Whether it’s pills or powder, a small amount of fentanyl can be deadly.

At its simplest, Proposition 132 would update State of Colorado laws involving fentanyl possession and trafficking, and in several parts of the state statutes it would increase existing criminal charges and penalties for fentanyl crimes. There will be much more detail below. It’s a statutory measure, and would pass with 50% (plus one) or more of the vote.

Why was Prop 132 proposed?

The designated representatives for Prop 132 are Michael Fields and Suzanne Taheri, conservative political operatives who are associated with the organization Advance Colorado – Fields as president and Taheri as a legal counsel. The initiative very clearly seeks to toughen laws around fentanyl, and perhaps one statement from an Advance Colorado report called “Communities in Ruin” (linked here) can frame the initiative’s reason for being:

“In 2022, lawmakers attempted to change course and tighten penalties on fentanyl, but it simply hasn’t been enough.”

Fentanyl is a very powerful opioid, and overdoses from non-medicinal use of fentanyl have been reported in Colorado and other states in measurable numbers since around 2013. Numbers have fluctuated since then, but overdose deaths in Colorado increased notably late last decade into the early 2020s (see chart) – from 102 in 2018 to 912 in 2021. These numbers are from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE).

The Colorado state legislature reacted to the increase in deaths and other fentanyl problems by passing House Bill 22-1326 in 2022. In very short, the bill increased certain fentanyl-related penalties, but also implemented “harm reduction” strategies like making funding available for test strips or overdose treatments like Narcan, along with treatment for those suffering from addiction and fentanyl education programs.

This is not to say that deaths are the only metric that matter, but Colorado deaths did decline from 1,097 in 2023 (HB 22-1326 didn’t go into effect until mid-2022) to 761 in 2024. However, numbers started increasing again in 2025, per the conservative Common Sense Institute. CDPHE numbers for 2025 are not yet available on its website.

HB 22-1326 called for an independent study on fentanyl, and the resulting study from Denver University painted a dire picture of how much illicit fentanyl was attempted to be shipped to the United States: “The amount of fentanyl seized by the U.S. Custom and Border Protection increased from 4,800 pounds of fentanyl in 2020 to 14,700 pounds in 2022. As of April 2023, 17,200 pounds had been seized this year. In 2022, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) seized over 50 million pills containing some amount of fentanyl and over 10,000 pounds of fentanyl powder.”

Obviously, fentanyl makes its way to Colorado. Just for example, in 2025 the Drug Enforcement Administration’s Rocky Mountain Field Division (RMFD) announced the seizure of approximately 1.7 million counterfeit fentanyl pills from a storage facility in Highlands Ranch.

During debate on HB 22-1326, a number of conservatives felt the bill was not strict enough, while some progressives preferred more emphasis on treatment or prevention as opposed to tougher penalties for possession. Since the 2022 bill passed, conservative legislators proposed bills calling for tougher penalties (including HB 24-1306, HB 23-1164, SB 25-044, SB 23-109) but these bills did not pass in the Democratic-controlled state legislature. It’s possible for citizen initiatives to succeed even if measures don’t succeed in the legislature – hence Prop 132.

What Would Proposition 132 Do?

Readers are always encouraged to read the entire 2026 initiative and HB 22-1326, but that’s a lot of reading. In the interest of brevity, Prop 132 would primarily amend two major sections of state statutes passed under HB 22-1326 – CRS 18-18-405 and CRS 18-18-403.5. There are other sections of CRS that would be revised, but these are the two most substantial.

For the highest-level changes, passing Prop 132 would:

  • Make distribution, manufacturing, dispensing, or sale of synthetic opiates a level 1drug felony. This increases charges under current law, under which crimes involving 4-50 grams of fentanyl are level 2 felonies, and 4 grams or less are level 3 felonies.
  • Makes the possession of any amount of fentanyl a felony – level 3 for possession of 1-4 grams, or level 4 plus mandated drug treatment for less than a gram. However, those convicted of having a gram or less can get their charge reduced to a misdemeanor if they complete rehabilitation.
  • Remove a “good Samaritan” provision from current law for any cases involving fentanyl distribution, which would provide immunity from criminal prosecution for the proximate cause of death if the individual reports the overdose to authorities.
  • Increases sentencing for all level 1 drug felonies involving synthetic opiates to 12-32 years, more than current law which is 8-32 years unless the opiates contribute to fatalities.

Why Wouldn’t We Pass This Initiative?

Opponents to Prop 132 might say that: tougher penalties won’t by themselves improve the current situation; increased incarceration is expensive and will put a strain on the corrections system; and boosting penalties for possession as opposed to mostly targeting dealers and traffickers will be harmful to young users and possibly people from disadvantaged communities.

Expenses: According to a fiscal analysis from the State of Colorado Legislative Council (linked here), passing Prop 132 is projected to increase Colorado’s prison population by about 900 people per year, while keeping one person in prison for a year costs $68,000 but new prison beds cost about $413,000 per bed if new beds are needed.

The analysis anticipates first full-year (FY 2027-28) state expenditures of about $5 million. There is no tax or fee revenue proposed in Initiative 85, so the state would need to fund any expenses with existing revenue or find other sources of revenue.

Social Impacts: The Colorado Criminal Justice Reform Coalition (CCJRC) has a website opposing Prop 132 at https://www.ccjrc.org/fentanylballotmeasure. CCJRC claims that an enforcement-heavy approach could disproportionately impact younger Coloradans, especially since it’s possible for people not to know they were in possession of something containing fentanyl.

A separate report published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) also notes that “…incarceration, itself, is a risk factor for overdose. People released from incarceration are at up to 40 times higher risk of overdose in the time following release, and only 5% of people who are arrested and have opioid use disorder (OUD) receive treatment while in jail or prison.”

Is an enforcement-heavy approach effective? CCJRC has posted an analysis suggesting tough-on-crime approaches to fentanyl might actually be counterproductive if it shifts the focus from treatment and prevention toward arrests and sentencing. This report from Dr. Joshua Barocas, Executive Director of the Colorado Poverty and Health Initiative and Professor of Medicine and Epidemiology, anticipates overdose deaths to increase from 4,164 over five years under current policy to 5,882 under Prop 132.

The report mentioned above that was published in JAMA (also credited to Dr. Barocas and another writer) concludes by saying: “there is little to no evidence that harsher criminal penalties and more punitive policies effectively reduce overdose deaths. In fact, the only evidence that does exist demonstrates that such policies are detrimental to individuals who use drugs. If the goal truly is to reduce overdose deaths, lawmakers should arm themselves with this knowledge and focus their limited time and taxpayer dollars on legislation that supports evidence-based interventions that work and not on punitive interventions that do not.”

Prop 132 Pro:

  • Fentanyl is costing and destroying many lives in Colorado, and stronger legal penalties could provide a deterrent to trafficking or even use
  • While law enforcement does capture large amounts of illicit fentanyl, large amounts also get through into the United States and Colorado, so it’s important to keep attempting to get it off the streets.

Prop 132 Con:

  • The expected increased incarceration will be costly, and possibly worse if the state needs more beds to meet needs
  • Young people might not always know they have something containing fentanyl, but would face tough penalties anyway
  • Some people say it’s more effective in the long run to focus on harm reduction instead of incarceration or increased enforcement, especially if it includes tough penalties for mere possession.

Proponent Committees:

  • A Brighter Colorado has registered to support 132, and also supports 136 along with Amendments 81, 82, 85 and 86. As of Oct. 6, it had reported $2,612,150.00 in total contributions, including a non-itemized report from Oct. 6 of $2,305,525.00, $250,000 from McLean, Virginia-based Common Sense America, and $100,000 from Colorado Dawn.
  • Eagle County Republican Women Club has reported $1,765 in monetary contributions, and $3,664.49 in non-monetary contributions.

Opponent Committees: Three committees have registered to oppose 132.

  • Coloradans for Real Safety Solutions has reported $1,114,415 in total contributions as of Oct. 6, including Lynn Schusterman of Tulsa, Oklahoma for $500,000, ACLU of Colorado for $200,539.78, and Colorado Criminal Justice Reform of Colorado for $132,982.79.
  • Vote Common Sense opposes 132 but also 132, 133, 134, 135, and 136, along wih Amendments 81, 82, 84, and 85. It has reported
  • $646,500 in total contributions as of Oct. 6, including $200,000 from Washington, DC-based Green Advocacy Project, $100,000 from Merle Chambers of Denver, $65,0000 from Colorado Fund for Children & Public Education, $50,000 from Coloradans for Real Safety Solutions, $50,000 from Colorado Immigration Rights Coalition, $50,000 from Colorado WINS, and $35,000 from COBALT.
  • The People’s No opposes 132, but also 134, 135, and Amendment 81. It has reported $200,000 in monetary contributions, and $51,246.11 in non-monetary contributions, including $246,346 from ACLU of Colorado, and $103,332 from COLOR Action Fund.

For More Information:

Richard’s Take

I will vote NO on Prop 132, but not without a little appreciation for attempting to address a real problem. The prime reasons for my position include that Colorado laws around the things I’m most concerned about – trafficking and dealing – are already fairly strict, and that Colorado would be spending money it doesn’t have on an approach that isn’t proven to seriously reduce our problems.

HB 22-1326 was a strong bill (please read it if you don’t trust me), but that doesn’t mean I think it was perfect or that it couldn’t be amended, especially given that conditions can always change with the times.

And here’s a problem I very frequently have with the initiative process. In the state legislature, lawmakers could take even the tiniest amount of what’s in something like Prop 132 and potentially pass it, without all the other stuff that’s in the initiative. There is public process, lawmakers can amend the proposal, and the final product is often better than what was introduced. With an initiative, you either vote for the whole enchilada or against it. I’ve seen over and over again, throughout the course of my decades following civics and politics, how we could pass an initiative but really regret parts of it later. Law can be very complex, and big changes deserve comprehensive input and discussion, but instead most of us will just fill in a little bubble for “yes” or “no” and call it a day.

Just in case someone whose streetwise perspective I respect is reading, I heard you when you said a big part of the ongoing problem is because people possessing fentanyl might get released on PR bonds. No disagreement, but maybe it’s an issue that could be addressed with a very specific state bill or another initiative that isn’t so broad and expensive.

So, I promised some appreciation for an initiative I’m going to vote against. Fentanyl is a real and serious problem on a number of levels. While I would vastly prefer the legislative approach, it’s not guaranteed that the legislature would do what some segments of Colorado desire. I might not be crazy about increased incarceration, but sorry, fentanyl traffickers and dealers deserve it. Don’t just throw the book at them, throw the whole library.

And if Prop 132 was just about trafficking, it might have my support (though I’d still read the proposal carefully first). I’m not convinced that tougher penalties for possession or taking away some “good Samaritan” protections will help much with anything, and therefore I’m not going to vote to put all of Prop 132 into Colorado’s statutes despite maybe some appreciation for parts of it.