In early October, the King County Department of Public Defense (DPD) unveiled an analysis revealing significant shortcomings in Seattle’s 2023 drug ordinance, aimed at addressing substance use issues in the city.
The report highlights that the ordinance has not delivered on its promises of diversion and treatment for those criminalized under the new law.
According to nearly two years of publicly available data, out of 215 prosecutions, only six resulted in individuals completing treatment or receiving court orders directing them to seek help.
Alarmingly, a staggering 76% of cases under review involved simple drug possession or public drug use, with 42% of individuals charged with these offenses still being booked into jail.
Moreover, 71% of those cases involved very small quantities of drugs, specifically a gram or less, raising concerns about the effectiveness and fairness of the ordinance.
Critics of the law have noted that it disproportionately affects Black individuals.
The data reveals that 25% of individuals charged under the new ordinance were Black, signifying that a Black person is 4.1 times more likely to be charged than a White person.
Matt Sanders, Director of DPD, expressed concern that the impacts of the ordinance reflect a troubling return to the historical biases seen during the war on drugs, emphasizing that the ordinance is causing harm to communities of color.
Seattle’s 2023 drug ordinance was implemented in response to the state Supreme Court’s Blake decision, which necessitated new measures for public drug use and simple possession.
Despite the apparent need for supportive services, the ordinance did not include increased funding for treatment and diversion programs at its inception.
This neglect led to an alarming increase in prosecutions in 2025, with the Seattle City Attorney’s Office filing nearly double the previous year’s cases related to the drug ordinance by the end of July, along with a renewed focus on older cases from 2024.
The DPD noted this uptick marks a shift in enforcement strategy that contradicts the ordinance’s stated intent of minimizing criminal legal system involvement for individuals battling substance use issues.
Additionally, the Seattle City Attorney’s Office (CAO) has intensified the issuance of Stay Out of Drug Areas (SODA) orders.
Data from the Seattle Municipal Court indicates a stark contrast in SODA orders issued: only one was handed out in 2024, whereas this number rose to 60 by October 16, 2025.
The rise in SODA orders may relate to the newly launched Drug Prosecution Alternative program, which allows defendants to have charges dismissed if they engage in a treatment evaluation.
Tim Robinson, spokesperson for the CAO, stated that the program has seen a positive response, with 17 out of 25 offers accepted by defendants since its inception.
However, the treatment evaluation process can lag significantly, leading to potential dire consequences for individuals facing addiction crises.
Erika Evans, a frontrunner in the upcoming City Attorney race, criticized these delays, emphasizing that such timelines can be detrimental to those in critical need of immediate help.
She also called attention to the fact that many cases have stalled after bench warrants were issued, further disenfranchising individuals and depriving them of the support they require.
The financial implications of increased prosecutions and jail time further complicate the issue, with the City of Seattle negotiating costs of approximately $386.36 per day for housing inmates in King County Jail and additional booking fees.
This escalating cost burden represents not just a fiscal issue but raises significant concerns about public safety and individual well-being, particularly for marginalized communities.
Sanders emphasized the detrimental effects of this strategy on both individuals facing charges and taxpayers footing the bill for a system that is not yielding commensurate benefits in terms of public safety.
The appropriateness of this punitive approach is called into question as studies highlight the heightened risk of overdose post-incarceration, suggesting that extended jail time for non-violent drug charges can have dangerous consequences.
Evans denounced the current trajectory of prosecutions and SODA orders as a serious failure of the ordinance and the administration’s commitment to sourcing adequate treatment and diversion alternatives.
To make matters worse, the Mayor’s Office and the City Attorney’s Office have contested the DPD’s findings, arguing that the report is misleading and presents incomplete data concerning diversion efforts.
Despite claims of successful diversion through the LEAD program, the reality indicates that many more individuals are being prosecuted instead of being redirected to treatment options.
The joint statement from the Mayor’s Office and LEAD claimed that during the same timeframe analyzed by the DPD, law enforcement referred three times as many individuals to recovery services than those charged under the new ordinance.
However, this assertion is contradicted by LEAD’s own reports indicating significant budget reductions and staffing cuts, compromising their ability to effectively execute their mission.
Mayor Bruce Harrell has proposed increased funding for LEAD in the next budget, but critics argue that this investment is merely a reallocation of previously cut funds without a meaningful increase in capacity to meet the community’s needs.
Robinson pointed out alternative diversion data, arguing that a significant number had successfully completed LEAD intakes, showing a diversion rate of 48% within a different timeframe.
Nonetheless, Sanders and other critics argue that the ordinance creates unnecessary barriers to true diversion, highlighting that individuals continue to face prosecution despite the existence of supportive alternatives.
They raise questions about the effectiveness of the legal framework established to address substance use and call for a renewed focus on equity and justice in treatment access.
The ordinance’s design does not encompass sufficient measures to mitigate the disproportionate impact on communities of color, further raising calls for reform.
Ultimately, the ongoing discourse surrounding Seattle’s 2023 drug ordinance puts a spotlight on the inadequacy of systems meant to address public health issues surrounding substance use while revealing the urgent need for policymakers to reconsider strategies that seem to perpetuate cycles of harm.
image source from：theurbanist
