enough to follow simple logic, or you're a ragingly dishonest creep. And your comments have made it sadly clear that the answer is, a little bit of both.

    You said "since Rob has lied in the past to hide his actions and has only come clean now about his apparent hypersexualization."

    Boom, another assertion of supposed "fact". Prove it. Show me the evidence that he "lied int he past to hide his actions". And in case you haven't figured this out yet, "someone done said it's so" isn't "evidence", it's an assertion or speculation, not demonstrable "fact".

    As for your remarks about logic and so on, I can only laugh and shake my head when people so irrational and incapable of understanding actual intelligent logical points try to puff up and pretend toward some real understanding of logic and act like rational points are illogical. Don't bother trying to discuss or debate this with me anymore, I find little point or pleasure in fishing in a barrel. This is pathetic.

  244. #244

    Did anyone check out the Author , Amanda Hess, of this article? Sounds like a bit if a hippocrate & man hater. All her articles are slanted/ sexual related. Definately a feminist & not following the golden rule of journalism of unbiased view ( If she did , she would have a better job, such as the Washington Post) . Kampia seems like a good target to attack, because he's a middle aged white guy, and any words against him will not appear as any prejudicial accounts.
    Why do we hear no accounts from the female "victim" as she claims,? She is over 18, wouldnt she have something to say? Amanda Hess's journalism is more into Man Hating, then truth seeking.
    Amamndas past writings are full of stories of sexual exploits, which must control her daily research. She may feed off the adventours of other. Her facebook group "the sexist" in their own words
    "The Sexist’s interests include feminism, dating, STD testing, fearing children, G, L, B, T, fucking, and David Bowie. The Sexist strikes quickly and without mercy. The Sexist cannot tell you How to Please Your Man."
    This is certainly a group I would not have or use this expictive language in most offices

  245. #245

    To comment #240:

    1. No, in your opinion those are the only people who did "damage" (and I've seen no evidence Green did any damage, just pure assertion by a few people who are of questionable credibility at this point). I think the people doing the most damage are media outlets who allow former staff to make wild allegations like "predator" based on their own assertions, and the people making such claims. Then there are the people posting even worse rumor and gossip as "fact" in every comment section. So I disagree with your assertion about who are the "only" ones doing "damage".

    2. YES, my reasons are both rational and speculative. I've never claimed otherwise. It is other people who are speculating but claiming it's fact. Difference being, my speculation actually doesn't ignore the evidence and public comments, nor is it wrapped in a load of horseshit and gossip that I pulled out of my ass. Which is why mine is rational. But yep, still speculation, which is why I keep pointing out that it's speculation. Good job, you can read.

    3. I don't discount Bernath's explanation. I just don't treat it as Gospel, and I don't fantasize my own little scenarios to fill in the blanks. I also don't assume Bernath has a degree in psychology to do this armchair evaluation of Kampia. It's assertion by someone mostly speculating, and I happen to be smart enough to tell the difference between that and "evidence". I also happen to think half of what he said sounds like bullshit, but that's my opinion. When he or someone else can provide actual evidence to back any of it up, or to show he's at least a doctor of psychology, then I'll treat it as more than pure speculation on his part.

    4. No, I'm just not an ignorant person who doesn't understand words. It is absolutely false to assert that there MUST be "another version" of events. When you claim Kampia's is "one version" and assert there is absolutely factually "another version", that's pure speculation. And to claim otherwise is pure bullshit, until you can prove there is. I'm not saying there ISN'T "another version", and apparently none of you are smart enough to grasp this point. I'm saying there is not INHERENTLY "another version", and that so far we do not in fact have evidence that there is "another version", so to claim there IS factually "another version" is speculation.

    What about the third version? From a witness who says they actually didn't have sex at all? You can't discount that, until you know what the third version says. And you can't just claim there wasn't a third version, because there may be a third person who was there and until we hear from that third person we can't know if they were there or not. I say there is a third version, until we see proof otherwise that there isn't a third version stating there was really no sex at all. See, I can use your illogical claims as well! This is fun.

    We know there was a second person, and that this person has so far said nothing for which we have seen any evidence. We have seen Kampia's statements. We do not know if the woman's statements would be the same or not, since she's not come forward. We know that no news stories assert that Kampia's version is false, and none of the quotes I've seen in them assert that Kampia's version is false.

    So far, then, there is no evidence that Kampia's version is false, and no evidence that the woman would contradict his version, and when you have no evidence whatsoever that something exists, only people with no grasp of logic think you still have prove the nonexistence of something for which there is no evidence. If the woman's "version" matches Kampia's "version", guess what? There are not two versions! There's ONE version, from two sources in that scenario. So until there is actually evidence that a second "version" exists, it is illogical to assert that there is one or that we have to prove there isn't one or wait to see if there is one.

    As for John's "women who are too drunk can still perform oral sex, I do that to my girlfriend" comment, I don't care how you try to explain it. The point is not that I'm calling it non-consensual, which apparently you completely fail to grasp. My point was to actually seriously warn you that you may not realize it, but several people posting here in fact do assert that what you did is rape, and by their standard they would say you just admitted that you raped your girlfriend.

    In FACT, the author of this article -- Amanda Hess -- makes the argument in one of her blog posts that even if a woman consents in advance, and then consents DURING sex, and is happy about it the next day, it is STILL rape if you continue having sex with her after she has reached a point where she is far too drunk to be capable of giving consent. No amount of prior consent before and during sex counts, nor does it matter if the woman totally loved the evening and is happy the next day and wants to hook up the next night again. By Hess' account, you raped her when you continued having sex.

    There is a point at which a woman is too drunk to consent, and I think we'd all agree with that. The problem is that several people have previously asserted that the line where consent is not possible comes far earlier than most rational people would agree with, and they go farther to assert that how the woman feels about it in fact may be irrelevant. Wives and girlfriends can be raped, that's a fact. Often they do not realize it is rape, or don't want to let themselves consider it rape.

    But that is far different from what you are talking about, and I'm not disputing your interpretation. I'm trying to tell you that several people -- including on this thread, and including the author of this article -- might potentially think you just admitted to rape. So you better keep in mind who is "on your side" in assessing what happened with Kampia, because their outlandish standards are the ones that started the entire gossip-mill going about "consent" when the first story ran about this at High Times.

    It began by claiming "consent" was an issue if a woman was intoxicated, period. YES, that was the claim, that intoxication inherently means impaired judgment, and nobody with impaired judgment can consent, therefore any sex with someone actually intoxicated was not consensual. That's how this all got started, and it kept being embellished upon as the comments continued, and now here we are.

    Regardless, I'd advise you not to post more about your own sex there with your girlfriend, because several people posting here likely interpret that as an outright confession to rape.

  246. #246

    To jsnsoc8:

    I see a lot of long posts by plenty of people, and then medium posts by people posting twice as often as anyone else. So I still don't exactly get why of all people to point to about it, I'd be singled out. You may not notice, but there are a large number of people all already focused on attacking me here, so I've got a lot more people to respond to when I post, and I've already got plenty of people trying to shut me up or get rid of me. My posts will be shorter if and when less people are attacking my comments and trying so hard to shut me up. So if you can get them to stop posting so many attacks and so much bullshit, you'll be far quicker and more effective in decreasing my posts, FYI.

    I've stayed on topic, which a large number of other people cannot claim of their own comments. My posts respond directly to many people who posted to me. And of all of the potential "trolling" behavior to note, things like posting totally off-topic comments or completely outrageous claims to incite fights are a tad bit more common from a lot of other people on here, wouldn't you say? So again, the directing of attention at me of all people strikes me as a bit odd.

    If so many people are going to keep repeating false assertions and making extreme, outlandish claims and falsifications of the facts, then I'll continue to call bullshit on them. I'd have left this story behind and forgotten about it long ago if these people hadn't specifically been so terrible and indecent and dishonest that they increasingly gave me a vested personal interest in continuing to post.

  247. #247

    Wow !

    Nice !

    I hope everyone gets it out of their systems quickly and gets back to why we are here and just dumps this latest napoleon complex weak link before more damage happens


    I am compelled to have to say something here because of the deja vu moment with seeing even something said from our local idiot captain cannabis/crunch ego maniac mr.mar(k) emery the "self" labeled" "prince of pot"

    I say with much more accuracy the "Pimp of Pot"
    I after 18 years efforts with many many elections and many political parties finally received from a main stream tax payer funded political party, as a major plank, the call to re-legalize cannabis here in canada oct 11 2007 (federal green party currently expected to win a seat or two in the next election)

    Years of our work here have been partially destroyed by another ego maniac with this same sexual disability your Rob seems attached to as he now hurts our collective movement

    this emery also hurt us here in canada as he took advantage and turned into an ass as well and even resulted in x-employees coming to me with sad stories of GHB induced possible sexual assaults etc
    Much much more to the story...but

    I was framed with 8 grams of cannabis in 1991 and did not see my kids for two years as I was bankrupted of millions of dollars of assets and jailed

    Its a much longer story .....but I wish this movement was not constantly broadsided or harmed by these out of the blue .... these what? disabled weak minded power abusing sex glutens stupidity finally catching up with themselves and their obviously damaged ego's!!!!!!!!!!!!! ??????

    I dont need anyones permission for what I do and I dont want it

    In canada prohibition started in Parliament and thats the only place it will end

    I wish those above mentioned and my very own "pimp of pot" emery would just shut the f ck up get real in what it takes and do the job or get out of the way !!!!!!!!!

    Please consider why you are all together and just take away the cancer from our movement and think about the damage effecting us all by your implosion and obvious blindness here


  248. #248

    Dear Adam:

    You have lots of free time! Congrats

    At least you know how to use paragraphs.

    Love, Bong Cleaner

  249. #249

    Adam, based on what you are saying in this post #245, I am basically in agreement with you.

    Of course, I follow what you are saying, however based on my reading of everything, I am less inclined to rush to Rob's defense, especially without hearing the girl's account of the events.

    Bernath's statements and the resignation of the other staffers reinforce my position unlike yourself who has chosen to rationalize the situation a different way.

    Green's actions seemed less than professional, but again that is just my opinion. Her previous relations with Rob also tainted my opinion, a little too incestuous for me. Ex-girlfriend in-charge of managing former boyfriend's and boss's questionable sexual conduct with subordinate staff. I just don't see how that situation cannot be grossly biased, just like Hench suggested in the article.

    Finally, my opinion is shaped by my own personal experiences within the movement. And, no I am not referring to my past experiences with MPP.

    I missed the third party account. Are you referring to Green's "false accusation" statement?

    Finally, I should clarify my example to Josh that we keep referencing once and for all. I am referring to an incident in which both parties, myself and long time partner, consented before, during, and after. Intoxication was not to the point of blackout or incapacity. Everyone was fully cognizant of what was happening.

    That being said I totally agree with your assessment of my example as a possibility. Point being your assessment could be a possibility in the case of Kampia, because we simply don't know.

    My concern stems from the fact that we have not heard from the girl. I think that we have to acknowledge the possibility that MPP could be hamstrung by a lawsuit that may or may not be in the works. This could be a severe blow to the CA tax and regulate initiative. MPP is clearly aligned to be a major player in this initiative and now MPP's ability to affect change may be in jeopardy. That's all, and again it is just my opinion.

  250. #250

    Surprise! Grown men who get high are immature.

    Gee. Why do guys want drug legal anyway. Is it because life is so much better when you get high or is it because chicks who are high put out? Mull that one over stoner gals.

  251. Patriarchy: Par for the Motherfucking Course

    So we're at 250 on this already so my comment will likely get lost in the mix but what the hell:

    As a radical who has had to work with and within the non-profit sector every now and then, this kind of thing happens on a constant basis.

    Most organizations like MPP are run by men and staffed by 20-something year old women and execs treating their hiring process like a speed dating game and their employees like a harem is only to be expected.

    Yet another reason why the non-profit industrial complex needs to die.

  252. #252

    @Rob Taylor

    For a smart, rational discussion of the issue so blatantly misrepresented in the media so far, please see

    Thank you, and have a nice day.

    PS I'm sorry you can't get laid. It's frustrating, huh.

  253. #253

    Why are you saying that this has beem "blatantly misrepresented in the media?" Based on the reporting, everything seems factual. Maybe you don't like what is being reported but to say that it is "blatantly misrepresented" seems like a stretch.

  254. #254

    Wow, it was fun reading through the comments on this page...I couldn't make it through all of 'Adam's prose (does that count as another 'attack', Adam?). I'm sorry but if he's not a professional PR hack then he's actually some kind of monomaniac. Can you imagine sharing dinner with this guy? No one could care so deeply about some issue unless they're keenly involved somehow...

  255. #255

    All I know is that MPP posts open staff positions on a regular basis. Too many for such a small organization. I've done a lot of project and temp work over the last several years, so I've been glued to and other nonprofit jobs sites. I decided long ago that MPP must be a miserable place to work if staff come and go that quickly.

  256. #256

    I've had the same type of activities to be true at almost all of my previous jobs. This is very commonplace.

  257. #257

    I know Rob. I've known him since before MPP. He's always tried to get women in bed, anyone he could find. He's insecure. He came to a fundraiser for our organization, and spent the whole time chasing my assistant who was half his age. It was terrible to watch.

    I hope he gets his sh*t together, but he needs to resign. MPP has to get another Director. And Alison, you need to get a life, sorry.

  258. #258

    And what does this have to do with legalizing medicinal or recreational cannabis? Nothing, just a smear campaign to detract and confuse voters.

  259. #259

    Two things seem quite clear to me.

    First, Adam IS obviously Rob Kampia.

    There isn't a PR hack in the world who would put in that kind of time. And only Kampia would have had both

    (a) a pro-Kampia outlook

    (b) an incredibly deep investment level in, and knowledge of, every tiny aspect of this story

    Adam/Kampia is scum. The end.

    Second: Alison Green appears to have pursued the classic tactic of building her career via sex (Kampia, and no doubt many others, just on the off chance that one day they would acquire some measure of wealth or fame).

    Then, once in a position of some authority, she began banging her subordinates (Bernath, at minimum).

    So I feel faintly sorry for Alison Green. Although manifestly a slut, she -- unlike Kampia -- is out of a job.

    And try to imagine what it must be like for her professional prospects for the rest of her life.

    If she applies for a job, her resume begins with "Chief of Staff at the Marijuana Policy Project" -- a title which does not inspire confidence.

    If she makes it past that hurdle, HR is bound to Google her along these lines:

    +"Alison Green" +MPP which point she appears to have been a spineless toady who shouted down her own best judgment and morals in order to endorse the ongoing career of a suspected rapist.

    I'd say karma has been served in her case already. It can only be a matter of time for Kampia as well.

Comments Shown. Turn Comments Off.