Opinion: With Proposition 132, Colorado has a chance to reverse course on fentanyl

When opponents of Proposition 132 announced their opposition, I was disappointed. I understand their concern about jail costs and crowded courts. Those are real problems. 

But families living with fentanyl’s consequences know what it costs when we fail to act. We should strengthen treatment, protect the public and hold people accountable instead of presenting those responsibilities as competing choices.

I have worked on drug prevention and addiction policy for years. The statistics matter, but it is the conversations with families that stay with me. A parent remembers the ordinary details of the last day: a text left unanswered, a dinner that never happened, a bedroom left untouched. A sibling learns to speak of a loved one in the past tense. 

Parents who have buried a child do not get to close a budget book and move on. Their grief is a lifelong cost that belongs in every discussion of public resources.

Loss extends beyond deaths. Families watch someone they love become trapped in addiction, frightened by each missed call and night away from home. They search for treatment, navigate waiting lists and hope that an arrest or medical emergency becomes a turning point rather than another missed chance. They need an effective path to care. 

They also need a community willing to confront the danger posed by fentanyl and those who distribute it. Compassion should have practical meaning for these families, too.

Proposition 132 has serious consequences that voters deserve to understand. It would make possession of even a small amount of fentanyl a felony. Demand reduction is a critical component of a national response. For certain eligible possession cases, it provides court-ordered treatment and a way to vacate the conviction after successful completion. 

It would also impose lengthy mandatory prison sentences for specified distribution crimes. The eight-to-32-year sentences discussed in the amendment should not be confused with the penalty for every possession case. We can debate whether the proposal gets each distinction right while describing it accurately.

Opponents of the initiative warn that additional cases could strain jails, prosecutors and courts. I take those concerns seriously. County roads and services matter. But a cost projection should begin a conversation about implementation and funding, not end the conversation about fentanyl. 

If the measure passes, state and local leaders should seek resources for courts, law enforcement and evidence-based treatment, including medication for opioid use disorder and care after release.

Opponents of the initiative also cite a simulation projecting more overdose deaths under the measure. That warning deserves attention: interrupted treatment and reduced tolerance after incarceration can increase overdose risk. The simulation study’s author acknowledges that changes in diversion and treatment access could change the outcome. The projected death toll is not a count of deaths that have occurred, nor proof of an unavoidable result. It makes the case for protecting treatment access as any new law is implemented.

Calls for more community treatment deserve concrete commitments: timely access to care, effective use of available funds and public reporting on results. Families need to know where to turn, how quickly help will be available and what happens after a loved one leaves treatment or incarceration. Accountability must extend to the systems entrusted with helping them.

The initiative is flawed. I would prefer a measure that better addresses the concerns about treatment access, implementation and cost. But voters get an up-or-down vote on the proposal before us. We cannot amend it in the voting booth. 

Faced with that choice, I believe it is best to err on the side of the Angel Families who have lost loved ones to fentanyl. Their experience does not erase the difficult policy questions. It gives those questions an urgency we cannot afford to dismiss.

I want families to have help before a crisis, treatment when addiction takes hold and protection from a drug that can kill in tiny quantities. 

I support Proposition 132 while recognizing its flaws, and I expect our leaders to do the work necessary to make treatment and accountability succeed together. Families deserve more than the choice between punishment and neglect.

Mary Bono, of La Plata County, is a former U.S. Representative for California and chair and CEO of Mothers for Awareness and Prevention of Drug Abuse and CEO of MAPDA Action.

The Colorado Sun is a nonpartisan news organization, and the opinions of columnists and editorial writers do not reflect the opinions of the newsroom. Read our ethics policy for more on The Sun’s opinion policy. Learn how to submit a column. Reach the opinion editor at opinion@coloradosun.com.

Follow Colorado Sun Opinion on Facebook.