NO TO INITIATIVE 75: PROPONENTS USE SCARE TACTICS

A middle-aged Wallingford couple, having tucked their children into
bed, settles down on their couch to watch "West Wing" and light up a
joint. Suddenly, a black-clad SWAT team bursts through the door and
wrestles the couple to floor. They lie handcuffed on their tasteful
Oriental carpet, while their now awakened children scream in terror
before being taken away by Child Protective Services.

This scenario is as fictional as President Josiah Bartlett. In a
"reefer madness"-like attempt to distort the truth, images such as
this are being conjured up by Initiative 75's proponents to scare
Seattle voters into swallowing a campaign funded by out-of-state
interests that is designed as a test case for a new marijuana initiative.

The Seattle Police Department places no special emphasis on the
prevention of adult personal use of marijuana, and marijuana cases
represent about 1 percent of the city attorney office's criminal
caseload. Initiative 75 is not necessary to prevent the SWAT team from
breaking down the door.

Seattle has a much more important and powerful restraint than any
poorly worded initiative: democracy. I would not hold my job for long
if I engaged in an activity so at odds with the views of those to whom
I am responsible. Even I-75's proponents admit the initiative is not
intended to address any problem in Seattle. They are reacting to an
effort undertaken by Rudolph Giuliani in New York City to deal with
that city's serious crime problems. Giuliani was elected and
re-elected by the citizens of New York because a majority believed
that his type of strong medicine was needed for their city. Our
community has expressed no such desire.

In their campaign, proponents resort to a series of lies and
half-truths.

Lie 1: Initiative 75 will free up police and prosecutors for more
important things by "de-prioritizing" marijuana prosecution. Neither
the Police Department nor the city attorney's office spends much time
on marijuana investigation or prosecution. Thus, I-75 will provide no
savings.

There will, however, be costs. I expect that in marijuana cases,
including felonies, the defense will attempt to prove -- or, worse.
make the prosecution disprove -- that marijuana enforcement was not
actually our lowest priority. "Officer Jones, now isn't it true that
on or about the date of the arrest someone, somewhere in Seattle
littered, jaywalked or climbed Wedgwood Rock?" There will be increased
police overtime costs and prosecution costs for each case in which we
have to defend a motion to dismiss based on I-75. In addition, I-75
sets up yet another commission to study what everyone recognizes is
not a problem in Seattle. There is no funding mechanism in the
initiative, so the general fund will have to be stretched to cover the
inevitable costs associated with the commission's "work."

Lie 2: Initiative 75 is necessary to protect those who need marijuana
for medical purposes. In an incredibly misleading mailing (paid for by
more than $100,000 from outside Seattle) proponents highlight the case
of "Ralph" whose "medicine" the city allegedly stole. Ralph's case is,
in fact, an interesting example of how marijuana investigation and
prosecution works in Seattle. Ralph's neighbors called the police to
report a burglary. During the burglary investigation the police
discovered a sophisticated marijuana-growing operation comprising more
than 70 plants. The police referred the case to King County for felony
prosecution and to the city for forfeiture of the house.

Ralph asserted that the state's medical marijuana law protected him,
even though he did not have the medical documentation required by the
Washington courts, and 70 plants is far in excess of the 60-day supply
permitted under the law. Nevertheless, because Ralph is truly ill and
because it is unclear what constitutes a 60-day supply, the Police
Department and my office dismissed the case. (It is also important to
note that Ralph was never displaced from home during this entire
process.) The fact is that that I-75 does nothing to protect those who
need marijuana for medical purposes. State law already does this.

Lie 3: Initiative 75 sends the right message about marijuana use in
our community. Half the calls by Seattle's youth to help lines concern
marijuana. Sixty percent of the city's treatment resources go to help
those who abuse marijuana. Initiative75 cannot change the fact that
possession and distribution of marijuana is a crime.

Preaching the gospel of tolerance for "adult personal use" ignores
several parts of the equation. Adult use of marijuana requires that
the user either grow or buy marijuana, thereby committing a felony or
providing economic incentive for someone else to commit a felony,
neither of which is covered by I-75. Whatever protections might be
afforded by I-75 they will not extend to those guilty of felonies. Any
policy of official tolerance of marijuana crimes, in the absence of a
complete reform, sends a confusing and dishonest message to our
community, and could actually result in increased marijuana use and
arrests.

To borrow a phrase, just say no to I-75.