Snohomish County Debates a Smarter, Bolder Approach to Addiction

After a decade of steep increases in overdose deaths, Snohomish County officials are debating a new strategy to help those struggling with their drug addiction. The new methods promote treatment and recovery from drugs and are an alternative to the controversial “Harm Reduction” drug policies that have been in place while drug-related deaths skyrocketed.

Snohomish County Councilmember Nate Nehring introduced four proposals that he has been working on for years with health officials, public safety leaders, and community members. “These proposals are about restoring balance by pairing compassion with accountability,” he said. “By prioritizing treatment and recovery, investing in behavioral health, and setting clear boundaries in public policy, we can make meaningful progress on addressing addiction in our communities.”

In less than a decade, Snohomish County’s drug overdose deaths have leaped 244% (from 103 in 2017 to 355 in 2023). Like the rest of our state, there has been a slight decline in the death rate (11%) in the past couple of years, yet it is far below the national 25% reduction. It is not acceptable that Washington continues to have one of the highest drug mortality rates in the country.

The National Institutes of Health states that the drug crisis not only impacts the addicts, but it is also very destructive for local communities. As more people become habitual users of fentanyl, methamphetamine, and heroin, local governments are faced with an increase in homelessness, crime, transmissible diseases (such as HIV), and work force strains on emergency and health services.

The “Harm Reduction” approach began with needle exchanges during the HIV/AIDS crisis in the 1980’s and 1990’s. Since then, it has developed into a community strategy that seeks to improve the safety of illegal drug use while rarely mentioning treatment or the benefits of recovery.

Critics of harm reduction point to the increasing number of drug-related deaths and say that while it works in preventing the spread of disease through shared needles, it is not an effective policy to combat a major drug crisis and help addicts find recovery.

Snohomish County’s Proposals

• With the federal government moving away from only supporting “Harm Reduction” drug policies (and the related “Housing First” homelessness policies), the first proposal removes restrictions so the county can support new approaches, including those that focus on treatment.
• Increase the amount of county funds available to support treatment centers. Currently only 12.2% of the county’s Affordable Housing and Behavioral Health Fund (about $3 million) goes toward treatment facilities. The proposal increases the amount to 20% (approximately $5 million).
• Prohibit the use of tax dollars to purchase and distribute pipes, syringes, foils, and other “harm reduction” drug paraphernalia. The county can still provide funding to organizations which pass out these materials, but that money cannot be used to purchase/distribute these “harm reduction” items.
• Add more lethal drugs covered under child exposure laws, thus making it illegal to leave the harmful drug, its residue, or smoke where a minor can encounter the substance. Currently, only methamphetamine is covered by this law. This proposal would add fentanyl, heroin, LSD, and other drugs to the list. It is based on a proposal that recently passed the Everett City Council with a 6 – 0 vote. Since 2019, Everett police have investigated 33 overdoses of minors.

Over the next few weeks, the proposals will be debated and voted on by the Snohomish County Council. Three of the measures are scheduled for discussion on June 10^th while the fourth (on drug paraphernalia) will likely be in front of the full council in the following weeks.

Surprisingly, a couple of the five county council members not only oppose these commonsense propositions but refuse to even discuss alternatives to Harm Reduction policies—despite the increase in overdose deaths while they have been in place.

Councilmember Megan Dunn stated at the May 12 Health & Community Services Committee meeting, “I would share the concern with having a public hearing because there is a lot of misinformation around harm reduction, and moving this forward would do more harm than good. Also, I don’t understand the problem it is trying to solve.”

Data clearly shows that more county resources are being spent, more crimes are being committed, and more people are dying under “Harm Reduction” policies. With the number of lives that have been ruined, we should be openly discussing Harm Reduction policies, not sweeping legitimate concerns under the rug as Councilmember Dunn suggests.

Councilmember Nehring’s proposals incorporate the suggestions of experts, policy makers, and community members to help those suffering from addiction.  If Nehring and his colleagues are successful in passing the legislation, it will help the people on the street most in need and we can expect other local governments to do the same.