Evidence Analysis of the 2026 Ballot

Proposition 132: Penalties for Fentanyl Crimes

Download PDF

WHAT the Measure Would Do

Starting January 1, 2027, this measure, if approved, would increase penalties for crimes involving fentanyl and synthetic opioids. This would make the distribution, manufacturing, or sale of any amount of synthetic opioids a level 1 drug felony. Currently, penalties for this type of crime is based on the amount of drugs involved. This measure would also increase penalties for possession of synthetic opioids and require treatment for offenders in certain cases and remove overdose reporting protections.

How Fentanyl Penalties Change under Change under Proposition 132
Fentanyl Activity/Legal Provision Current Law Proposed Under Proposition 132
Distribution, manufacturing, dispensing, sale, and possession with intent Penalties increase based on amount:
  • not more than 4 grams → level 3 drug felony (2-4 years)
  • more than 4 grams to 50 grams → level 2 drug felony (4-8 years)
  • more than 50 grams → level 1 drug felony (8-32 years)
 Any amount → Level 1 drug felony (8-32 years, mandatory)
Possession of not more than 1 gram Generally a Level 1 drug misdemeanor (up to 18 months in jail) Level 4 treatment-mandated drug felony (6-12 months in prison)
Possession of more than 1 gram and not more than 4 grams Level 4 drug felony (6-12 months in prison) Level 3 drug felony (2-4 years in prison)
Overdose-reporting immunity Immunity from prosecution if a person reports an overdose, stays at the scene, identifies themselves, and cooperates with police – covers low-level fentanyl distribution (not more than 4 grams) in addition to possession Removed for fentanyl distribution offenses, including the existing protection exempting low-level distributors from mandatory minimum sentencing when their conduct caused a death
Ability to reduce certain felony convictions Certain fentanyl possession felony convictions may be vacated and replaced with a misdemeanor after successful completion of a community-based sentence Removed
Habitual criminal sentencing Individuals with certain prior fentanyl possession felony convictions are not subject to increased sentences that otherwise apply to repeat offenders Reinstated – repeat offenders with three or more prior felony convictions could face sentences up to four times the normal maximum

Background

Fentanyl Use
Synthetic opiates are lab-made drugs that work similarly to drugs like heroin or morphine but are often much stronger. Fentanyl is the most common example and is up to 100 times more potent than morphine and about 50 times more potent than heroin, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Even a tiny dose of fentanyl can be lethal, making accidental overdose a risk, including when fentanyl is mixed into other drugs. 

In Colorado, illicit fentanyl use, overdose deaths, and arrests began to increase in 2018, accelerated in the early 2020s, peaking in 2023. Data from Colorado’s Vital Statistics Program show fentanyl overdose deaths in Colorado falling from 1,097 in 2023 to 761 in 2024, before rising to 980 in 2025, even as deaths nationally continued to fall [1] . In 2025, Colorado was one of only three states where total overdose deaths rose 10 percent or more, and state data show 1,765 overdose deaths for the year. [2]

HOW the Measure Changes Current Law

Colorado established its current drug offense sentencing structure in 2013, creating tiered levels for both drug felonies and misdemeanors with penalties that generally increase based on the type and amount of drug involved. In 2020, Colorado reduced penalties for many low-level possession offenses, reflecting a broader move toward treating drug possession as a substance use and treatment issue rather than primarily a felony offense. In 2022, as fentanyl-related deaths spiked, lawmakers created fentanyl-specific penalties, increasing penalties for higher amounts of fentanyl, partially reversing the 2020 policies, and paired those changes with treatment, harm reduction, and prevention provisions.

Under current law, fentanyl penalties follow the tiered approach: distribution, manufacturing, dispensing, sale, and possession with intent are punished more seriously than simple possession. Higher amounts carry higher felony levels, while lower-level possessions are treated less severely and, in some cases, are connected to treatment or other public health approaches, including overdose prevention. Current law also includes overdose-reporting immunity protections designed to encourage individuals to seek medical help during a fentanyl-related emergency. [3]

The measure moves away from the tiered approach and applies more uniformly severe penalties to crimes involving fentanyl. Most significantly, any amount of fentanyl distribution, manufacturing, dispensing, sale, or possession with intent becomes a level 1 drug felony, Colorado's highest level drug felony, regardless of amount. Possession penalties also increase, and three current-law protections are removed:
  • the ability to avoid prosecution by calling 911 at an overdose scene under certain conditions,
  • the option to reduce a fentanyl possession felony to a misdemeanor after completing a treatment program, and
  • an exemption that protected people with drug possession convictions from more severe repeat-offender sentencing.

WHY This Is on the Ballot

In Colorado, both the Colorado General Assembly (known as a referred measure) and citizens of the state (known as an initiated measure) can take action to change Colorado state law or the constitution on the ballot. This is an initiated measure.

WHO Put it on the Ballot

Proposition 132 is an initiated measure which makes changes to state law. This measure is sponsored by Suzanne Taheri and Michael fields through the West Group and Advance Colorado. The West Group is a legal and government affairs firm. Advance Colorado is a conservative advocacy group.

EVIDENCE from Research Literature

Peer-reviewed research can help to understand how the changes proposed under this amendment might affect the state’s taxpayers, economy, business climate, and state-spending outcomes. The highest-quality research uses randomized controlled trials, specific to the place, time, and context they measure but insights can be gleaned from this past research.

Of the research surveyed, the largest impact the state could expect is in supervised medication for opioid use disorder treatment. Voluntary correctional facility and drug court treatment programs report the best outcomes relative to mandatory treatment programs that involve the threat of criminal penalty for non-compliance. The efficacy of treatment required under this measure will depend on how the program is implemented and whether a funding source is identified if this passes to ensure those who are ordered to receive treatment can access it.

1. Distribution Penalties
Proposition 132 would make distribution of any amount of fentanyl a Level 1 drug felony, Colorado's highest, with a mandatory 8–32-year sentence. It would also reinstate habitual criminal sentencing for repeat possession offenders.
  • Research indicates that both increased sentences and certainty of punishment have meaningful impacts in deterring crime, but to differing degrees.
  • When sentences for crime become longer, there is on average a 17-20% deterrent effect. This is not specific to fentanyl-related crimes. [4] [Helland & Tabarrok] (Evidence Level 2–3, theory informed; low-to-moderate certainty)
  • Deterrence research consistently finds that the certainty of punishment has a larger deterrent effect than the length of the sentence. [5] (Evidence Level 2–3, theory informed; low-to-moderate certainty)
  • Incarcerating distributors has a modest benefit of reducing the number of people distributing fentanyl. However, fentanyl's high potency and small volume make supply disruption harder than for bulkier and less-potent plant-based drugs. A federal GAO report and other policy analyses conclude that there is insufficient evidence to determine with confidence whether enforcement reduces fentanyl availability or overdose deaths when performance goals were set. [6] [GAO] (Evidence Level 2–3, theory informed; low certainty)

2. Possession Penalties and Treatment
Proposition 132 would raise possession of more than 1 gram and up to 4 grams from a Level 4 to a Level 3 drug felony. It would create a new Level 4 treatment-mandated felony for possession of 1 gram or less, which could be vacated after treatment is completed. It would also eliminate the current option to vacate certain fentanyl felonies and replace them with a misdemeanor after treatment.
  • Evaluations of Colorado's 2022 fentanyl law (HB 22-1326) found that it did not lower overdose deaths or improvement in treatment access after the bill was implemented. [7] (Evidence Level 2–3, theory informed; low certainty)
    • Those evaluations mainly studied the shift from misdemeanor to felony. The escalation from Level 4 to Level 3 felony proposed here has not been studied.
  • Medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD), specifically buprenorphine and methadone, is among the most effective interventions for opioid addiction. MOUD programs in correctional facilities and drug courts lower post-release overdose risk when treatment is voluntary and evidence based. [8] (Evidence Level 4–5, evidence informed and proven; high certainty)
  • The evidence for mandatory treatment required under criminal threat without adequate support is not as strong, and some studies associate it with increased overdose risk. [9] Whether the treatment mandate required by this measure works depends on how it is implemented and whether a funding source is identified. (Evidence Level 4–5; low certainty)
  • A National Academies consensus review concluded that medication for opioid use disorder saves lives and that most people who could benefit from it do not receive it. A cost-effectiveness analysis of publicly funded treatment in California found that medication-based treatment produces net savings compared with no treatment. [10] [NASEM; Krebs et al.] (Evidence Level 4–5, evidence informed and proven; high certainty)

3. Overdose Reporting and Drug-Induced Homicide
Proposition 132 would remove Good Samaritan overdose-reporting immunity for fentanyl distribution offenses. It would also expand drug-induced homicide liability to any fentanyl distribution that leads to a death, with a possible second-degree murder penalty of 16–48 years, or potentially life for habitual offenders.
  • States with arrest-protection Good Samaritan laws generally have lower overdose mortality rates than states that do not offer those protections, though findings are inconsistent. The effect is tied specifically to arrest protection, which implies that fear of arrest is what deters people from calling for help during an overdose. (Evidence Level 2–5, theory informed to proven; moderate certainty)
  • In the most widely cited study, statistically significant reductions in opioid deaths of between 9–11% resulted from naloxone access laws. Estimates for Good Samaritan laws were similar in size but not statistically significant, so the evidence is supportive rather than conclusive. [11] [Rees et al.] (Evidence Level 2–5; moderate certainty)
  • The main study that showed a deterrent effect from drug-induced homicide laws has been challenged on methodological grounds. A study covering 42 prosecutorial districts in North Carolina, found no association between a district's overdose deaths or number of prosecutors and its drug-induced homicide charges. [12] Studies in other states find that a substantial share of prosecutions involve acquaintances or family members of the deceased rather than commercial distributors, and racial sentencing disparities are common. [13] (Evidence Level 2–3; insufficient certainty)

Other Considerations
  • Colorado's jail MOUD mandate, enacted in July 2023, is not yet fully implemented statewide. Proposition 132 could add hundreds of people a year to court-mandated treatment, which may exceed existing capacity and create new costs for the state.

FISCAL and Budget Impact

Proposition 132 increase penalties for fentanyl possession and distribution. This would likely increase the number of individuals incarcerated in the state, but the measure does not identify or create a funding source for these additional costs. The Legislative Council Staff estimated that costs will increase by $0.9 million and $8.9 million in years one and two, rising to an estimated $68.2 million by year five due to the increasing number of individuals in the criminal justice systems [14] The costs will be incurred by courts, public defenders, and the prison system.

Legislative Council Staff projects the cost of the additional prison beds this measure would require. That projection is a state budget estimate, and it is not a full accounting of the measure’s costs and benefits. It does not count the value of offenses that a longer sentence may prevent. As some research has argued, the cost of a crime and the benefit of preventing that crime are the same quantity, including out-of-pocket loss and the pain, suffering, and lost quality of life borne by the victim. [15]

Appendix

Question Impact Evidence Level/Certainty
Distribution penalties Mixed. Severe penalties can deter some repeat offenders and remove convicted distributors from the market, but no study has directly linked fentanyl penalty escalation to reductions in availability or overdose deaths. Levels 2-3; Low–Moderate
Possession penalties Colorado's 2022 fentanyl law did not show clear reductions in overdose deaths or improvements in treatment access. Levels 2-3; Low
Treatment under criminal justice supervision Strong evidence when voluntary and medication-based; weaker when compulsory or treatment infrastructure is limited. Levels 4-5; High (voluntary MOUD); Low (compulsory)
Overdose Reporting Good Samaritan law (GSL) protections Evidence generally supports arrest-protection GSLs; one credible study found null effects. Levels 3-5; Moderate
Drug-induced homicide (DIH) laws Little credible evidence of population-level overdose reductions; the accountability rationale is a separate question. Levels 2-3; Insufficient

Levels of Evidence

This report uses an evidence framework consistent with the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM) levels and the GRADE system, adapted for policy research contexts and aligned with Colorado Revised Statutes as established by House Bill 21-284.

  • Level 5 – Proven: High or well-supported confidence of effectiveness, based on one or more high-quality randomized controlled trials, multiple evaluations with strong comparison groups, systematic reviews, or meta-analyses.

  • Level 4 – Evidence-informed: Moderate or promising confidence, based on an evaluation with a comparison group, multiple pre- and post-evaluations, or equivalent measures.

  • Levels 1–3 – Theory-informed: Moderate to low confidence, based on performance tracking, pre- and post-intervention evaluation, or theory of change identification. Level 3 involves more rigorous quasi-experimental methods; Levels 1–2 are less rigorous.

  • No Level – Opinion-based: Low confidence, based on satisfaction surveys, personal experience, or absence of existing evidence.

Evidence Certainty is reported as high, moderate, low, or very low, drawn from the authors’ own characterizations and IEBP staff interpretation.