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: 
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Defense attorney Mark Larrañaga visits Bellingham to speak about his experience as an attorney for defendants facing the death penalty. How many people does an execution affect? Prior to hearing Mark Larrañaga’s insights into the vast reaches of the death penalty, I naturally assumed that the defendant, his or her family, the victim(s), and the victim’s family were the principle people affected by the death penalty. I never considered how deeply jurors, attorneys, and their families can be affected. Years after a trial had come to an end, some jurors’ family members are brought to tears just talking about it. These persons are often so affected by the lengthy, emotionally straining process of a death penalty trial that they too often turn to substance abuse to help them cope. “He’s never been the same. He started hitting the bottle pretty hard when the trial ended,” one woman said of her husband’s experience as a juror. Mr. Larrañaga has become so keenly aware of how traumatizing a death penalty trial can be that in many of his cases he has requested that counselors be available to all involved parties after the trial is concluded. Read more
Published: 
Friday, October 8, 2010
The New York Times recently reported that sex offense rates on the campuses and surrounding areas of 12 colleges and universities are 83 percent higher than the overall national average. As the Women’s Rights Project of the ACLU explained, “This statistic . . . highlights the importance of a school’s response to rape.” Fortunately, federal law has acknowledged the importance of a school’s response to sexual assault by requiring that schools respond to victims’ needs and take action to protect students. Read more
Published: 
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
As we said in a previous blog post , you might have thought that “debtors' prisons” were extinct. But people are still being locked up all too often in Washington and around the country simply because they can’t pay their court-ordered financial obligations in a criminal case. Read more

“In for a Penny” – read the ACLU report

Document, Published: 
Monday, October 4, 2010
This ACLU report presents the results of a yearlong investigation into modern-day "debtors' prisons," and shows that poor defendants are being jailed at increasingly alarming rates for failing to pay legal debts they can never hope to afford.
Published: 
Friday, September 24, 2010
Consensual sexting should not be a crime for teens or adults. The frightening reality, however, is that our current child pornography laws coupled with modern technology have the potential to create a sex offender registry populated with the children it was intended to protect and a generation of teenagers who will reach the age of majority already convicted as child sex offenders. This is not what child pornography laws were meant for, and the time has come to address the issue rationally and reasonably, before it is too late. Read more
Published: 
Friday, September 3, 2010
On September 2, 2010, the Seattle Times ran an op-ed discussing startling details about longstanding racial disparities in Washington’s criminal justice system. The op-ed is written by NAACP Legal Defense Fund attorneys John Payton and Ryan Haygood. Way back in 1980, Washington state “officials asked themselves a hard question about why the state led the nation in the disproportionate incarceration of African Americans.”  Fast forward to 2007 and you can see how the problem still exists. The state’s own Sentencing Guideline Commission reported in 2007 that African Americans were 3% of the state’s population, but “received 14.91% of all felony convictions and were the most over-represented racial group ….” Read more
Published: 
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Gangs present a serious public safety challenge to our communities.  But the approach that our state has instinctively turned to in the past—relying on arresting and jailing those believed to be involved in gangs—fails to get to the root causes of the issue, and likely makes it worse.  To be sure, for Washington cities dealing with violent crime, such as those in the Yakima Valley, meeting this challenge means appropriately punishing violent offenders.  But it is equally critical to find avenues through which individuals can leave gangs and reenter the community.  Simply imprisoning gang members and telling them to leave gangs doesn’t work if there’s nothing else for them to do, and no resources to help them get out. Read more
Published: 
Monday, August 16, 2010
Although the number of people being arrested and imprisoned for drug crimes in Washington is decreasing, we still rely far too heavily on the criminal sanction for dealing with drug abuse. Only 140 people were in Washington prisons for drug crimes in 1980, while in 2008 there were over 2,300. And this doesn’t include people locked up in jails; for example, in 2008, the average daily population (ADP) of drug offenders in the King County jail was 459 – 18% of total ADP. Similarly, less than 6,000 people were arrested for drug crimes in 1981, while the figure was over 20,000 in 2009 (down from an all time high of 27,909 in 2007). Even after adjusting for population changes, these increases are staggering.
Published: 
Monday, July 19, 2010
I've recently returned from vacation in San Diego, a beautiful city from which you can see Tijuana, or "TJ," as the locals call it. My family and I had a fabulous time relaxing, reuniting with loved ones, and stuffing our gullets with the wonders of Juanita's Taco Shop. But my husband broke my cardinal vacation rule - no talk about work, please - and brought up California's Proposition 19. That forced my hand: If you're going to talk about cannabis reform, you have to talk about Mexico.
Published: 
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Last week the California NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) endorsed Proposition 19, a marijuana legalization initiative, which will appear on the November ballot in California. As stated by California NAACP president Alice Huffman, “we are joining a growing number of medical professionals, labor organizations, law enforcement authorities, local municipalities and approximately 56% of the public in saying that it is time to decriminalize the use of marijuana.” Adding further, that “the war on drugs is a failure and disproportionately targets young men and women of color, particularly African-American males.”   Read more

Pages