Seattle's Drug-Loitering Ordinance -- The Council Should Dump A Flawed, Divisive Law

"THE problem for the thief is not how to steal the chief's horn. The problem is where to blow it" - West African proverb.

When I first heard that saying, I wasn't sure what it meant. The person who said it explained, "The chief has a special horn. It is very different from all other horns in the village. Just the sight or the sound of it signals royal ownership."

It was my professor's way of saying it is not enough just to have a high position or vital information or a rare and unique instrument. Once you have it, you have to do something with it.

Tomorrow, nine people in some pretty high positions - Seattle City Council members - will have to take some vital information and decide what to do with it. What they do also will have a distinctive look and sound.

Since 1990, Seattle's drug-loitering ordinance has allowed people to be arrested for looking like they were selling drugs. A whole list of behaviors often consistent with street dealing are cause for arrest.

There were initial concerns about application of the law, violations of civil liberties, potential for harassment and undue focus on young males of color and people with different - but not automatically unlawful - lifestyles.

The council put an Aug. 1992 expiration date on the ordinance for review of its fairness and effectiveness. Tomorrow they vote on a permanent ordinance.

Mayor Rice endorsed the initial ordinance and has asked the council to pass the permanent version with police and some community group support. A recent Seattle Times editorial called it "a useful tool in seeing that streets and sidewalks aren't taken over by criminals selling drugs."

Council seems ready to pass the ordinance. Two days ago, a news story noted Councilmember Sherry Harris will probably vote yes.

Harris was singled out because she is the only African American on the council and some African-American organizations are opposed to passage. But so are some women's groups, gay and lesbian organizations, the American Civil Liberties Union, and other community, ethnic and civil-rights groups.

To make their cases, both sides have manipulated the numbers about arrests and convictions and who was arrested and convicted.

But one thing is clear, the overwhelming percentage (77 percent) of people arrested for drug-loitering offenses have been people of color, less than half of those arrested were actually charged and out of 244 drug-loitering arrests, there have been less than 50 convictions.

The FBI reports that 80 percent of illegal U.S. drug use is committed by whites. But jails and courtrooms reflect a much different reality, as do Seattle's drug-loitering statistics.

Part of the problem is that much of the drug dealing among upper- and middle-class folks of all colors takes place in offices and in the suburbs. It also happens without the violence and high-profile activity associated with street dealing among many poor folks and people of color.

There are fewer places to hide, fewer people with connections in high places, less access to treatment, less access to legal cash for illegal drug transactions and more law-enforcement scrutiny on people who account for 20 percent or less of the dope trade.

It almost seems that the nation's concern is not whether drugs are illegal or their horrible toll in human misery, but that certain groups are "less civilized" about their efforts to obtain drugs.

The ordinance has had no impact on drug availability and hasn't put any major crime figures away for long periods of time. But it has fermented unhealthy distrust between local officials and segments of the community.

I recently supported tough enforcement in areas of prostitution against people formerly convicted of prostitution. I also favor tough penalties around drug-free zones and arrests of people with drug convictions for dealing in those zones.

But people should not be arrested just for hanging out. People shouldn't get police records that are racially and economically discriminatory and contrary to known crime statistics.

The Seattle Times' editorial acknowledged that other solutions are necessary among youths and within the community, the police department and local government. - "not passage of new laws and their correct enforcement."

That is why the Seattle City Council should vote against the drug-loitering ordinance and not pass a law that has proven itself to be flawed and divisive. Councilmembers should demand implementation of some of those other solutions and not settle for the promise of yet another committee to study the problem.

The glaring disparities in application, enforcement and outcome cannot be ignored or explained away. The council has the information and the responsibility to do the right thing. It's time to blow the horn.

We'll talk more later.

Don Williamson's column appears Tuesday, Thursday and Sunday on The Times' editorial pages.