Last March, the D.C. Council approved a sweeping crime bill, known as the Secure D.C. Omnibus Amendment Act. Among the bill’s many provisions, which were largely seen as “tough on crime,” was the reintroduction of drug-free and loitering-free zones, which are reminiscent of heavy-handed anti-drug measures of decades past.
Drug-free zones, along with anti-loitering restrictions, have a contentious history in D.C. dating back to the late 1980s and mid-1990s. This approach to tackling crime rates may be traced back to Law 11-270, the “Anti-Loitering Drug-Free Zone” (Bill No. 11-441), which was enacted in July 1996 and implemented in 1997. This legislation marked a turning point in the District’s approach to drug enforcement through criminalization but was later repealed. Mayor Muriel Bowser, a councilmember at the time and a now proponent of the Secure D.C. Act, voted for the repeal.
Declaring an area a “Drug-Free Zone” means that the police chief has designated an area of up to 1,000 square feet as a police enforcement hotspot — places where law enforcement claims to have witnessed open-air drug dealing, which Bowser has stated is her number one concern for these zones.
Those in favor of drug-free zones argue that they enhance public safety. “If you are not drinking alcohol in public, if you are not consuming illegal drugs in public, you have nothing to worry about,” said ANC 5D06 commissioner Kathy Henderson in an interview for ABC7.
But the zones can have unintended consequences — and advocates disagree on how effective they are. When drug-free zones are announced to neighborhood residents, they effectively transform public spaces for five-day periods, criminalizing the “congregation” of two or more individuals suspected of drug-related activities. Failure to comply with these zones can result in fines or arrest.
Drug activity that occur in a designated zone before enforcement will just move to another area, according to advocates at HIPS, an organization in D.C. that advances the health, rights, and dignity of people and communities impacted by sex work and drug use through the provision of harm reduction services.
Advocacy groups and justice organizations, like HIPS, have raised significant concerns about the likelihood of racial profiling and the disruption of vital community services resulting from drug-free zones. The Metropolitan Police Department and D.C. Government websites list “active” drug-free zones and their enforcement periods, but advocates say that the impact of these designations extend far beyond their official timeframes. The zones have lasting, detrimental effects on communities long after their stated expiration date, said Alex Bradley, outreach and community education manager for HIPS.
“The point of the crime bill is to make life unsustainable for people who use drugs or people who are homeless or living in precarious situations. Any time drug-free zones pop up, services are interrupted,” said Bradley.
Posters used to indicate an area as a drug-free zone often remain up long after their expiration date, which can lead residents to believe there is ongoing enforcement and increased police presence, Bradley said. This can discourage residents from feeling comfortable enough to return to areas where they may have previously received helpful services.
The Sentencing Project and the ACLU have also expressed worry about the Secure D.C. Crime Bill, including the portion related to drug-free zones, citing concerns about the violation of D.C. residents’ civil liberties associated with stop-and-frisk-type policies.
The new drug-free zone policy has in fact been dubbed “hotspot stop and frisk” by advocate Johnny Bailey, hotspot program manager for HIPS. The term reflects the discriminatory enforcement that occurs when policies like this are enacted.
The D.C. Council Office of Racial Equity examined the policy’s potential for discriminatory enforcement before the bill passed. The agency published a racial equity impact analysis of the Secure D.C. Act, which argued it will exacerbate existing inequities and harm Black and Brown communities.
The existence of drug-free zones is not effective in reducing drug-related activity, and they generally “fail to meet the constitutional standard of equal justice because they subject individuals, certain classes of individuals, or whole communities to harsher punishment than others for similar conduct,” according to the agency.
The report is partially based on the difference between absolute safety and perceived safety. Proponents of the zones may feel safer with them in place, despite evidence that the zones themselves are not increasing safety in “higher crime” areas and are actually putting more D.C. residents in harm’s way.
Drug-free zones will likely exacerbate racial inequity in the District, according to the report. The probable location of these zones in areas currently deemed as “high crime,” and the District’s existing practices around policing and enforcement mean a disproportionate number of Black residents will be arrested, according to the report. While Black and white people use illicit drugs at similar rates, Black people in America continue to be disproportionately arrested for drug-related violations.
The zones can also stop people from seeking services. A resident of a location where a drug-free zone is in place could be arrested for talking to a nonprofit service provider if either of them are considered suspicious by D.C. police, said Bailey of HIPS.
As a result, those people will simply not return to areas where drug-free zones have been enforced for some time, potentially leading to an inability to reach people that organizations like HIPS usually serve, according to Bailey and Bradley.
“We can’t find the people that we normally reach out to at all. We lose connection with the community when we do these. They’re scared. They have to hide or find a new place to exist. When people feel unsafe accessing resources, people die,” Bradley said.
During the 2023 vote, Ward 8 Councilmember Trayon White tried to get the council to amend Secure DC to require more outreach and intervention in areas before police can establish a drug-free zone, but the amendment was rejected.
Some have likened drug-free zones and other disruption tactics to “whack-a-mole” type strategies in a never-ending, nationwide war on drugs. These tactics may stop drug activity in one area by moving it to another. Or, as advocates like Bailey and Bradley argue, they may simply create less safety and increase preventable deaths in more areas of D.C.
Proposed solutions include establishing help centers in drug hotspots, fully funding housing initiatives, providing funding to organizations helping vulnerable communities, and focusing on evidence-based approaches to addiction and drug use rather than trying to criminalize those using drugs.
“We need to get away from the concept of a drug-free America,” Bailey said, emphasizing the need for more support services rather than punitive measures.
