Proposition 132: Increase Penalties for Fentanyl Crimes

The law today

Per the Blue Book: current penalties depend on drug type, quantity and whether the offense is personal use or distribution. Prison of 8 to 32 years is mandatory for distribution to a minor, of more than 50 grams of a substance, or of at least 4 grams that caused death. Prison is barred for possession under 1 gram with no intent to distribute (absent multiple past fentanyl convictions), for possession of 1 to 4 grams by someone with evidence they did not know it contained fentanyl, and for distribution under 4 grams where Good Samaritan protections apply. Otherwise judges set a sentence within a range and can reduce penalties for completing treatment.[1]

Official fiscal estimate

Per the Blue Book: state revenue to the Judicial Department rises $23,000 in the first year and $73,000 a year after, from added criminal fines. State spending (General Fund) rises $0.9 million in the first budget year (courts and public defenders), an estimated $8.9 million in the second year, and about $68.2 million by year five, with the state possibly needing to build or contract for more prison space. County-funded district attorneys also face higher costs.[1]

Arguments made for

• Blue Book argument for: "Fentanyl is highly potent and deadly, and it warrants stronger penalties than other drugs." It adds that mandated prison sentences for dealers "are likely to enhance public safety by keeping them off the street…"[1]
• Republican Douglas, Elbert and Lincoln counties District Attorney George Brauchler, at a November 2025 news conference reported by the Colorado Sun, called the initiative “something that we should have done years ago,” saying it would impose a “low to no tolerance policy when it comes to drug dealers who peddle fentanyl.”[4]
• The Colorado Sun reports Advance Colorado argues its initiative “provides the right balance between accountability and compassion.”[4]

Arguments made against

• Blue Book argument against: "Proposition 132 is unlikely to reduce fentanyl use, lower crime rates, or prevent overdose deaths." It adds that people "may be discouraged from seeking addiction treatment, or calling for emergency assistance during overdoses, due to fear of criminal prosecution and prison time."[1]
• Colorado Criminal Justice Reform Coalition (opposing group's own page): “Prop 132 would require at least 8 years in prison — even for minor, first-time cases.” It also says: “Prop 132 provides no funding for the treatment it mandates and could increase wait times at treatment centers.”[5]

On record in support

• A Brighter Colorado: registered supporting issue committee (Secretary of State list).[3]
• Eagle County Republican Women Club: registered supporting issue committee (Secretary of State list).[3]
• Advance Colorado: sponsor; the Colorado Sun names it as the group behind the measure.[4]
• George Brauchler, Republican district attorney for Douglas, Elbert and Lincoln counties: spoke in support at a November 2025 news conference (Colorado Sun).[4]

On record in opposition

• Coloradans for Real Safety Solutions: registered opposing issue committee (Secretary of State list).[3]
• Colorado Criminal Justice Reform Coalition: publishes a campaign page opposing the measure and is among the committee's donors.[5][4]
• The People's No: registered opposing issue committee (Secretary of State list).[3]
• Vote Common Sense: registered opposing issue committee (Secretary of State list).[3]
• Mental Health Colorado president and CEO Vincent Atchity, with a former state substance-abuse task force vice chair, wrote in a Colorado Sun opinion piece that harsh penalties have not protected communities from fentanyl (cited by the Sun in its explainer).[4]