AURORA | Aurora lawmakers agree the city has a job to do in trying to mitigate the crisis surrounding fentanyl use and addiction, but council members are split along ideological lines as to what would have the greatest impact.
The split council has tentatively agreed to make a public statement against a pending state ballot question, Proposition 132, created by a right-wing advocacy group, that would boost and mandate punishment for anyone in the state convicted of possessing the potentially fatal and highly addictive street drug.
Liberal and progressive city lawmakers point to prevailing research consensus showing that criminalizing drug addicts doesn’t reduce public use and abuse rates and complicates the already Herculean attempt to end abusers’ addiction.
“Decades of research from the ‘60s, and especially starting in the ‘80s, when we saw an increase of incarceration for drug-related offenses and crimes,” show that get-tough court mandates don’t work, said Aurora Councilmember Gianina Horton, the prime sponsor of a measure saying the city condemns the fentanyl proposition.
Aurora city lawmakers moved the anti-Proposition 132 measure forward from a city council study session after debate and a split vote.
Prop 132 was spearheaded by Advance Colorado, a conservative advocacy group that has the, which continues a streak of elevating ballot initiatives aligned with conservative and what it describes as a “tough-on-crime” approach to legislation.
Republicans who have backed the proposition, like George Brauchler, district attorney for Douglas County and former DA for Arapahoe County, argue that a get-tough fentanyl sentencing approach will crack down on drug offenders and reduce the considerable Colorado usage of the drug.
While the number of Colorado residents who use fentanyl is unclear, fentanyl-related deaths have been climbing in the state, pushing past 1,800 in 2025, according to state health officials, marking a 13% increase over 2024.
At a press conference last year after the initiative made the ballot, Brauchler said, “… there’s going to be a ballot measure that does something we should have done years ago, and that is to have a low-to-no-tolerance policy when it comes to drug dealers who peddle fentanyl into our communities.”
Under current Colorado law, it’s a felony for someone to possess more than four grams of fentanyl or a compound containing fentanyl. If someone possesses less than four grams, but more than one gram of the same substance, they could be charged with a misdemeanor or a felony based on whether the individual knew they were in possession, and at court discretion.
Possession under a gram is a misdemeanor under current law.
If voters in November approve Prop 132, possessing any quantity of the substance could net convicts a felony and come with a mandatory prison sentence of between 8 years and 32 years. Within the measure, some low-level offenders could be allowed court-ordered treatment in lieu of jail time.
The Data Behind the Differing Approaches to Drug Addiction
Across the political spectrum in Colorado, elected leaders agree that fentanyl distribution constitutes a public health crisis. Local and state lawmakers disagree, however, about philosophies on how best to address other types of crime.
Studies from the National Institutes of Health find that “decriminalization and harm reduction policies are consistently associated with reductions in drug-related arrests… without evidence of increases in violent or property crime”, while “punitive and highly repressive approaches showed limited or counterproductive effects, including increased violence, recidivism, and persistent racial disparities in arrests.”
Much of the research on drug policy reports that mandatory minimums and other “punitive” approaches cause addicts to avoid seeking help. Once in jail and prison, people are often not treated for addictions. In some cases, prison or jail drug smuggling provides inmates with access to the same addictive drugs that got them time to begin with.
A 2025 analysis by the National Institute of Corrections, a U.S. agency, cited reports of not only increased use of fentanyl among inmates acquired in prison, but a marked increase in deaths because of the unpredictable nature of the contraband street drugs.
“A comprehensive review in Health & Justice reveals that fentanyl-related overdoses are occurring in correctional facilities and underscores the urgent need for improved detection, reporting, and preventive measures, including naloxone availability and expanded access to opioid use disorder treatments within these institutions,” NIC officials said in a statement.
A 2026 review of public health literature by the National Institute of Health found that “decriminalization and harm reduction policies are consistently associated with reductions in drug-related arrests, particularly among people who use drugs, without evidence of increases in violent or property crime in most analyzed contexts.”
State and local Republicans, however, and some Democrats, believe that harsher legal punishment for possession and distribution will curb the proliferation of the drug crisis. Many blame the state’s current Democratic majority for not cracking down harder on drug users.
“I believe there are times when the state needs clear consequences for serious offenses, and given the danger of fentanyl and what it has done to our communities, I believe this is one of those situations,” Councilmember Angela Lawson said during a council committee meeting in August.
In contrast, many Democrats argue that tough-on-crime policies in general are ineffective at reducing drug crime, and especially policies seeking to address addiction.
Horton told the Sentinel that the “decades” of policy during and beyond the 1980s so-called War on Drugs proved insufficient for addressing addiction as a public health crisis. Horton said she had a number of reasons why she believes the council should oppose Proposition 132.
“Targeting those with addiction for, not even having a milligram [of fentanyl] in their possession and saying that ‘automatically qualifies them for a minimum sentence of eight to 32 years is ridiculous,” Horton said.
She said she agrees with researchers insisting that treating the problem and not the symptom is most important.
“Being the council member of Ward I, where we are one of the more urban parts of the city, we typically see the struggle a number of folks have when it comes to a number of issues — challenges from our unhoused community, to slumlords, and all the way to substance abuse and addiction,” Horton said. The proposition fails to get to “the root of why individuals have substance abuse issues” in the first place and the proposition would “take Colorado decades back”.
The Colorado Criminal Justice Reform Coalition, one of the groups opposed to Prop 132, projected that the proposal would lead to a 41% increase in additional overdose deaths over the following five years if the initiative passes.
The Coalition estimated that enforcing the proposition would cost the state and taxpayers $433 million in the first five years. The measure’s sponsors did not provide a projected cost of the measure.
The Coalition partnered with public health scholars, like Dr. Josh Barocas, a professor of Medicine and Infectious Disease at the University of Colorado Anschutz, who leads a team of researchers that focuses on improving outcomes for patients suffering from substance abuse disorders. Barocas studied the outcomes of a 2022 state law that increased penalties for the use of fentanyl.
In an interview with Colorado Public Radio when Prop 132 was still in its signature-collecting phase, Barocas told interviewers, “This law [referring to the 2022 law] did not have an impact, in a positive way, on overdose deaths. Coloradans do not want to see increased penalties for substance use disorders, and that’s what [Proposition 132] is doing.”
Horton said Aurora also has a role in tackling the fentanyl and opioid crisis in Colorado.
“I believe every municipality needs to work with state partners to tackle drug addiction and distribution,” said Horton. “And in those approaches, prioritizing prevention and treatment options are avenues to intervene in the opioid crisis — ensuring that federal partners are able to target drug traffickers — and hold systems accountable that have contributed to the lives lost [due to drug addiction]and the suffering of communities and families.”
Horton worries that Proposition 132 could have the opposite of its intended effect, as it would likely lead to slashing other services from the social safety net.
“I believe that in an economy where people are having a difficult time finding housing, not feeling safe, and [feeling like] the federal government isn’t taking care of our working families, that, as a local government and local leadership, we have an obligation to take a stance on issues that are fiscally irresponsible and take away from social-based programming that can fundamentally while we’re experiencing an economic, social, and political crisis.”
We, the residents of Aurora, do not need our City Council spending time, a precious resource, debating sociol issues and then gracing us with their collective wisdom so that we may then vote on an issue with their wisdom and instruction in our minds. We have minds of our own. What we need is for them to spend their efforts on City issues, like say a massive budget shortfall.
You can put lipstick on a pig, like this article does, and it’s still a pig. I challenge the readers to talk to one of the parents of the 10’s of thousands of teenagers who have tragically died from fentanyl overdoses on what they think of the proposition. The prison sentence is a strong deterrent and gets fentanyl users off of our streets dramatically reducing the demand for the illegal drug. To me, this proposition will save lives not take them. Think about the opposition to this proposition, they were the same ones years back that tried unsuccessfully to decriminalize fentanyl. I encourage you to vote for this proposition to save the lives of our precious and innocent children.
How did that strong deterrent work out though Jim? It hasn’t.
We all know someone who has struggled with addiction. If tough on crime policies worked, we wouldn’t still be dealing with this issue. But decades of failed policies like this proposition have led people to not seek help.
And no. The opposition to this proposition didn’t want to “decriminalize fentanyl”, they wanted to look into policies that are shown by public health experts to ACTUALLY address the issues of drug addiction i.e. harm reduction.
I encourage anyone who thinks like this to just not vote. If you want to keep using the same failed restrictive drug policies that have led to the criminalization of addiction, go for it. But when that those parents’ teenagers go to jail for 8-years on the charge of minor possession where they will most likely get access to that same fent, don’t expect them to be singing your praises.
It’s too bad facts don’t care about your feelings in this case :/