I-77 AND I-75: WE'RE NOT THAT GULLIBLE

Back in the day, if you mentioned Seattle, people elsewhere would
think of the Space Needle, World's Fair, Seafair and the hydros,
multiculturalism, Boeing and natural resources in a middle-class city
near mountains, forests and water. When it came to politics, they'd
think tough-minded activism and broad civic involvement crossing
income, class, racial, ethnic and partisan lines.

Now, if you ask folks elsewhere, they mention Bill Gates, Microsoft,
high-tech wealth, a lively, high- and low-cultural scene in a
rich-poor city near mountains, forests and water. Mention politics
today and the associations are with the WTO meeting, Hempfest,
political correctitude and narrow civic involvement except for
self-seekers and a small group of activists.

Two initiatives on our primary election ballots illustrate why we have
our present reputation.

The first, Initiative 75, would require police and the city attorney
to do what they already do: Namely, make offenses for adult personal
marijuana use the city's lowest law enforcement priority. Its slick,
direct-mail campaign falsely represents it as relief for
multiple-sclerosis patients or a blow against President Bush.

The initiative has the backing of the League of Women Voters; American
Civil Liberties Union; city council members Nick Licata, Judy Nicastro
and Heidi Wills; King County Council member Larry Gossett; state Sen.
Jeanne Kohl-Welles, and several Democratic district organizations. But
its real backers are a handful of people involved nationally in trying
to legalize drugs generally and marijuana specifically.

As of last week Peter Lewis, a Cleveland insurance tycoon, had given
$40,000 to the I-75 effort. He gives big money to similar efforts in
many states. The Tides Foundation, San Francisco, had given $30,000.
The Marijuana Policy Project, Washington, D.C., which wants "to remove
civil penalties for marijuana use," had given $17,500. The ACLU, once
known for higher causes, had chipped in $27,303. (People who grow and
sell drugs make contributions to such organizations so their own names
will not appear on campaign-donor lists). Only three individuals
locally had contributed $1,000 or more.

Why would non-Seattle people and groups fund a Seattle initiative to,
among other things, set up an 11-person Marijuana Policy Review Panel
to assure police continued their present marijuana enforcement policy?
The answer is that they have a larger drug agenda and want to win here
to add momentum to their efforts -- even though, in practical terms,
passage of I-75 would change nothing locally.

If adults want to celebrate weed at Hempfest or use it to get dull,
get fat, reduce their sex drives or even to make rope, cops here won't
hassle them. Medical use? Of course.

But there is a reason marijuana is illegal. Would any of you welcome
the news that your kids were regular users? Marijuana reduces memory
and learning capacity. Marijuana smoke contains 50 to 70 percent more
carcinogens than normal tobacco smoke, lethal in itself. Today's
marijuana has far higher THC levels than the stuff celebrated by
Cheech and Chong. It also for some unfortunate users is a "gateway
drug" into the hard-drug culture.

The initiative is opposed by City Attorney Tom Carr, King County
Prosecutor Norm Maleng, King County Sheriff Dave Reichert and others
in the law enforcement and justice systems who don't want their time
wasted relating to a new policy review panel checking up on whether
they are being sufficiently lax toward illegal activity.

The second initiative, which could only be introduced in Coffee
Seattle, is Initiative 77, which would fund early education and child
care programs with a 10-cent tax on every espresso sold at Starbuck's
or a one-person coffee stand. The vendors would be responsible for
collecting and paying the tax. Initiative 77 has broader backing from
elected officials and reputable organizations than does I-75. Their
names are in your voters' pamphlet. Like I-75, I-77 it would create a
special oversight committee.

Taxing a non-essential item to help kids sounds like a good idea. And
it is not as if "earmarking" does not take place in the tax system.
After all, gas taxes and tolls finance highways and bridges. Hotel and
taxi taxes typically finance tourism-related activities. User fees pay
for the service used. This is more like the linkage of timber taxes to
public schools, which in the state's early days seemed a good thing to
make sure schools had money. But we are past those days and should be
able to raise general revenues and, then, set priorities for their
use.

Early childhood education and care are vital to us. Why don't we make
that known sufficiently to our elected officials so they will give
them priority? The espresso tax is one more example of the way ballot
measures screw up governance. They can arbitrarily cut taxes or raise
spending for a single purpose, according to the wish of their
sponsors, without regard to their effect on anything or anyone else.

We need jobs and economic growth, another 75-100 police on the street
and better schools in the South End and elsewhere. Middle-income
families cannot afford housing. Libraries are closed. Our
transportation needs are great and our transportation agenda crazily
skewed. A pot panel to police the police? A latte tax? Vote no on both
initiatives and thus signal their sponsors that we not as gullible as
they think.