While the Stranger remains fixated on the criminal penalty aspects of this legislation, that's not the main story here.

SB 5536 included tens of millions of dollars in funding for diversion programs and substance abuse treatment. Although these programs have bipartisan support, infighting in the Democrat caucus resulted in Washington missing out on the opportunity to implement these programs. The fact that Democrats couldn't salvage these programs is truly disappointing.

Totally ok with this outcome. As noted Seattle Progressives would remove any ability for jurisdictions to enforce public drug use so we’re better served letting the local jurisdictions take over. The misnomer with this is it’s not necessarily about pushing the user into treatment. There’s hope for that but as Ashely rightly calls out you can’t force treatment. The law is designed to protect the rest of us from assholes who lay on the street all day getting high and then do crazy shit. Without this we have to wait for them to actually steal or assault someone’s before the police can intervene. It will be fascinating to see how this plays out and which approach leads to better public safety. I know where I’d place my bets.

The the local governments decide. Whether they want to be a drug free zone or a free drug zone. And then let the people gravitate toward wherever suits their lifestyle.

Shame about the funding for diversion/treatment programs. But then I guess the legislature had what they thought were more important issues to deal with. Ask the coroner what the cause of death is for the majority of the bodies stacked up in the morgue.

At a district meeting a quarter-century ago, my then-Rep. Frank Chopp, Speaker of the House, told us the legislature would never decriminalize drugs; we’d have to do it ourselves. We did this in 2012 with cannabis, creating a beautifully successful policy which, ever since, the legislature has studiously ignored. That they now continue to talk of REcriminalizing drugs shows just how worse-than-worthless they are on this point. If you want decriminalization, and I hope you do, then you will have to file the initiative to accomplish it.

As others have commented, a patchwork of drugs laws across the state would drive addicts into King County and Seattle. The Stranger, which has never admitted that addiction is a primary cause of homelessness, will cackle that this enlarged homeless population “proves” that sweeps do not work. If Seattle continues to enforce laws against camping, theft, and assault, then this population of homeless drug users will swamp the local jails (again, with the Stranger sneering that incarceration can’t cure homelessness) until the local homeless population understands the party’s over and leaves.

In short, between the state’s failed drugs policy and Seattle’s failed homeless policy, you’re about to pay more taxes to watch things get worse. Initiative, anyone?

@6, yes, sometimes DIY law making needs to happen when las makers fail to do their one job. What a disappointment.

@6: "As others have commented, a patchwork of drugs laws across the state would drive addicts into King County and Seattle."

But you make that sound like it's a bad thing. As one who seems to be in favor of decriminalization, you should be welcoming these addicts into your town. If you don't believe that addiction leads to self harm and an otherwise shitty life, you should consider these people to be perfect neighbors. Just like the Boeing engineer next door.

@8: So, your conclusion from modern Seattle, after decades of the War on Drugs, is that criminalization has helped to reduce addiction? Or do you believe cannabis use has become a more problematic issue since decriminalization? Because I honestly cannot see a connection between whether a drug is legal or not, and the level of harm it causes.

This paper has really fallen in to the trench. Nowhere in this article does it say WHICH drugs will see increased penalties. You don't support jails, or asylums, or border interdiction, or going after the dealers (that would be racist against the genius of religio catolico) which the Stranger doesn't support otherwise (WASP protestantism is BAD, other religions are GREAT).

Eventually, the fantasy issues the Stranger specializes in are going to end the Democrat party as an elective force, and turn this country fascist for law and order. Great work you will have done. Your time has ended. People tried your fantasist bs and it was a total FAIL. Criminal justice reform was about not jailing people for 20 years over pot. It was NEVER about letting junkie car thieves and professional thieves operate scot free. You ruined the movement with your total nonsense.

@9: "Because I honestly cannot see a connection between whether a drug is legal or not, and the level of harm it causes."

Marijuana, legal. Heroin, illegal. (At the moment. De facto legal in many cities due to a lack of consequences.) So you are saying that you can't tell the difference between these two? Better check with the coroner to see how many pot vs heroin victims they have in their freezer.

The sad part about our state's failure to come up with a uniform drug criminalization policy is that some little town with a red-neck council and sheriff may very well outlaw pot. And on your way to that concert in Eastern Washington, their bloodhound sniffs out that baggie in your car. And you'll find yourself on their road gang for the next 3 months.

@11: Alcohol, legal. Tobacco, legal. Are you claiming these drugs are no more harmful than cannabis? If not, then, again, what is the connection between the legal status of a drug, and the harm it causes?

(Now, the criminalization of drugs can cause huge problems, and exacerbate whatever problems the drugs themselves cause, but that’s merely another argument for decriminalization. Note that the scenario of more addicts arriving in Seattle would be the result of REcriminalization elsewhere, so that’s a problem with criminalization of drugs, not with the drugs themselves.)

“The sad part about our state's failure to come up with a uniform drug criminalization policy is that some little town with a red-neck council and sheriff may very well outlaw pot.”

As I mentioned above, we voters of Washington state already created a uniform statewide policy in cannabis. How does this policy allow “…some little town with a red-neck council and sheriff … outlaw pot.”?

@12: 'How does this policy allow “…some little town with a red-neck council and sheriff … outlaw pot.”?'

It's a "controlled substance". Not an "illegal drug". The law recently passed in Bellingham against public drug use specifically exempts cannabis. Leave it to the red-neck city councils not to include this exception.

@13: Bellingham’s exemption exists to prevent a conflict with state law on cannabis; in case of a conflict, state law takes precedence, and so without an exempt cannabis, the entire prohibition could be invalidated by the state’s courts. Which is exactly what would happen anywhere in the state such a prohibitive law did not so exclude cannabis.

(Oh, and we’re still waiting on your statement concerning the connection between the legal status of a drug, and the harm mere use of it causes.)

@14: "Oh, and we’re still waiting on your statement concerning the connection between the legal status of a drug, and the harm mere use of it causes."

It's tenuous, but it is there. Heroin: Illegal, because of its addictive properties and propensity to kill users occasionally (even absent the added fentanyl). The law may have gotten alcohol, tobacco and weed a bit mixed up in the past. But they did come around and move cannabis to the correct side of the legal cutoff line.

"the entire prohibition could be invalidated"

No.That's not how legislation works. A quote from the ordinance:

"SECTION 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or word of this ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality thereof shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or word of this ordinance."

This is a very common boilerplate section added to most legislation. To prevent that kind of invalidating. The cannabis part may very well be found invalid under state law by some court. But you will still serve your 90 days in some hick town jail during the test case.

@15: Alcohol and tobacco do not have “addictive properties and propensity to kill users”? Good to know! I think distillers and tobacco growers should sue the bejeezus out of the US Surgeon General’s Office, for the decades of complete libel and slander which have deeply harmed their profits. Do you agree?

The state judge is under absolutely no obligation to respect a Severability Clause, especially as the the local legislators knew full well they were contradicting state law. Furthermore, if the town failed to publicize their aberrant law well before enforcement started, that town could also find itself paying hefty damages in civil court. I doubt the town’s taxpayers would like that very much.

Finally, you’re aware Dr. Watson reported his friend was an occasional user of cocaine, right? Because I’m pretty sure cocaine has both “addictive properties and propensity to kill users”.

@16: "Do you agree?"

Whataboutism.

At any rate, this discussion is about criminalization/decriminalization of the possession and use of controlled substances in this state after July 1 of this year. Booze. Not illegal. But controlled. And certainly the subject of public usage restrictions. Tobacco. Not illegal. Also controlled. Etc, etc.

"as the the local legislators knew full well they were contradicting state law"

After July 1, there will be no state law. Municipalities will be free to enact their own laws as there will be nothing to contradict.

@17: Actually, the complete lack of correlation between the harm a drug does and its legal status was my point, which you contested. Unless you’re now seriously contending alcohol and tobacco are closer to cannabis than to heroin in the amount of damage they cause, then you’ve conceded my point. And my point is directly germane to whether certain drugs get recriminalized or not.

“Municipalities will be free to enact their own laws as there will be nothing to contradict.”

Nothing in the legislature’s failure to act will in any way affect the already-legal status of cannabis, and it certainly could not justify random re-criminalization of cannabis in patchwork fashion across the state.

It seems you’re having trouble with your mental acuity. Perhaps you should take a hint from your nymsake? ;-)

@18: Do try to follow. The enacting of regulations affecting the use of controlled substances by various municipalities does not affect their legality.

It doesn't matter where substances fall on some scale of more or less harm. There is no such restriction placed on law making bodies that they must consider such issues when they write laws.

@19: Do try to follow. There is no connection between wanting to end our failed policies of drug criminalization, and with thinking addiction is just peachy. There is no connection between the Blake decision and the legal status of cannabis. There is no connection between the legislature’s failure to act in response to Blake, and to the continuing inability of towns and counties to recriminalize cannabis. There is no connection between the legal status of a drug, and the harm it causes.

You’ve stated all of these false equivalencies as facts, and that’s pretty strange behavior for someone who has chosen your nym. Your nymsake never behaved in this manner.

@20: Since you are totally obsessed with someone taking your weed away, let's try a simpler example of laws and regulation:

You can 't park here.

I never said that driving, parking or owning a vehicle were prohibited. You just can't park HERE. Do you agree or disagree that this is a power which municipal governments possess?

@21: I don’t use cannabis. (Have you some rule, which requires you to make at least one completely unjustified assumption per comment, and then insist your groundless assumption is really a documented fact others must respect? Because you’ve done that pretty consistently here.)

We’re not talking about parking a vehicle, so your analogy does not apply. Laws concerning cannabis were set at state level by the voters. As with state laws generally, local governments can’t simply contradict those laws in any way they want, any time they want, for any reason they want.

The Blake decision invalidated a state law which covered illegal drugs. There is currently no state law in this regard, so local governments can do as they like. Cannabis isn’t illegal, due to state law, so local governments cannot make it illegal.

To make your analogy valid, consider that owning a car is legal under state law. Could local governments simply forbid anyone from parking a car everywhere within their jurisdictions? Because that would be functionally equivalent to banning car ownership within those jurisdictions.

A coal pulverizer mill is a type of grinding equipment used to process coal into a fine powder for combustion in the furnace of a power plant.
https://www.crusherinfo.com/business/coal-pulverizer-mill.html

@22: "Could local governments simply forbid anyone from parking a car everywhere within their jurisdictions? Because that would be functionally equivalent to banning car ownership within those jurisdictions."

Only on public property. Private garages would still be OK. So those who can afford a driveway, carport, garage and pay for private parking at their destination would be fine. Just like people who can purchase pot (in closed containers, of course) transport it and smoke it at home would be just fine. The poor homeless would have problems. Unless the ordinance defines a tent as a private home.

"The Blake decision invalidated a state law which covered illegal drugs."

Specifically, it overturned state laws criminalizing possession of illegal drugs. Not use of legal but controlled substances in public. Other state laws cover these cases and preempt local laws. But only until July, when they expire. Local municipalities can then implement their own, unless the state acts (Inslee's proposed emergency session). But only to the extent that they don't run afoul of Blake. That's not likely as long as the local laws only addess use in public, not possession.

@24: As you seem to have forgotten, your claim, all the way back @11, said that local jurisdictions could “outlaw pot.” You were very clear in describing just how harsh this outlawing could be:

“And on your way to that concert in Eastern Washington, their bloodhound sniffs out that baggie in your car. And you'll find yourself on their road gang for the next 3 months.”

No, a local jurisdiction cannot simply do that with cannabis, any more than it can do so with alcohol or tobacco, because all of those drugs are both legal and regulated under state law, and continue to be so; Blake does not touch them. Blake covers illegal drugs, and has created a legal vacuum in state law, where local jurisdictions can act.

@22: "I don’t use cannabis."

I meant that as a collective "you". So, you are an enabler.

@25: "No, a local jurisdiction cannot simply do that with cannabis, any more than it can do so with alcohol or tobacco,"

Which they can regulate on public property within their jurisdiction. While it has been many decades since the last cop jailed someone for consuming booze in public in some little redneck town, I can see some handing out simple citations for open containers, including baggies.

I stand corrected. While Washington law restricts the consumption of alcohol in public, it prohibits the consumption of cannabis in public or within view of the public. I had assumed the laws were similar. But there will be no smoking pot on your front porch like you could quaff a beer. RCW 69.50.445

@26: “Which they can regulate on public property within their jurisdiction. While it has been many decades since the last cop jailed someone for consuming booze in public in some little redneck town, I can see some handing out simple citations for open containers, including baggies.”

First, a closed bag of cannabis isn’t an “open container,” any more than a closed flask of booze is; an adult can carry either one in public. Second, your scenario @11 wasn’t “a citation,” but hard time for simple possession. (Dragging those heavy goalposts hither and yon has fatigued you, eh?)

Finally, each comment here gets written by a “collective”? What ARE you smoking?