Why fentanyl is on the Colorado ballot
Add Axios as your preferred source to
see more of our stories on Google.
Illustration: Brendan Lynch/Axios
Voters will decide this November whether to make possession of any fentanyl amount a felony.
Why it matters: Advocates say doing so will help reduce fatal overdoses, but critics warn it'll only worsen the crisis.
State of play: Proposition 132 functions as a public referendum that could shape how the criminal justice system deals with a drug killing hundreds statewide.
What they're saying: The measure balances accountability with compassion, says Kristi Brown, vice president at Advance Colorado, the conservative-leaning policy organization that sponsored the proposal.
Zoom in: Prop 132 aims to combat current state laws that Brown says don't go far enough in penalizing fentanyl possession.
- The proposed law targets dealers, she adds, and requires a mandatory minimum of eight years for anyone distributing any quantity of fentanyl. It eliminates possible penalty reductions in most cases.
- Anyone convicted of possession of less than a gram must complete a court-ordered treatment to potentially lower their charges.
"There's just a big coalition behind this in Colorado, specifically of families who've been affected," Brown tells us, noting the public backing of statewide anti-drug groups.
The other side: The measure is "a private prison cash grab" that won't help get people into treatment, says Kyle Giddings, deputy director at Colorado Criminal Justice Reform Coalition (CCJRC).
- CCJRC has launched a public opposition campaign against the measure, including online ads. "Incarceration does not fix addiction," Giddings tells us.
Context: The measures go against what data and research suggest are effective ways to address addiction, Giddings says.
- Research suggests harm reduction measures including needle exchanges and medication-assisted treatment can help save lives.
Follow the money: State spending could rise by an estimated $900,000 the first year if the measure is approved, soaring to $68.2 million by its fifth year, a nonpartisan legislative staff note shows.
- The additional spending would cover costs tied to courts, public defenders and prisons. Giddings says the measure doesn't directly fund treatment options, which can also be costly.
The bottom line: The public will decide whether a more punitive approach toward fentanyl possession is worth dedicating potentially millions of dollars in state funding for years to come.