Speaker 0: Agenda item two Resolution 32021. Declaring that the investigation, arrest and prosecution of anyone engaging in fusion related activities should be among the city of Seattle lowest law enforcement priorities and stating the council's support for full decriminalization of these activities. Thank you so much. I moved to adopt resolution 32021. Is there a second? Second he shoots been moved and seconded to adopt the resolution. Councilmember Lewis, you are the sponsor of this resolution, so I'm going to hand it over to you to address it. I do understand that you have a substitute version of of this amendment. So if you'd like to move the substitute version so that we're having a conversation about the substitutes, that would be the first step that you would need to do is make that motion.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. I move to amend resolution 32021 by substituting version two, a four version 1/2.
Speaker 0: In moved and seconded to substitute the resolution as reflected in version two, a hand back over to Councilmember Lewis to walk us through the substitute.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. The substitute. I just just flagged everybody. There's not really any substantive changes. It just reflects feedback in terms of some of the wording around the Office of Intergovernmental Relations interaction with this policy, based on feedback from the department at the time of initial introduction, it did not reflect the nuance of how OCR would prefer their advocacy at the state level to be framed. Specifically, the original resolution instructed them to, you know, to write legislation. We have other partners who will write the legislation. We will more be in a position of supporting it. That level of detail mattered a great deal to the Office of Intergovernmental Relations, rightly so. So that is the only significant change. Otherwise, it generally reflects the substance of version one. And Madam President, I don't know if you are we going to vote on the adoption now and then I'll I'll speak to the resolution more broadly after that.
Speaker 0: Yeah. So we'll we'll vote on the on the substitute version first and then I'll hand it back over to you to make comments about the, the, the resolution generally. Are there any additional comments on the substitute version? I just want to say thanks, Counselor Lewis, for being responsive to our request to talk to the Office of Intergovernmental Relations to make sure that their concerns were addressed. Really appreciate your quick work on that and your willingness to engage with them. So thanks for that. I don't see any other hands raised about the substitute. So will the clerk please call the role on the adoption of the substitute? HERBOLD Yes. Suarez I.
Speaker 1: Lewis Yes.
Speaker 0: Morales Yes. Macheda. I. Peterson I so want. Yes. Strauss.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 0: President Gonzalez. I nine in favor none opposed the motion carries and the substitute is now adopted. I'll hand it back over to Councilmember Lewis to address the amended resolution.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. I appreciate the opportunity to take this first legislative step as a body in what has been a fairly long process of engagement on this. Certainly something we can't be accused of rushing, much to the consternation of some of our stakeholders on this. But I do think that the result has been a really good, deep dove into the nuances of the policy around these substances and the current policy of our local prosecuting attorneys, as well as the Seattle Police Department. I want to thank Councilmember Herbold for her leadership as chair of the underlying committee throughout this process, which began in earnest in the spring with our discussions with folks over at Deep Nature Seattle, and then became more formalized with a letter written by this Council in June to urge the Overdose and Recovery Innovation Task Force to study this issue throughout the summer and then promulgate back to US recommendations. We did receive those recommendations in August, as the Council may recall, to adopt a resolution or an ordinance or some other representation of city policy to emphasize to the extent of our power as a municipality that law enforcement around antigens is the lowest priority for the use of municipal officials to to enforce the law in regards to those substances. And this resolution before us today is a way for us to go on the record in support of these policy goals before our budget process really gets rolling and before the state legislature convenes in January to holistically consider drug policy as the ongoing conversation post the Supreme Court's decision. The policy in front of us is limited to natural substances. Most famously, throughout this process, psilocybin and ayahuasca have been the most cited of these natural psychedelics. It is not inclusive of synthetic psychedelics that are manufactured. An example of that would be LSD. This has been a really interesting process to really learn more about these substances and things that I did not know until meeting with Discriminator Seattle and really to keep diving into this. Obviously, this is part of a broader policy conversation nationally and following on the heels of similar resolutions that have been passed in cities like Denver, Colorado , Washington, D.C., Oakland, California, among other jurisdictions. And then, of course, wholesale state law changes in Oregon just to the south of here that passed with a convincing margin in recent elections. I you know. I just want to note a little bit for the viewing public, just some of the things that have really driven me to to take a keen interest in this and how I think this resolution really sets the stage as the first significant action in the state of Washington to move this policy forward, affirmed by any government, local or state or county. And that's to to really state that these non-addictive natural substances have real potential in clinical and therapeutic settings to make a really significant difference in people's lives. And this is really the thing that personally, through the process motivated me was meeting with constituents and people who have had experiences with these substances that have really materially helped them overcome addiction and helped them overcome severe depression or other behavioral mental health conditions that have really made a difference in their lives to the point where they don't know, don't know where they would have been without the access to treatments or therapies connected to some of these substances. I. Given that Seattle is also host to one of the world's premier medical research universities at the University of Washington. And given the strong support throughout this process from many of the clinical faculty at the University of Washington in psychiatry and behavioral, mental health and medical research, it has just made it really evident that Seattle really could be a place where in the long term, we really are. For innovation around what possibility these substances could produce in terms of our ongoing struggle as a civilization of people against a lot of these really debilitating conditions. I do want to briefly address at the end of my remarks here and we heard a little bit in the public comment of the discussion around peyote. And I do want to want to just address it briefly that this resolution is not as currently worded, inclusive of peyote. Our local chapter of decriminalize nature did not want to include it because there is, as we heard, disagreement over the inclusion of the substance. And, you know, I want to thank the national chapter of Decriminalize Nature for their letter that was distributed to this council last week advocating for the inclusion of peyote. And there's no doubt or disagreement that priorities of sacred resource to the indigenous people of the southwestern United States who lived in good relation with peyote 2000 years. But because there is disagreement among the best method to reverse the century long decline in peyote and the the appropriate use of it, and whether increased access or isolation is the best approach for now. In this resolution, myself and the stakeholders at Durham Nature, our local chapter of Bikram Nature, have decided to keep peyote out of it . However, for forthcoming any potential forthcoming council actions, for example, if some of this were at some point manifested into a formal ordinance for a policy with more permanency, I think it's certainly a conversation I'm willing to continue to have as someone leading on these issues of the Council, because it does have to be crafted with very careful consideration for its impact and the need to be sensitive on the decisions around the policy related to purity. So I did just want to make those comments that we you know, we're certainly sensitive and look forward to continuing to to look into it. But this current resolution does not does not touch on it. So with that, I don't have any additional comments, Madam President, and certainly I'm excited to get this over the line and do it before we budget takes up more of my life. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. Appreciate those remarks. Are there any additional comments on the resolution? Councilmember. So one piece.
Speaker 2: Thank you. I am, of course, voting yes on this resolution. My office has been from the from the very first moment we heard from the activists and decriminalize nature. And many of the clinical and medical experts actually saw some of the most prominent ones who actually, incidentally, reside in District three. Since that very moment, my office has been in strong support of decriminalizing psychedelics. Some the research seems just absolutely overwhelming, as the public comment today has justified, too. And I also appreciate specifically the individuals who testified from personal experience. I really appreciate that. However, as I mentioned in council briefing last week, I am a little confused by this resolution because it is a resolution and not an ordinance and why this resolution is being passed. When there is an ordinance from my office and it has been available for months. The resolution asks the police to, quote unquote, codify policies to effectively decriminalize psychedelic drugs. But we know resolutions can only make requests. Of course, my office strongly supports resolution. In fact, we have advocated for and won resolutions in the past, but we have not pushed for resolutions in place of ordinances when it is possible and realistic and necessary from a political and moral standpoint for the Council to have an ordinance passed to decriminalize psychedelics. In fact, in fact, rather than just in rhetoric, would require an ordinance. And it is the city council, not the police department, that has the authority to pass such an ordinance. Council members will remember that on June 29th, three months ago, my office sent for introduction of Council Bill. That would have done just that. And just in response to some of the public comment today on an issue that has not been resolved. I if you are listening, I really welcome activists from the whole spectrum of viewpoints on the question of peyote to discuss with my office so that we can understand if there are any amendments to be made to the ordinance that we have put forward. And I would really like to learn more about that issue, and I certainly appreciate those who spoke in public comment about it. The bill from my office was transmitted to Councilmember Herbold, who is the chair of the Public Safety Committee. Unfortunately, the bill has languished on the chair's desk for the last three months, and the council has not. I mean, today in the Commons so far that ordinance has not even been acknowledged, its existence has not been acknowledged. And I think that the only things I've heard from council members as well, you know, some things were not resolved. Well, let's resolve those things. Why would we do a resolution? Let's do an ordinance. And I just don't I fail to see what the plausible reasons are for councilmembers who claim to support this issue. You led an ordinance which takes concrete action, sit in the cities, computers on interviews, and instead push a resolution which only has the power to make a request. And as I said, I be voting yes on this resolution. And I'm really grateful to all the activists are really urge you all to keep mobilizing and organizing for this. But please understand that we will need an ordinance to be passed by this Council for for real action, to be taken for actual changes to be seen in the city of Seattle on the issue of psychedelics and decriminalizing psychedelics. And I would urge all councilmembers who say they support the issue to co-sponsor the ordinance with me. And let's discuss if there are any amendments that needed to be made based on local and national activists input on various issues like.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Bobo, please. Thank you. So I appreciate the councilmember silent has introduced or I don't actually think it's been referred to my committee, and I think we held it and did not refer it yet. So I don't think it's true that it's been languishing on my desk. But nevertheless, after some discussion about whether or not the bill should be referred to my committee, we agreed as a council that we were going to hold taking any action until we received recommendations from the Overdose Emergency Innovative Recovery Task Force. Partially, this is because we're aware that there are going to be efforts in the wake of the decision and in the wake of legislation that was passed last session to respond to the Blake decision, there's going to be, I think, a really robust discussion at the state level about enforcement of not just Athena Jones, but enforcement around possession of of other drugs that are that are possessed for for personal use. So I think we're trying to be really sensitive to those discussions that are about to occur on a statewide level. And that's why we asked the task force to give us recommendations, because, again, this task force is not going to be just working on the issue around psychedelics. They're going to be working on this broader issue of of enforcement of drug laws that are that are impacting communities with disparate impacts across across the spectrum of drug law enforcement and have, you know, for for decades, for generations. And so the recommendation that we received from Task Force was specifically that municipalities in the state of Washington and elsewhere that have independent ordinance criminalizing psychedelics repeal them and those that don't should direct their law enforcement agencies, local prosecutors and municipal courts to prioritize enforcement and should publicly communicate this as municipal policy. When I reached out to the police department to make a determination of whether or not we needed to communicate this lowest law enforcement priority to the police department. Based on my understanding of the police department's communication due out, the department is not only is it not the lowest law enforcement policy, but that officers have been instructed to no longer detain nor arrest individuals under our CW 6950 413 alone, and officers will no longer confiscate drugs from an individual based only on a violation of our CW. 69504013. Now we know that policy might change. This is the existing policy of the Seattle Police Department. We as a city council are expressing our support for this continued policy, and I recognize that at a later date, depending on what happens at the state legislature, what happens with under the leadership of of a new mayor or a new police chief or a new city attorney, that we may need to look at a different legislative action than what we're taking today. But I'm very appreciative of Councilmember Lewis and bringing this resolution forward. You can't remember horrible things first a lot.
Speaker 2: Thank you. I just wanted to clarify, just for the record, I'm I'm just quite surprised by kind of the more horrible response on the question of the process or the ordinance from my office. The bill has indeed been on our Consumer Herbals desk as chair of the Public Safety Committee for three months until timber might remember and other councilmembers might remember the discussion we had going down to a briefing three months ago. And I pointed out that that rodent on my office had called her office 23 times about it, asking their office to collect the one button story, which is the city's legislation management software to allow the bill to be introduced, the ordinance to be introduced, though none of those calls were returned and all of this discussion happened in public. But it seems from what Councilmember Horrible said at the beginning of our honor just now, it was implied that there was somehow an agreement among the council that the bill should not be introduced. But that's not true. There was no vote. I have not certainly not agreed. I want the bill to be introduced, debated, discussed and voted on as soon as possible. I'm not complaining about all of this in in in any at any great length, because I was hoping that council would bring an ordinance if they because, you know , I've seen this many times when my office brings an ordinance and the Democrats will bring their own ordinance, fine. You know, for us, the issue is more important, not whose name is in the city's registration legislation management software. But but it is a tangible failure at this point to bring forward an ordinance regardless of whose name is on it. And that is why we need to raise this issue, because that that is not how it happened. What happened was that we, my staff and I followed up assiduously wanting the ordinance to move forward. But, you know, it's often these kinds of sort of bureaucratic channels are used to block it. And that's why that's that's your that's your decision. But let's be open about it. Thank you. And I hope that there is an ordinance moving forward. And I again, I restate my invitation to council members to add their name to the ordinance. And let's discuss whatever remaining outstanding issues that are and let's pass the ordinance. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Customer Support. Your objection is noted. For the record, I would like for us to refocus our comments and debate on the resolution that is before us, as opposed to a ordinance that is not before us at the time. So if we could recommit to just focusing our comments in on the amended resolution that is before us, I appreciate it. Again, I appreciate that Councilmember Salant has expressed concerns about about a resolution passed over an ordinance. It is noted. Let's let's go ahead and and finish up our our debate on the resolution. I am going to give Councilmember Lewis the last word before he has the last word. I see that Councilmember Mosquito has your hand raised. So I would like to close out debate after Councilman Mosquito's remarks. Thank you, council president. Your comments and direction is exactly the type of comments I was hoping to make today. I did want to center our conversation back on the recommendations that come directly from community or from the task force that has been working with folks who have been researching these issues, who have been exploring the possibility of the benefits of these substances, and wanting to make sure that we have an understanding of why. To me, this really comes down to a public health approach to helping those who may see some benefits of having some of these substances be available to them to treat things that are so near and dear to my heart. As many folks know, my sister suffers with multiple sclerosis. And in terms of trying to find opportunities to address the inflammation and the trauma that her brain and her body go through, I'm excited for any opportunity that allows for her to have a healthy and safe life and to experience joy and and not only for her mind , but for her body as well. I see that there's a lot of possibilities from the conversations that we've had with folks about those who have experienced traumatic brain injury injuries and folks who are dealing with immuno compromised systems, folks who have been suffering from PTSD, people who also have depression and anxiety, any opportunity that we can, especially in the wake of COVID, to help find solutions for folks in a safe way, in a way that helps people access safe substances, is something that I'm going to support from a public health perspective and appreciate the incredible amount of research that has gone into this from those who have been supporting this type of research and advocacy for years. And again, just one additional way for us to relieve stress and anxiety. And the physical and emotional symptoms of some of these complications within our mind and body. I'm going to be supporting this resolution and look forward to future work with all of you to see how we can advance these commitments today. So thanks again to the community for making this possible and centering us back on those who are potentially going to benefit from access access through this public health name. Makes me excited about the opportunities in the future. Councilmember Mosqueda. Councilmember Lewis, any closing remarks?
Speaker 1: Thank you. Madam President, I actually don't have anything else to add. I think council member Muscat and his comments are a great thing to go out on here, so I'll just leave it at that.
Speaker 0: I appreciate that. Okay, folks, will the clerk please call the role on the adoption of the amended resolution? HERBOLD Yes.
Speaker 1: Suarez Yes.
Speaker 0: Lewis.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Morales. Yes. Mesquita. I. Peterson.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 0: So what? Yes. Strauss.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 0: President Gonzalez. High nine in favor. Nine opposed. The motion carries. The resolution is adopted as amended, and the chair will sign. It will please affix my signature on the legislation to the legislation on my behalf. Well, the quick please read the short title of item three into the.
A RESOLUTION declaring that the investigation, arrest, and prosecution of anyone engaging in entheogen-related activities should be among The City of Seattle’s lowest law enforcement priorities and stating the Council’s support for full decriminalization of these activities.