LEGISLATURE: West Seattle’s State House reps split on drug-law vote

Two nights after the State Legislature adjourned, a few major bills are dominating post-session discussion. One of them is SB 5536, which was touted as a compromise for a new state law regarding drug possession. Legislators needed to pass one in order to avoid outright decriminalization as of July 1st, expiration date for a stopgap law enacted after the state Supreme Court threw out the previous state law. But in the waning hours of the legislative session, the “compromise” went down to defeat, with State House members voting 43 yes, 55 no. Though some Republicans had voted for earlier versions of the bill, none voted for the final version, and some Democrats voted against it too. We checked today to see how our area’s two State House Representatives voted – and discovered that the two, both Democrats from West Seattle, were split. Rep. Joe Fitzgibbon, who is the House Majority Leader, voted yes. First-term Rep. Emily Alvarado voted no. We asked her why, via email. Her response:

I voted against SB 5536 because I don’t believe we need to criminalize drug possession to connect people to services. We need proven public health responses to substance use disorder.

The proposal that came to the House floor on Sunday escalated criminal penalties for drug possession and public use to a gross misdemeanor, meaning people could be sentenced to up to 364 days in jail. It gave prosecutors discretion in whether to refer a person to diversion and treatment. It made important investments in behavioral health care, which I support, but those investments were not sufficient.

I agree that a state framework is better than a patchwork of local laws, but SB 5536 was not the right framework. It enshrined harsh criminal penalties for drug possession and failed to make evidence-based treatment and services readily available for people who need it.

(Our area’s State Senator Joe Nguyen voted against the version of the bill that cleared the Senate 28-21 in early March.) So what happens now? Governor Inslee inferred he might call a special session, declaring that the House vote “was unacceptable,” adding, “Decriminalization is not an option for me and it is not an option for the state of Washington. I expect legislators to deliver a solution.” Otherwise, it’ll be up to local governments to make their own rules – or not.

58 Replies to "LEGISLATURE: West Seattle's State House reps split on drug-law vote"

  • Seattlite April 25, 2023 (11:11 pm)

    Drugs like fentanyl, heroin, cocaine, crack and all other dangerous, destructive addictive drugs have ZERO reason for being legal.  Addicts are not only addicted to these drugs but addicts have drug-induced  mental illness.  How can anyone want another human to have legal access to these horrific, addictive drugs?Thankfully, the addicts I know have been recovered for years.    But, they still need their support groups.  These recovered addicts want to live clean, decent lives not only for themselves but their families.  Two of my relatives died of heroin ODs…one while in rehab and the other the day after leaving rehab.  Another relative lives on the streets due to his drug addiction and drug-induced mental illness.

    • T Rex April 26, 2023 (9:38 am)

      Well said,  Seattlite, so sorry for the loss in your family.  Addicts only get better when THEY want too. There is nothing anyone else can do. Our lawmakers in this state are uneducated and idiotic when it comes to addiction.  In my opinion, they are no better than the people manufacturing these drugs, transporting them to this country and allowing them to be on our streets.  Now, THEY have the power to make these drugs legal, flipping amazing. 

      • zark00 April 26, 2023 (3:13 pm)

        Great point, addicts quit when they hit rock bottom and find the will to try – no amount illegalization, increased penalties or jail time will push addicts to get clean. Passing this would have been more wasted tax payer money on a ‘solution’ that will never, ever, in any way, solve anything. 

  • Rhonda April 26, 2023 (1:16 am)

    When all hell breaks loose on July 1st, those in Olympia like Emily Alvarado will see the results of their dream of decriminalization. They foolishly killed a decent bill that would have saved lives to pursue their goal of putting drug cartels and dealers 100% in charge of who lives or dies.

    • Melissa April 26, 2023 (9:45 am)

      And why, Rhonda, will “all hell break[] loose on July 1st”? Also, the second part of your statement might be taken a little more seriously if you actually engaged with what Rep. Alvarado wrote instead of engaging in meaningless hyperbole.

      • Rhonda April 26, 2023 (1:33 pm)

        Melissa, King County/Seattle are on course for ALL-TIME RECORD drug overdose deaths in 2023. When drugs are effectively legalized state-wide on July 1st that count will accelerate even more. How many dead overdose victims are enough for you?

    • CAM April 26, 2023 (9:54 am)

      And the 39 republicans who voted against it too, right? They also foolishly killed a decent bill? Or they are taking a “principled stand,” all of them despite some of them having voted for a version of this bill with lower penalties only 2 weeks ago, but those democrats, barely 1/4 of them, aren’t allowed to make such distinctions? Compromise means that some people on both sides will be unhappy and won’t vote for something. It also means that some people on both sides do need to bend and vote for the thing. The failure in this issue is pretty clear. 

  • Mike April 26, 2023 (5:56 am)

    Sinaloa and CJNG are very excited that we’ve legalized chemical death certificates.

    • flimflam April 26, 2023 (10:28 am)

      @mike – too true. Aside from the toll on the user and society, the argument that drug abuse is a “victimless crime” wouldn’t be well received in small Mexican towns under the thumb of the cartels.

  • Also James April 26, 2023 (6:13 am)

    Governor Inslee is out of touch. We’ve tried every option but decriminalization and our society is none the better for it. Washington is nowhere near as progressive as we like to convince ourselves it is, but legalizing, regulating, and taxing drugs is our best plan in terms of progressing against them.

    • wscommuter April 26, 2023 (12:26 pm)

      Trying to wrap my head around your comment.  Legalizing fentanyl is your solution?  Really?  Not sure where to begin to address such a breathtakingly stupid idea.  Just … no words.  

      • Also James April 26, 2023 (1:40 pm)

        A reductive take, how novel! Let me guess: you want harsher penalties, tougher laws, and more police. Any guess how that approach has worked in the drug war since the 1980s? I’m all ears. 

    • Feisty Brain April 26, 2023 (1:54 pm)

      Governor Inslee was in favor of this bill. 

  • Tired of Delridge April 26, 2023 (7:45 am)

    Glad I didn’t vote for Emily Alvarado. Sad she was elected.

  • flimflam April 26, 2023 (8:17 am)

    what a massive waste of time for literally nothing…

  • Question Authority April 26, 2023 (8:27 am)

    On average at least two people OD and die daily in King County alone, along with all the others also in Washington state.  For Democratic legislators to think personal liberties are infringed upon by having penalties just equates to a increasing body count at the morgue.  More carrots without the stick is the wrong attitude because addiction clouds one’s ability to accept change, only consequences work.

    • CAM April 26, 2023 (12:29 pm)

      The democratic caucus did not vote against this bill. 75% of their caucus voted for it. If 7 republicans had voted to approve the legislation (and 3 voted for a weaker version of the bill 2 weeks ago) it would have passed. This version of the bill was a compromise to make the consequences more severe (in contrast to the version the house passed, with republican support 2 weeks ago) to line up with the senate version. That meant it was going to lose some of the more liberal votes from the democratic caucus but it also should have maintained the votes if had from the republicans and picked up enough to get it passed. It got zero republican votes. Maybe go scream about why the republicans were unable to get this passed? 

      • East Vashon April 26, 2023 (1:56 pm)

        The vote failed 43-55 it seems odd to call out republicans when 15 democratic house members voted no as well.

        • CAM April 27, 2023 (10:09 pm)

          East Vashon – The votes by caucus for this were: Democrats – 43 yes, 15 no; Republicans – 0 yes, 40 no. Tell me again about how the republican caucus bears no responsibility for the failure of the passage of this legislation. If you are the party in the minority and you want to impact the state of affairs, you can take 2 approaches. 1) Obstruct everything and prevent any meaningful government from happening and hurt the people you are elected to serve with the self-serving goal of increasing your power, maybe, in the future. 2) Work to build incremental change and compromise into the legislation on the table to achieve your policy goals in part. The fact that the democratic caucus does not vote as a bloc actually speaks to healthy government. It means they are able to distinguish when they can dissent from the majority opinion of the caucus to advocate for their own perspective. Tell me when you see some Republicans capable of that kind of governing. I haven’t seen it in a while. 

  • SlimJim April 26, 2023 (8:30 am)

    I already had an idea where Emily Alvarado would vote on something like this, but this confirms it. She’s putting an ideal before reality. Everybody knows drug addicts need help. Many will go many years before being ready for it. Some die before being ready for it. This enables them to keep kicking that can down the road and makes the rest of society virtually powerless to do anything about it. Very sad.

  • SLN April 26, 2023 (8:41 am)

    Boy am I looking forward to some sane, completely even-keeled conversation from the comment section…

    • Resident April 26, 2023 (12:18 pm)

      Seriously, why does WSB even allow comments? They provide no value, don’t represent public opinion in any way, and always seem to have “angry man yells at a cloud” vibe- no nuance, no thought just yelling. Can we please just turn them off? 

      • Steve April 26, 2023 (2:31 pm)

        You don’t have to comment. You don’t have to read comments. If you don’t like the fact that people can comment on stories here maybe you should move onto something else.  They do not provide value to you but I would like to hear what people live here have to say.  Just read the story and don’t scroll down to the comments. Problem solved for you.

      • zark00 April 26, 2023 (3:20 pm)

        Exercise some restraint and just don’t read the comments if you can’t handle it. Your hypocrisy is impressive; you posted a rant comment to complain about rant comments – brilliant.

      • KM April 26, 2023 (5:24 pm)

        Even though I comment, I wholeheartedly agree. Some other local news sites have turned off comments, and it’s really nice.

      • Question Authority April 26, 2023 (9:14 pm)

        Your free not to read them, it’s your right.

  • Jay April 26, 2023 (8:49 am)

    Just legalize it and put up safe injections sites and distribution centers. The war on drugs is never going to be won, and I’d rather the distributor be a legal entity than the dangerous Honduran cartel that controls the block my office is on. Criminalizing simple possession is an astronomical waste of resources.

    • M April 26, 2023 (11:25 am)

      And how do the addicts pay for the drugs?  With the jobs they can hold down during full-blown addiction?  Unlikely.  Crime will not go down if you legalize it, and nor will addiction.  They’ll still steal anyway they can to feed the addiction, and society will continue to pay for it and erode away. And if you propose that tax payers should pay for the drugs to that they are free to the users, god help us all.  

      • Jay April 26, 2023 (12:15 pm)

        What’s your evidence that legalization won’t work? Because we’ve got half a century of evidence showing that the war on drugs has only made things worse.

      • CAM April 26, 2023 (12:34 pm)

        You’d be surprised how many people are fully employed and housed while continuing to maintain a serious substance use problem. Our problems would be far easier to solve if they were only made up of what was visible outside on the street. That is only a fraction of the issue. 

      • zark00 April 26, 2023 (3:28 pm)

        M – “Crime will not go down if you legalize it

        “USDA Economic Research Service – “Our results indicate that marijuana legalization resulted in significant reductions in both violent and property crime rates, with larger effects in Mexican border states.”

        oops

  • Greg April 26, 2023 (9:17 am)

    It’s going to always be a crime to sell these drugs so quit with the idea we will have heroin in the pot shops. The decriminalization is on the using side. It’s kind of pointless to throw an addict in jail with no services. That will only lead to more problems and drug use for that individual. If you believe substance abuse is a mental health disorder why would you punish somebody with jail and a criminal record for having a mental disorder ? 

    • Question Authority April 26, 2023 (10:21 am)

      Because as an addict they have lost the ability to make rational decisions, and by removing them from the environment of buy, use, buy and repeat they will regain some needed reality to make positive changes.  There are efforts to wipe criminal convictions clean if you get clean yourself, so why continue to let people suffer from a disorder when a path forward can exist.  Stealing, using and dying doesn’t really add up to compassion or success.

      • CAM April 26, 2023 (12:38 pm)

        Question Authority – People who use substances have not lost the ability to make rational decisions. Just because you don’t agree with their decisions doesn’t mean they lacked the capacity to make them. If that were true you’d definitely need to rethink asking to have them processed through the criminal justice system. 

        • Question Authority April 26, 2023 (1:05 pm)

          The majority of addicts live in absolute squalor and unsafe conditions, so can you explain to all of us why somebody that has mental clarity as you say, continues to live that way and not seek help?  The drugs and addiction are making the most profound choices that they live with, that’s not rational competent thought or good for them, or society.

      • zark00 April 26, 2023 (3:41 pm)

        Addicts automatically lose the ability to make rational decisions?  You can’t be serious.  High functioning addicts are all around you, every single day.  Alcoholics are literally everywhere, you probably work with a high functioning addict and don’t know it. Xanax/oxy/perc/ativan addicts outnumber street drug addicts by 10 to 1 in greater Seattle. 

        • Question Authority April 27, 2023 (9:38 am)

          I’m referencing fentanyl addicts that lay half naked  or stand on corners ranting and throwing things. That’s obviously not rational or competent thought ability.

    • Apotheosis April 26, 2023 (10:22 am)

      If an addict is commuting crimes to support their addiction, then it is absolutely not “pointless” to put them in jail. When did everything become about the drug-addicted individual with no consideration for the impacts of their criminal behavior on victims and society? Without access to drugs while in jail, there is an opportunity to detox/withdraw. I agree jail/prison should have more services/support to reform people but for now, get them off the streets/buses, etc.

      • WestSeattleBadTakes April 26, 2023 (3:48 pm)

        Well in that case, they are going to jail for the crime.

    • flimflam April 26, 2023 (10:30 am)

      It’s already essentially decriminalized though…

    • Pilar April 26, 2023 (11:37 am)

      Oh my goodness. You’re literally enabling addicts. Being jailed for breaking the law can actually be a very strong motivator to get clean. How is this even controversial? You’re giving them NO REASON to ever get clean. They’re addicts, they need consequences. That’s literally how many of them wind up getting clean.

  • Scubafrog April 26, 2023 (10:53 am)

    Dems have a supermajority in WA.  It’s lazy to blame the GOP (they’ll never be a force for positive change).  This is a remarkable failure for democrats, and a tragedy in the making.  More soft-on-crime bs that will cost thousands more  lives, thanks to the far left.   Moderates need to lead.  Decriminalising drugs is senseless, and will ravage Seattle.  Enablement at its absolute worst.  Saving lives means consequences, and putting users in jail when they break laws.  The progressive notion of decriminalisation and prison abolition is a dreamy utopia that could never work.  

    • WestSeattleBadTakes April 26, 2023 (1:06 pm)

      Strange, all of our data suggests otherwise. Are you basing this on your feelings?https://www.unodc.org/documents/ungass2016/Contributions/Civil/DrugPolicyAlliance/DPA_Fact_Sheet_Approaches_to_Decriminalization_Feb2015_1.pdf

      • Scubafrog April 26, 2023 (1:43 pm)

        Data from 2013/2015.  If you have current data, I’m interested.   Who is “our”?  And no, I’m not basing that on my “feelings”, what a yucky, trumpy thing to say.

        • WestSeattleBadTakes April 27, 2023 (7:09 am)

          This is exactly what I expected as a response. Thanks for confirming!

      • Jordan April 26, 2023 (1:52 pm)

        Then by this logic, why don’t we put a drunk driving lane on I-5? If you can’t stop people from drinking and you can’t hold people  responsible for the decisions they’re making, then why not? We have to mitigate the risks to society and allow people to continue to kill themselves hence a designated drunk driving lane. It’s the exact same reasoning and it’s complete nonsense. 

        • WestSeattleBadTakes April 27, 2023 (7:11 am)

          What logic exactly? What connection are you drawing that would suggest a drunk driving lane would be a solution?

      • Apotheosis April 26, 2023 (3:06 pm)

        An advocacy organization’s 8-year old pamphlet is your evidence? Let’s take Seattle’s LEAD program that was cited.  Where are the actual impacts/ official outcomes detailed? Millions of dollars invested over almost a decade now – where is the publicly available data from the city/county on outcomes?  All I see is one old (2016-2017) article by a couple of UW profs citing a possible lowering of recidivism rate from the pilot program. Nothing recent since the program was expanded. By the way, the article is written by the same profs whose “harm reduction” theories likely helped bring the program into existence. Why is that???The “left” keep asking for more and more resources to address “root causes” of “insert pressing social issue here” using “evidence-based” solutions. Yet all these resources go into experimental programs focused on “helping” the offender while victims of crime and overall public safety are ignored and the criminal justice system is underfunded and maligned.In effect, voters/citizens are told to ignore the increasing crime and social disorder and just keep funding/supporting laws/policies/programs that the progressive fringe promise will deliver us to some equitable utopia in the future. Ignore your lying eyes Seattle – if we just pay a few billion more in property taxes, get rid of the police, close all the jails, and let the drugs flow freely,  all will be well.

        • anonyme April 27, 2023 (6:28 am)

          Apotheosis – a perfect summation.

        • WestSeattleBadTakes April 27, 2023 (7:27 am)

          And thank you for giving the response I expected.Your first instinct is to discredit, you saw the date and jumped at the chance. But you failed to look at all. If you had, you would have seen the example from Portugal and other countries. You then could have used that as a jumping off point.

          Lead sucks because America sucks at helping people. As evidenced in your response, our solutions will be limited by folks like yourself. Lead relies on community based interventions which will be subject to the same biases most Americans have. Which is why I posted the fact sheet for you. Because it provides an easy pathway to understand what has worked in other places and why. And to then consider how our thoughts and ideas about this must change if we’re to address it.

          But yet again, the bad faith reaction is swift and immediate. Not one of you who responded to this engaged with the document at all.

        • You all post with such confidence but you know absolutely nothing.

  • Apotheosis April 27, 2023 (4:10 pm)

    You have my sympathy- must be tough being the only clear, sane person amongst all these crazy know-nothings. It’s definitely not you.

  • Mel April 27, 2023 (9:25 am)

    Spot on

  • CAM April 27, 2023 (10:40 pm)

    Apotheosis – (this isn’t embedding correctly but I think it’s clear what it is in response to.) So I’ll respond to a few of your questions about the research and whether or not you should question the results because of the information you cite. 1) It is not atypical for the authors of a theory or initial study to conduct the follow up studies and publish the results. Beyond that question, the issue of harm reduction and it’s effectiveness in a) decreasing overdose deaths and b) increasing abstinence days/decreasing degree of substance use is more widespread than a single study. That information is retrievable from academic journals and through a Google scholar search if you know where to begin. It is also probably behind paywalls in most cases unfortunately. 2) Your concern that the data is outdated is not that critical in the scientific/clinical field. That data is actually recent. It takes time to gather data for longitudinal, multi-year, outcome studies. It also then takes time to analyze that data and to write it up, submit it for publication, and wait for it to be published. Those timelines are getting shorter with recent advances but are still multi-year processes. 3) In general, the funding that is being used for these programs is often being reallocated from other funding sources already in place.  Lately, there has been a push to reallocate funds from criminal justice budgets to social service budgets to fund these programs. That is a result of a number of initiatives. For example: a) The increasing push from law enforcement agencies and from advocacy groups to decrease reliance on police for providing social service outreach; and b) The knowledge that increasing outreach and treatment services will lead to future decreases in costs in CJ related expenses. 4) Nobody is advocating getting rid of the police or closing “all” of the jails. People are advocating to redistribute the services typically provided by police to have them provided by people with more advanced training in those areas, when safe. People are advocating to reduce pretrial incarceration because a) it costs a lot of money; b) for most people awaiting trial they will not reoffend in the interim; and c) keeping people in jail makes it more likely they will lose their job, home, social support, and other necessary resources and the loss of those resources increases the likelihood they will engage in future criminal behavior. Some people are advocating for legalization and government regulation of all drugs. Nobody is advocating for the free flow of drugs throughout society. 

    • Apotheosis April 28, 2023 (10:59 am)

      Cam,Appreciate the reply – I’m familiar with academic research and the lengthy timelines involved. Regardless, we can/should expect basic outcomes data from the city/county at least annually – how much money spent per LEAD diversion, how many reoffended? How can the public properly gauge the opportunity costs of these and other programs if there is no transparency?You mention there are repercussions for criminal activity and resulting incarceration – that’s obviously true and to be expected. Is it expensive for society? Yes. Is it better to have someone on the street OD’ing  or victimizing others? I think not. Every policy has tradeoffs and I’m always in favor of those that support the law-abiding public. I’m also in favor of recovery/rehabilitation programs while people serve their time – we can invest in that AND keep our streets and neighborhoods safe.Many people are in favor of abolishing the police and incarceration- it’s become alarmingly popular – as you know, an open abolitionist ran for Seattle City Attorney and luckily lost. Dow Constantine wants to close the King County jail without a plan to replace it. The city council openly supported “Defund the Police” by 50%. Yes, they want to reallocate those funds to something… it’s quite ill-defined but they say it’s about offering “services” to promote “equity” and “social justice”  so must be good??? Has/will crime and public disorder increase while these genius policymakers revolutionize our social structure/justice system? Crickets.Back to the main issue of drugs and addiction – I’ve yet to read/hear in plain language how allowing rampant drug use  and accompanying criminal activity on the streets is something the public should tolerate or will lead to better societal outcomes. WA progressive politics at all levels but especially locally has becomes a tiring dance of ideologues/activists redefining language, confusing incentives, ignoring tradeoffs, gaslighting the public, and pushing for massive investments and changes to our institutions. Change is fine and expected but it should be a result of thoughtful compromise based on all the evidence rather than a reactive process driven by who can scream the loudest at a public meeting or shame the most on social media. 

  • TJ April 26, 2023 (11:04 am)

    I was for legalizing marijuana as it was put out there. Which wasn’t smoking it in public in plain view, which is normal now. But, it is insane to make hardcore drugs like meth, heroin, fentanyl, legal. Saying we are losing the war in drugs so let’s legalize them is a ridiculously lazy argument. We may not win the war in that these drugs disappear for good, but we can make it harder for dealers and users. Drive the prices up so users have to make choices. And the other thing nobody mentions in these discussions is it’s not just legalizing drugs, but also the related criminal activity (theft, deranged vandalism) that don’t get prosecuted. Personal accountability seems to be a idea out the door to some, but if you create an environment where drugs are legal and crimes aren’t punished, you can count on a fresh supply of the drug addicted homeless coming here who we will get told are victims of expensive housing. Let’s see where the city is at on 5 years. It won’t be better I guarantee. 

  • oerthehillz April 26, 2023 (9:45 pm)

    WSB: Please do not consider closing the comment section. These differing comments and opinions help shape new ideas/opinions. Especially the disagreeable ones. Thanks for your reporting.

  • Admiral April 27, 2023 (5:01 pm)

    Time to bring out the brewsky’s at Alki this summer!  Kidding aside anyone using drugs in plain sight need to be cited.  It’s past time to set boundaries.

  • Sorry, comment time is over.