Washington at the Crossroads: Continuing the Fight Against the War on Drugs

On the last day of the 2023 legislative session, a bill aimed at recriminalizing drug possession, E2SSB 5536, failed when a House vote to approve conference committee recommendations did not pass. Washington is at a crossroads and has an opportunity to replace the failed policies of the past with a new approach.

Here is more information about the Blake decision, the legislature’s responses and the possibility to end the War on Drugs and replace it with proven public health responses to substance use disorder. This page will be updated as new information becomes available.

What happened during the 2023 legislative session? 

On February 6, 2023, the Senate Law & Justice Committee heard four bills proposing new drug possession laws to replace temporary criminal provisions adopted after the Blake decision struck down Washington’s previous, unconstitutional law. The temporary provisions will expire on July 1, 2023. One of those bills, SB 5624, would have implemented the recommendations of the Substance Use Recovery Services Advisory Committee, a 28-member panel of healthcare, substance use disorder, recovery, and law enforcement experts convened by the Washington State Health Care Authority. Those recommendations included decriminalization of drug possession. However, the three other bills all proposed new criminal penalties, including SB 5536, the only bill of the four to advance. SB 5536 passed out of the Senate on March 3 with a gross misdemeanor penalty and new mandatory minimum jail terms imposed for people who failed to comply with court-ordered treatment plans. 

In the House, the penalties established by SB 5536 were reduced from gross misdemeanors to misdemeanors, but new crimes were added for public use of drugs. The House also preempted the entire field of drug paraphernalia regulation leaving no room for local ordinances or regulations that might interfere with the provision of harm reduction services. The House passed this new version of SB 5536 on April 11, and on April 21, just two days before the end of the session, the Senate voted not to concur in the House amendments. Because the Senate did not agree with the changes made in the House, the two chambers appointed three legislators each to a conference committee tasked with negotiating a compromise. The compromise was reported the evening of April 22, and on April 23, the last day of session, was brought to the floor of the House for an up-or-down vote. The vote failed, and the legislature adjourned without having passed a law to replace the temporary, post-Blake penalties of a misdemeanor. 

What was in the compromise bill? 

The conference committee proposed to escalate criminal penalties back up from a misdemeanor, which carries up to 90 days in jail and a $1,000 fine, to a gross misdemeanor, which carries up to 364 days and a $5,000 fine. The proposal also maintained and escalated the new public use crime to a gross misdemeanor. For comparison purposes, public display of alcohol and cannabis are class 3 civil infractions. In the area of drug paraphernalia, the conference committee created a carve-out that allowed local jurisdictions to adopt ordinances establishing public hearing or noticing requirements before harm-reduction programs could be set up in a locality.  

What funding was proposed in the compromise bill? 

Roughly $43 million would have been provided to the Health Care Authority, Office of Homeless Youth, and Department of Children, Youth, and Families (in part by the operating budget) to establish a health engagement hub pilot program, expand 23-hour crisis relief center capacity, increase the number of mobile and fixed methadone units with prioritization of rural areas, support employment and education services for people with substance use disorders, support operation of recovery residences and youth shelters that provide behavioral health support services, and provide training and opioid reversal medication to parents of children with substance use disorders and DCYF case workers. 

What happens if no new drug possession law is passed? 

On July 1, 2023, the misdemeanor criminal penalty created in 2021 in response to the Blake decision will expire. If no new law is passed, drug possession would no longer be a crime under state law, but drug manufacture and distribution would remain felonies. The legislature could take up again the question of whether we should impose criminal penalties for drug possession when it reconvenes in January 2024. 

The governor could also call a 30-day special session to revisit this issue prior to July 1. 

What can localities do? What can’t they do? 

Local jurisdictions can pass ordinances imposing misdemeanor and gross misdemeanor penalties for crimes as long as the penalties are consistent with state laws addressing the same crimes. If the state has not addressed whether an act should or should not be a crime, a local jurisdiction can consider its own ordinance but cannot exceed the gross misdemeanor penalty. Finally, police can still seize illicit drugs even if neither state nor local law makes possession of those drugs a crime:

What happens during a special session? 

A special session is a session of no more than 30 days, convened by the governor or the Legislature, following adjournment of the regular session. The governor has unilateral power to convene a special session, and the Legislature, upon two-thirds vote of all members, may call itself into special session. The governor or Legislature specifies the purposes for which the special session is convened. The chambers could continue working toward an agreement on E2SSB 5536 or introduce new legislation to address specific aspects of that bill, like the criminal penalties or the funding aimed at substance use disorder prevention, treatment, and recovery.

What is the difference between decriminalization and legalization? 

The Legislature’s failure to accept the conference committee proposal means that the possession of drugs would no longer be criminalized after July 1, 2023, unless the Legislature acts before then, but this does not mean that substances would be legalized.  

Decriminalization is the act of removing criminal sanctions against certain activities, including possession of drugs for personal use. The substance is still prohibited generally, but the repercussions for being found in possession of the substance are no longer criminal. Instead of incarceration, those found in possession of drugs could get redirected to services and have the drug seized. The production and sale of the decriminalized drug is still illegal. 

Legalization is the act of permitting by law use of a substance. In the drug policy context, the term "legalization" gets used in different ways. Generally, though, it implies some type of legal supply, from prescriptions to regulated cannabis shops. People can use the substance without worry of being convicted or fined. Limits can still be set on its use. For instance, the law may require you to be a certain age to use the substance and the government can still limit the amount a person can carry or possess, such as is the case with prescription drugs. Suppliers may need a license to sell the substance, like with cannabis or alcohol. In 2012, Washington became one of the first U.S. states to legalize recreational use of cannabis and to allow recreational cannabis sales. Both the use and sale of the substance are permissible under legalization. 

Read more about the difference here: The difference between the decriminalization and legalization of substances 

How Washington's Drug Possession Laws Have Changed: State v. Blake and SURSAC

Managing behavior


Local governments already have options to address concerning behavior in their communities and bridges to some services. Police can seize drugs even if neither state nor local law makes possession of those drugs a crime:
It is not necessary to create new crimes to give law enforcement authority to take a person whose drug-related behavior rises to the level of public nuisance into custody and transport them to a community health hub or other appropriate triage facility.

It is similarly unnecessary to create new statutes to provide options for diverting people away from the criminal legal system. Several pathways already exist:

Resources

Published: 
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
It is a fundamental principle of a democratic society that public employees should be held accountable for their actions. In May, a Seattle arbitrator undermined that principle by ruling that the City of Seattle’s contract with the Seattle Police Officers’ Guild requires the city to withhold the names of police officers who were disciplined for misconduct. Thankfully, City Attorney Pete Holmes has decided to challenge this decision and is fighting to keep this information public.
Published: 
Friday, June 10, 2011
In a case (State v. Monday) that drew front-page coverage in today’s Seattle Times, the Washington Supreme Court has issued a strong ruling that racist comments by a prosecutor undermine the fundamental right to a fair trial.
Published: 
Friday, April 8, 2011
Let’s be clear:Senate Bill 5073, the medical marijuana legislation moving through the state legislature, isn’t perfect.  Different stakeholders with different motivations have made a lot of changes to it along the way. It’s no one’s ideal bill.
Published: 
Friday, April 1, 2011
Last December, the ACLU of Washington and 34 community organizations sent a letter to the Department of Justice asking for an investigation of the Seattle Police Department after a string of troubling incidents involving unnecessary or excessive use of force by officers.  On March 31 we received an answer: DOJ is coming to Seattle.  The move came after a preliminary inquiry in Seattle determined that a full-scale investigation is warranted.
Published: 
Friday, March 11, 2011
Several years ago, comedian Chris Rock created a “public service announcement” called “How Not to Get Your Ass Kicked by the Police.”  The message includes obvious directions like “obey the law” and as well as tongue-in-cheek suggestions like “if you have to give a friend a ride, get a white friend” and satire about police reactions. This piece is funny because it is based on a simple truth known throughout communities of color:  If you are a black or brown man, you don’t have to work very hard to attract the attention of the police.
Published: 
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Eva’s son died from gang violence.  Every day she lives with an aching desire to hold him again.  But despite her grief, she opens her home to young people in her community, some of whom are at risk to be involved in gangs. A Yakima Valley resident, she wants to keep them off the streets and safe from the violence.   Eva is angry that her son is no longer with her, yet she wants more opportunities to help young people rather than sending them behind bars.
Published: 
Monday, February 28, 2011
My intense passion for righting wrongs came before any desire to work within legislation or politics. I became involved with social justice issues during my days as a Catholic schoolgirl, and although the dogma eventually disappeared, the need to help others remained.  In choosing an externship, the ACLU was my first choice, and a natural fit.  As I’ve learned more about its work, I’ve found that my gut reaction to the issues has been spot on. 
Published: 
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
I can understand why many people in Seattle are angry that Seattle Police Officer Ian Birk will not be charged with murder. If you or I intentionally shot and killed someone who was not an immediate threat to us, we would be charged with murder or at the very least manslaughter. But the law treats police officers differently. In 1986, Washington’s legislature passed a law that allows police officers to escape criminal charges for killing a person so long as the officer had a good faith belief that his actions were justified and he acted “without malice.” This law protects the officer even if his “good faith belief” was wrong. So, it is not surprising that King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg believed that he would not be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Officer Birk murdered John T. Williams.
Published: 
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
On January 10, an inquest regarding the August 30, 2010, fatal shooting of First Nations carver John T. Williams by Seattle Police Officer Ian Birk will be held at the King County Courthouse. Reports indicate the police department’s Firearms Review Board preliminarily ruled the shooting was unjustified. Does this mean the inquest verdict will be the same?
Published: 
Thursday, December 30, 2010
In the final days of the year, typically dominated by annual “best of” lists, a simple call by President Obama managed to spurt multiple headlines and ignite a flurry of conversations. In his call to Philadelphia Eagles owner Jeffrey Lurie, President Obama reportedly applauded the team for giving quarterback Michael Vick a second chance. In 2007 Vick pleaded guilty to charges related to practices of animal cruelty, and served a 19-month sentence in federal prison. The President reportedly told Lurie, “So many people who serve time never get a fair second chance. It's never a level playing field for prisoners when they get out of jail.” The President’s call emphasized an important reality that more and more political leaders and policymakers are acknowledging: America has a big problem with over-incarceration, and its pernicious effects are not limited to the grim confines inside of jailhouse walls.

Pages