Opinion

The following is presented as part of The Columbian’s Opinion content, which offers a point of view in order to provoke thought and debate of civic issues. Opinions represent the viewpoint of the author. Unsigned editorials represent the consensus opinion of The Columbian’s editorial board, which operates independently of the news department.

News / Opinion / Columns

Local View: Consider drug decriminalization consequences

By Ann Donelly

Published: July 3, 2022, 6:01am

Initiative 1922 promoting drug decriminalization for Washington will likely be on the November ballot. Proponents state it aims to “stop treating drug use as a crime and remove the fear of arrest as a barrier to engagement and recovery.” But recent reports from a similar scheme in Portland tell voters to “just say no.”

Oregon and Washington efforts at drug decriminalization kicked off during the height of the pandemic in 2020. In Oregon, Ballot Measure 110 was approved by voters in November 2020. Possession was dropped from a felony or even a misdemeanor to a “violation” subject to a $100 fine. The fine will be waived if the person contacts a hotline for assistance and health evaluation. Voters were evidently sold on the theory that decriminalizing all drugs and establishing a fund for addiction treatment would lead to decreased addiction. It didn’t, at least not yet, and the situation has worsened, recent reporting shows.

In Washington, in 2020, decriminalization supporters filed I-1715, similar to Oregon’s, but then decided to delay qualification for the November ballot. Instead, they lobbied for HB 1499 that would have ended arrests, jail time, and criminal records for personal drug possession and use.

Enter the judicial branch with a big ruling. The state Supreme Court in February 2021 issued a decision in State v. Lake, deciding that our state’s drug possession law was unconstitutional because it has “affected thousands of lives … and has hit young men of color especially hard.”

Seemingly attempting to thread the needle, the Legislature then passed SB 5476. It recriminalized possession but required the state to develop a new substance use recovery services plan, though without dedicated funding. These provisions expire in July 2023.

This is an impossibly confusing situation for law enforcement. No wonder drug addiction is cruelly increasing homelessness and crime. The Washington Association of Sheriffs & Police Chiefs said that “the legalization of controlled substances without substantial commitments to build or fund the infrastructure to address the root causes of addiction represents the worst of both worlds.”

Washington voters will soon need to decide which world to choose. Initiative 1922 was filed in March, and if qualified will appear on the fall ballot. Section 6 states that law enforcement officers who discover that a person is in possession of a controlled substance (e.g. heroin, fentanyl), counterfeit substance (e.g. potentially deadly fake antibiotics), or a “legend drug” (e.g. Xanax, Oxycontin) “shall provide information to the person about outreach and engagement services …”

So, the police officer hands the drug possessor a form to fill out voluntarily. While also making it easy to expunge personal possession from user records, the measure removes the fear of consequences of possessing even the most deadly and addictive drugs.

How has this worked in Oregon? Reporting by OregonLive, the AP, and the U.K.’s Daily Mail on June 2-3 describe “total chaos” in the state government’s “botched” implementation of the measure. The behavioral health director explained they were “under-resourced to support the effort, underestimated the work … and … we didn’t fully understand it until we were in the middle of it.”

In the first year, of 1,885 people given the voluntary form, fewer than five called the help hotline, the program’s operator reported. The vast majority went on as before or spiraled downward. Drug overdoses in Grants Pass, for example, have skyrocketed 700 percent and related deaths increased 120 percent.

So, when considering signing the initiative or voting for it, voters must consider the well-documented consequences of decriminalizing drugs.

Related Stories