This story is free to read because readers choose to support LAist. If you find value in independent local reporting, make a donation to power our newsroom today.
California New Laws For 2024: Longer Prison Sentences For Fentanyl Trafficking
Lea este artículo en español.
People convicted of distributing fentanyl will face stiffer criminal penalties in 2024 under a new law shaped by rising overdose deaths.
The law increases the penalty for selling or distributing more than one kilogram of fentanyl by an automatic addition of three years to the original sentence.
The penalties continue to increase with weight, topping out at an additional 25 years for trafficking in weights exceeding 80 kilograms. Addiction experts warn the law could have deadly consequences if the “threat of police involvement and harsh prison sentences” makes someone reluctant to help an overdose victim by calling emergency responders.
The bill passed the Senate unanimously in September. Gov. Gavin Newsom signed it in October, along with several treatment-focused fentanyl bills.
Fentanyl is a synthetic opioid that can be fatal in small doses when taken on its own. Heroin and cocaine dealers have also sometimes laced products with fentanyl – which is cheaper than either drug – leading to accidental overdoses by people who unwittingly ingest it. Now, fentanyl is the most common drug causing fatal overdoses in California.
Tehama County District Attorney Matt Rogers told Redding television station KRCR-TV that the bill “will give us a better deterrent factor for those who are thinking about trafficking and fentanyl.”
“My hope is that it would deter people from selling fentanyl, that it would keep it out of our community – out of every community, but especially ours,” Rogers said. “It would keep it off the highways and off the streets, and we would see a reduction in fentanyl cases, as well as fentanyl overdose deaths.”
The bill, authored by Assemblymember Carlos Villapudua, a Stockton Democrat, moved through the Legislature even though other efforts to increase criminal penalties for fentanyl failed.
“If there are not consequences, there will be repeat supply available,” Assemblymember Jim Patterson, a Fresno Republican and author of one of the rejected bills, said after an April hearing on fentanyl bills in the Legislature.
Law enforcement groups, including the California Association of Highway Patrolmen, generally supported the new law. They said increased penalties will deter traffickers.
Those who opposed the bill, including the California Public Defenders Association, said increasing penalties does little to deter people from using or selling drugs, including fentanyl.
“Relying on ever increasing penalties for drug offenses has been extensively researched, and we can therefore make some educated predictions about the outcome of bills like AB 701,” the public defenders association wrote in opposition to the bill.
“It would not reduce the distribution of fentanyl nor would it prevent overdoses; it would reduce neither the supply of drugs or the demand for them; and worse, it could actually discourage effective methods of dealing with the opioid crisis.”
The public defenders association went on to say that the distinction between users and low-level dealers is too blurred to make a difference – they argue that most small dealers are also users, and sell drugs to support their addiction.
-
After taking a buyout from a major company, an L.A.-born producer is struggling to make ends meet.
-
It’s not “May Gray” or “June Gloom,” but an extended period of high pressure is causing similar conditions.
-
The story of Ted Ngoy and the community of Cambodian refugees behind every donut.
-
A judge ordered the school, along with other tenants on the West L.A. Veterans’ Affairs campus, to increase its commitments to supporting veterans or face eviction.
-
At a recent Dodgers game, Michael Faretta of Santa Clarita caught three balls and gave them all away to kids — including my kids.
-
One LAist reader responded to the latest story in our ongoing Andrew Do investigation by asking, "Which is more disgusting: the [alleged] fraud or the fact that a starter home is costing 1 million these days?"