I would like to comment on your article of 6/17/97 where you report on
outside donors in favor of "legalizing" marijuana sponsoring the petition
drive for Initiative 685.
First of all, these donors are in favor of medicalizing marijuana ( and
other drugs); moving the regulation of drugs from the political and
criminal justice systems to the medical system. That move makes good sense
to a lot of people.

The more liberal step of legalizing marijuana is a more difficult project
to fundand has inspired neither outside nor inside donors. I know, for as
a member of HIPWS (Hemp Initiative Projects of Washington State) I have
been part of the effort to get such an initiative on the ballot now for
three years. (Our current initiative, 197, seeks to make the marijuana laws
as analagous as possible to existing liquor laws in this state.) Our
fundraising efforts have generated barely enough revenue to print out the
initiatives; all administrative work and signaturegathering has been done
by unpaid volunteers.
I have learned the hard way, watching the success of Initiative 685 this
year, how money talks, how money makes politics work. Not just politics. I
notice you, as the media, find Initiative 685 a more interesting and
reportable story than its poorer cousin, Initiative 197.

I wouldn’t be too hard on these outside donors; they are, after all, only
using their money to get an issue on the ballot for voters to decide on.
Now where have I heard of that before?

Sincerely

Kimble James Greenwood