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, December 15, 2010
Next month, the King County District Court will hold an inquest into the August 30, 2010, fatal shooting of First Nations carver John T. Williams by Seattle Police Officer Ian Birk.  An inquest looks like a trial, so you might imagine that we will soon learn whether Officer Birk committed a crime or will be found civilly liable for killing Mr. Williams, right?  Well, probably not.  The one thing that inquest juries cannot do is to determine liability.
Published: 
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
With little public fanfare, other than a couple of newspaper articles and blog posts, two of Washington’s largest jails (Spokane County and King County) have seen significant decreases in inmate populations. This is a big deal, as Spokane County is hoping to build a new jail (they’ll vote on funding for the jail this spring). Similarly, several Puget Sound cities, including Seattle, were considering building their own jail because King County would no longer have bed space. What explains the decreases in inmate populations? Is it sustainable? Can other county jails replicate the trend? Let’s take a closer look. Read more
News Release, Published: 
Monday, November 29, 2010
After 15 years of court-supervised monitoring, the ACLU-WA and Pierce County have agreed to a final settlement in a lawsuit over inhumane conditions at the county jail. The settlement came after county officials adopted policies that, when fully implemented, will ensure that medical care for inmates meets minimum constitutional standards.
Published: 
Friday, November 19, 2010
In September Governor Chris Gregoire, warning that Washington’s finances were “bouncing along the bottom,” by executive order decreed 6.3% across-the-board budget cuts for all state agencies. Just days before the Governor’s announcement the state spent almost $98,000 to execute Cal Brown, who had spent 17 years on death row for a crime committed in 1991. That sum was only the tip of the iceberg, however. As a recentreport by the Washington State Bar Association notes, the specter of a death sentence regularly adds a premium of half a million dollars or moreof legal and judicial costs per case.
Published: 
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Next Tuesday, Californians will vote on the historic Proposition 19, which would decriminalize adult possession and growing of marijuana for personal use. It would also allow cities and counties to adopt regulations permitting the commercial production and distribution of cannabis to consumers. More importantly, Proposition 19 would represent a huge step forward in ending the civil liberties and civil rights abuses fostered by the War on Drugs, like racist enforcement of drug prohibition. Read more
Published: 
Monday, October 18, 2010
A recent story about a college party in tiny Roslyn, WA, in which nine people were taken to the hospital for possible overdoses, has received national media attention.  It’s alleged that drinks at the party were spiked with drugs (possibly Rohypnol, aka “roofies”), although authorities are still awaiting toxicology reports. If students were indeed drugged without consent, let’s hope law enforcement catches up with those responsible. However, a less talked about and equally disturbing aspect of the story is that “not one person chose to call 911." This is unfortunate on several levels, but most glaringly because Washington state recently enacted a law specifically designed to deal with this type of situation. The 911 Good Samaritan law works as follows: If you think you’re witnessing a drug overdose and seek medical help, you will receive immunity from criminal charges of drug possession.  The overdose victim you’re helping is protected, too. Calling 911 is always the right response.
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.

Pages