Connect with us

Colorado

Opinion: Colorado must invest in evidence-based policies to prevent harm from substances, not costly criminalization

Published

on

Opinion: Colorado must invest in evidence-based policies to prevent harm from substances, not costly criminalization


Across the nation, the opioid epidemic has wreaked havoc on the health and lives of far too many, and Colorado is no exception. According to Mental Health America, Colorado ranks fourth and seventh in the country for adults and youth with substance use disorders, respectively. That means thousands of our friends, neighbors and loved ones are living with addiction and can’t get the help they need. Overdose deaths in Colorado have risen sharply since 2019, largely due to the proliferation of fentanyl, with 1,603 deaths in 2024 alone, according to the state. 

It’s a public health crisis, and one we’re now at risk of making even worse. Last month, supporters turned in signatures to send Initiative #85 to the 2026 ballot, a measure that would increase criminal penalties for fentanyl crimes. We feel this threatens to drag us backward toward the failed policies and practices of the past rather than working toward a healthier future.

At the same time, state and federal funding for treatment and prevention is drying up. The recently passed federal spending bill HR1 will mean devastating changes to Medicaid, gutting the single most important source of funding for substance use treatment in the country. For the past several years, as more states have expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, Medicaid has emerged as the leading source of coverage for addiction treatment in the nation. 

A recent Brookings study found that nearly 90% of treatment for opioid addiction is paid for, at least in part, by Medicaid. These cuts will leave our already strained systems unable to meet the growing demand, particularly for low-income and disabled individuals who will have fewer treatment options and more barriers to care. 

Advertisement

Meanwhile, Colorado faced a $1.2 billion budget shortfall this year, and even more deficits are on the horizon for 2026. The state is stuck in a cycle of annual budget shortfalls of roughly $1 billion, making it increasingly difficult to cover existing programs and skyrocketing Medicaid costs. That means fewer resources to fill in federal funding gaps, a fraying behavioral health safety net, and an increasingly stressed population that is highly vulnerable to substance use and harm. 

Given this grim picture, it’s never been more critical to prioritize smart, effective policy to combat the overdose crisis. We should be focusing our scarce funding on evidence-based substance use prevention, treatment and recovery support, not costly, ineffective drug war criminalization policies that are historically discriminatory in their implementation and proven to fail. 

Mitigating and reversing the drug addiction crisis in Colorado and across the nation is complex and has to involve multiple strategies working in tandem to decrease supply and demand. While increasing criminal penalties related to drug addiction among individuals may seem like a tough-on-crime approach, it has not and will not resolve the drug addiction crisis nor dissolve the supply or the demand for illicit drugs.

Decades of data show that criminalizing substance users doesn’t reduce addiction or overdose. Recently, researchers at the University of Colorado Anschutz found the following: “Intensified drug enforcement laws have little deterrent effect on substance use and may worsen health outcomes. Fear of being arrested fosters riskier substance use behaviors and increased overdose risk. Incarceration and the subsequent stigma experienced by people with substance use disorder work in tandem to create barriers for treatment access and worsen mental health, creating a structurally reinforced cycle of isolation.” 

The research is clear. Harsh penalties haven’t protected our communities from the dangers of fentanyl. They have only compounded harm and pushed people deeper into the shadows, making it harder to seek help, and saddling individuals with felony records that create lifelong barriers to employment, housing, and recovery. 

Advertisement

Policies like the proposed 2026 ballot measure to increase felony charges for drug possession are not just misguided — they cost taxpayer dollars. They further overburden law enforcement agencies, flood jails, courtrooms and prisons that are already beyond their capacity, and ultimately do nothing to address the core of the opioid epidemic.

Instead of doubling down on punishing people who use substances, we need to expand what works: prevention programs in schools and communities, access to harm reduction tools like naloxone, and a robust continuum of care that includes outpatient and residential treatment. We need more support for peer recovery professionals, more public education and more investment in what keeps people healthy, which includes housing, food security and opportunities for connection. We need to act together, with assertive intelligence, to disrupt the black market drug trafficking that is the enemy of the people.

The opioid crisis is a public health crisis and demands a public health response. Colorado has the knowledge, data and tools to build a more effective and compassionate system. But we cannot do it if we are bleeding out resources to punitive policies that fail the people they claim to help.

Let’s not go backward. Let’s invest in health and safety and give Coloradans a real chance at recovery.

Vincent Atchity, of Denver, is the president and CEO of Mental Health Colorado.

Advertisement

José Esquibel, of Jefferson County, is the former vice chair of the Colorado Substance Abuse Trend and Response Task Force.


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.



Source link

Colorado

US Fish and Wildlife backed Colorado plan to get wolves from Canada before new threats to take over program, documents show

Published

on

US Fish and Wildlife backed Colorado plan to get wolves from Canada before new threats to take over program, documents show


The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service backed Colorado’s plan to obtain wolves from Canada nearly two years before the federal agency lambasted the move as a violation of its rules, newly obtained documents show.  

In a letter dated Feb. 14, 2024, the federal agency told Colorado state wildlife officials they were in the clear to proceed with a plan to source wolves from British Columbia without further permission.

“Because Canadian gray wolves aren’t listed under the Endangered Species Act,” no ESA authorization or federal authorization was needed for the state to capture or import them in the Canadian province, according to the letter sent to Eric Odell, CPW’s wolf conservation program manager. 

The letter, obtained by The Colorado Sun from state Parks and Wildlife through an open records request, appears to be part of the permissions the state received before sourcing 15 wolves. The agency also received sign-offs from the British Columbia Ministry of Land, Water and Resource Stewardship and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna.  

Advertisement

In mid-December, however, the Fish and Wildlife Service pivoted sharply from that position, criticizing the plan and threatening to take control over Colorado’s reintroduction. 

In a letter dated Dec. 18, Fish and Wildlife Service Director Brian Nesvik put CPW on alert when he told acting CPW Director Laura Clellan that the agency violated requirements in a federal rule that dictates how CPW manages its reintroduction. 

Colorado voters in 2020 directed CPW to reestablish gray wolves west of the Continental Divide, a process that has included bringing wolves from Oregon in 2023 and British Columbia in 2025.

A gray wolf is carried from a helicopter to the site where it will be checked by CPW staff in January 2025. (Colorado Parks and Wildlife photo)

The federal rule Nesvik claims CPW violated is the 10(j). It gives Colorado management flexibility over wolves by classifying them as a nonessential experimental population within the state of Colorado. Nesvik said CPW violated the 10(j) by capturing wolves from Canada instead of the northern Rocky Mountain states of Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Washington, eastern Oregon and north-central Utah “with no warning or notice to its own citizens.” 

CPW publicly announced sourcing from British Columbia on Sept. 13, 2024, however, and held a meeting with county commissioners in Rio Blanco, Garfield, Pitkin and Eagle counties ahead of the planned releases last January. The agency also issued press releases when the operations began and at the conclusion of operations, and they held a press conference less than 48 hours later.

Advertisement

Nesvik’s December letter doubled down on one he sent CPW on Oct. 10, after Greg Lopez, a former Colorado congressman and 2026 gubernatorial candidate, contacted him claiming the agency violated the Endangered Species Act when it imported wolves from Canada, because they lacked permits proving the federal government authorized the imports. 

That letter told CPW to “cease and desist” going back to British Columbia for a second round of wolves, after the agency had obtained the necessary permits to complete the operation. Nesvik’s reasoning was that CPW had no authority to capture wolves from British Columbia because they aren’t part of the northern Rocky Mountain region population.  

But as regulations within the 10(j) show, the northern Rocky Mountain population of wolves “is part of a larger metapopulation of wolves that encompasses all of Western Canada.” 

And “given the demonstrated resilience and recovery trajectory of the NRM population and limited number of animals that will be captured for translocations,” the agencies that developed the rule – Fish and Wildlife with Colorado Parks and Wildlife – expected “negative impacts to the donor population to be negligible.” 

So despite what Nesvik and Lopez claim, “neither identified any specific provision of any law – federal, state or otherwise – that CPW or anyone else supposedly violated by capturing and releasing wolves from British Columbia,” said Tom Delehanty, senior attorney for Earthjustice. “They’ve pointed only to the 10(j) rule, which is purely about post-release wolf management, and  applies only in Colorado.” 

Advertisement

More experts weigh in 

In addition to the 2024 letter from the Fish and Wildlife Service, documents obtained by The Sun include copies of permits given to CPW by the Ministry of British Columbia to export 15 wolves to the United States between Jan. 12 and Jan. 16, 2025. 

These permits track everything from live animals and pets to products made from protected wildlife including ivory. 

The permit system is the backbone of the regulation of trade in specimens of species included in the three Appendices of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, also called CITES. A CITES permit is the confirmation by an issuing authority that the conditions for authorizing the trade are fulfilled, meaning the trade is legal, sustainable and traceable in accordance with articles contained within the Convention. 

An image that looks to be from a security camera shows a wolf looking straight at the camera
Gray wolf sits in a temporary pen awaiting transport to Colorado during capture operations in British Columbia in January 2025. (Colorado Parks and Wildlife)

Gary Mowad, a former U.S. Fish and Wildlife agent and expert on Endangered Species Act policies, said “obtaining a CITES certificate is unrelated to the 10j rule” and that in his estimation, CPW did violate both the terms of the 10(j) and the memorandum of agreement with the Fish and Wildlife Service, because “the 10(j) specifically limited the populations from where wolves could be obtained, and Canada was not authorized.” 

Mike Phillips, a Montana legislator who was instrumental in Yellowstone’s wolf reintroduction that began in 1995, thinks “the posturing about a takeover seems like just casually considered bravado from Interior officials.” 

And Delahanty says “Nesvik and Lopez are making up legal requirements that don’t exist for political leverage in an effort that serves no one. It’s unclear what FWS hopes to accomplish with its threatening letter,” but if they rescind the memorandum of agreement, “it would cast numerous elements of Colorado’s wolf management program into uncertainty.” 

Advertisement

Looking forward 

If Fish and Wildlife does as Nesvik’s letter threatens and revokes all of CPW’s authority over grey wolves in its jurisdiction, “the service would assume all gray wolf management activities, including relocation and lethal removal, as determined necessary,” it says. 

But Phillips says “if Fish and Wildlife succeeds in the agency’s longstanding goal of delisting gray wolves nationwide,” a proposition that is currently moving through Congress, with U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert’s Pet and Livestock Protection Act bill, the agency couldn’t take over Colorado’s wolf program. That’s because “wolf conservation falls back to Colorado with (its voter-approved) restoration mandate.” And “the species is listed as endangered/nongame under state law,” he adds. 

If the feds did take over, Phillips said in an email “USFWS does not have staff for any meaningful boots-on-the-ground work.” Under Fish and Wildlife Service control, future translocations would probably be “a firm nonstarter,” he added, “but that seems to be the case now.” 

A big threat should Fish and Wildlife take over is that lethal removal of wolves “in the presence of real or imagined conflicts might be more quickly applied,” Phillips said. 

A gray wolf with black markings crosses a snowy area into a patch of shrubs.
A gray wolf dashes into leafless shrubs. It is one of 20 wolves released in January 2025, 15 of which were translocated from British Columbia (Colorado Parks and Wildlife photo)

But it would all be tied up in legal constraints, given that gray wolves are still considered an endangered species in Colorado, and requirements of the 10(j) and state law say CPW must advance their recovery. 

So for now, it’s wait and see if CPW can answer Fish and Wildlife’s demand that accompanies Nesvik’s latest letter. 

Advertisement

Nesvik told the agency they must report “all gray wolf conservation and management activities that occurred from Dec. 12, 2023, until present,” as well as provide a narrative summary and all associated documents describing both the January 2025 British Columbia release and other releases by Jan. 18., or 30 days after the date on his letter. If they don’t, he said, Fish and Wildlife “will pursue all legal remedies,” including “the immediate revocation of all CPW authority over gray wolves in its jurisdiction.” 

Shelby Wieman, a spokesperson for Gov. Jared Polis’ office, said Colorado disagrees with the premise of Nesvik’s letter and remains “fully committed to fulfilling the will of Colorado voters and successfully reintroducing the gray wolf population in Colorado.” 

And CPW maintains it “has coordinated with USFWS throughout the gray wolf reintroduction effort and has complied with all applicable federal and state laws. This includes translocations in January of 2025 which were planned and performed in consultation with USFWS.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Colorado

Avalanche To Play Mammoth in 2027 Discover Winter Classic in Salt Lake City | Colorado Avalanche

Published

on

Avalanche To Play Mammoth in 2027 Discover Winter Classic in Salt Lake City | Colorado Avalanche


NEW YORK – The National Hockey League announced today that the Colorado Avalanche will be the visiting team in the 2027 Discover Winter Classic and play the Utah Mammoth at the University of Utah’s Rice-Eccles Stadium in Salt Lake City. Additional details for the game, including ticketing information, date and start time, will be announced at a later date.

The 2027 Winter Classic marks the first time the Avalanche will play in the event and will be the fourth ever outdoor game the franchise plays in and the first one they’ll compete as the visiting team. Colorado hosted the Detroit Red Wings at Coors Field in the Stadium Series on Feb. 27, 2016, the Los Angeles Kings for the 2020 Stadium Series at Air Force Academy’s Falcon Stadium on Feb. 15, and the Vegas Golden Knights at Edgewood Tahoe Resort for the NHL Outdoors at Lake Tahoe event on Feb. 20, 2021.

“We’re excited and honored that the League selected us for the Winter Classic,” said Avalanche President of Hockey Operations Joe Sakic. “The Avalanche organization is always proud to be in consideration for marquee events like this. We’re looking forward to being matched up with a great team and represent the Rocky Mountain region in a game that appeals to these two markets in this part of the country.”

The Avalanche are 1-2-0 all-time in outdoor games but captured the most recent one at Lake Tahoe by a 3-2 score.

Advertisement

Colorado has faced the Mammoth six times since their inception ahead of the 2024-25 campaign, and the Avalanche have posted a 4-1-1 record. The club also owns a 2-0-1 record against Utah this season, which includes beating them in the home opener when Nathan MacKinnon became the first player in NHL history to record a game-winning goal against 32 franchises.



Source link

Continue Reading

Colorado

Colorado Parks and Wildlife building ‘bison roster’ for new potential hunting

Published

on

Colorado Parks and Wildlife building ‘bison roster’ for new potential hunting


Colorado Parks and Wildlife is building a list of prospective bison hunters ー a first for the agency as the iconic animal comes under new state management.  Starting this year after the passage of Senate Bill 25-053, bison will be managed as big game wildlife in addition to their historic classification as livestock in the […]



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending