Increase Penalties for Fentanyl Crimes

In 2025, over 1,800 Coloradans died from drug overdoses, with recent data showing synthetic opioid deaths approaching 1,000 per year, and the state's trend is rising despite a national decline.

Recent figures show how Colorado compares: * The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment reports 1,813 preliminary drug overdose deaths in 2025, up from 1,640 in 2024. * For synthetic opioids like fentanyl, the Common Sense Institute reports 957 deaths in Colorado for the 12 months ending August 2025. * The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported a 14 percent decrease in national overdose deaths in 2025, while Colorado was one of the few states to see an increase of 10 percent or more.

Supporters of the measure argue that the rising death toll shows stricter mandatory prison sentences are necessary to deter fentanyl distribution. Opponents argue that Colorado's 2022 law increasing fentanyl penalties did not stop the recent rise in deaths, and warn that making possession a felony could make people afraid to call emergency services during an overdose.

In Colorado, fentanyl penalties depend on the drug's weight and whether it is for personal use or distribution, ranging from a misdemeanor to 32 years in prison.

According to the 2026 state Blue Book and the 2022 Fentanyl Accountability and Prevention Act, current penalties are tiered: * Possessing 1 gram or less is a Level 1 drug misdemeanor, carrying up to 18 months in jail. * Possessing 1 to 4 grams is a Level 4 drug felony, carrying 6 to 12 months. * Distributing 4 grams or less is a Level 3 drug felony, carrying 2 to 6 years in prison. * Distributing over 50 grams, or any amount causing death, is a Level 1 drug felony with a mandatory 8 to 32 years in prison.

Current law allows a felony possession charge to be reduced to a misdemeanor if the person proves they did not know the substance contained fentanyl.

Supporters of Proposition 132 argue current laws are too lenient and making any possession a felony will deter use. Opponents argue the tiered system appropriately separates minor possession from major trafficking, and removing the knowledge exception unfairly punishes people who unknowingly consume fentanyl mixed into other drugs.

There is no reliable official figure for the exact number of people currently charged each year in Colorado specifically for possessing or distributing small amounts of fentanyl. State judicial reports track overall drug offenses, but they do not publicly isolate annual charges by the specific weight of fentanyl.

Under current law, possessing less than one gram of fentanyl is a misdemeanor. Possessing one to four grams is a felony. Distributing fentanyl is a felony, with penalties scaling based on the quantity involved.

Measure 132 would change this by: * Making possession of any amount of fentanyl a felony. * Requiring a mandatory minimum 8-year prison sentence for distributing any amount, including sharing. * Eliminating a judge's ability to weigh mitigating factors, such as whether the person knew the drug contained fentanyl.

While current charge counts are unavailable, the 2026 legislative fiscal note estimates state spending will rise to $68.2 million by year five because more people will be imprisoned for longer. Opponents, including the Colorado Criminal Justice Reform Coalition, estimate the measure could send nearly 900 additional people to prison annually. Supporters argue that mandatory penalties are necessary to combat the state's overdose crisis. Opponents argue the measure relies on costly incarceration for minor offenses.

Because Proposition 132 does not include a funding mechanism, the Colorado General Assembly will have to pay for the estimated $68.2 million annual cost out of the state's General Fund, which is the main pool of state tax dollars.

Colorado law requires lawmakers to pass a balanced budget each year. When voters approve a measure that increases state spending without providing a dedicated revenue source, the legislature must adjust the annual budget to accommodate the new expenses.

According to the 2026 Legislative Council Blue Book, the measure will increase costs for courts, public defenders, and prisons. To cover these costs by year five, lawmakers will have to either reduce spending on other state programs or find new revenue. The measure does generate a small amount of revenue from criminal fines—an estimated $73,000 annually after the first year—but this covers only a fraction of the projected costs.

Supporters argue that the state must prioritize its existing budget to address the fentanyl crisis and hold dealers accountable. Opponents argue that relying on the General Fund for these incarceration costs will force the state to divert millions of dollars away from other priorities, such as public education and health care.

If passed, Colorado's proposed 8-year mandatory minimum for distributing any amount of fentanyl would differ from neighboring states, which generally scale their penalties based on drug quantity, criminal history, or whether the distribution caused death.

According to a 2026 policy analysis by the Common Sense Institute, neighboring states handle fentanyl distribution as follows: * Nebraska scales penalties by weight, ranging from 1 to 50 years for under 10 grams, up to 20 years to life for 140 grams or more. * Kansas bases sentences on quantity and criminal history, with presumptive prison terms ranging from 14 months to 34 years. * Utah applies specific trafficking penalties when the amount reaches 100 grams or more. * Wyoming and New Mexico do not have standalone fentanyl trafficking statutes, prosecuting it under general Schedule II drug laws. * Oklahoma uses general distribution and trafficking statutes that carry maximum sentences of up to life imprisonment.

Supporters say a strict mandatory minimum is necessary to deter the distribution of a highly lethal substance. Opponents note that a flat penalty removes judicial discretion and treats minor sharing the same as large-scale trafficking, whereas neighboring states use tiered systems to distinguish between offense severities.

There is no reliable statewide figure for the exact capacity or waitlist length of court-ordered substance use treatment programs in Colorado. However, state agencies indicate that state-funded residential programs frequently have waitlists due to high demand and limited resources.

The Colorado Behavioral Health Administration tracks waitlist data for state-funded residential treatment, which serves people without private insurance. Wait times vary significantly by facility and the level of care required. For example, the state's Strategic Individualized Remediation Treatment program, which serves individuals in the criminal justice system, reported in 2026 that waitlists vary for residential programs, though outpatient continuing care programs generally do not have waitlists.

Broader behavioral health capacity remains strained. A 2024 state grant report cited survey data showing that over 67,000 Coloradans needed substance use treatment in 2017 but did not receive it. Additionally, a 2025 Common Sense Institute report highlighted a growing backlog of criminal defendants waiting for court-ordered mental health services. In 2024, Colorado had the third-longest waitlist in the nation for forensic psychiatric beds, which treat people charged with crimes.

If Proposition 132 passes, more individuals may be ordered into treatment to reduce their felony charges, which could increase demand on the state's existing treatment infrastructure.