As the 2026 legislative session approaches, fentanyl remains one of the most serious public safety and health problems facing Arizona.

Fentanyl has been the number one drug threat in Arizona for over five years. In each of the last three years, Arizona law enforcement agencies seized half of all fentanyl pills seized in the United States. 

Unfortunately, Arizona’s drug laws have not kept pace with this threat.

Currently, sentences for trafficking fentanyl – Arizona’s greatest drug threat – are more lenient than sentences for trafficking methamphetamine – Arizona’s second greatest drug threat. For a first offense, if a defendant sells methamphetamine, he must be sentenced to five to 15 years in prison, with a presumptive sentence of 10 years, and must serve 100% of his sentence. If a defendant sells fentanyl, he must be sentenced to three to 12.5 years in prison, with a presumptive sentence of five years, and may be released after serving 85% of his sentence. So, for first-time offenders, the presumptive sentence for selling fentanyl is less than half the sentence for selling methamphetamine. This means, for example, that a drug dealer possessing one ounce of methamphetamine faces a higher sentencing range than a dealer possessing one pound of fentanyl. This asymmetry makes no sense in a world where fentanyl consistently ranks as the top drug threat facing our state.

And it isn’t just sentencing. It is also easier for a fentanyl dealer to get released on bond than a methamphetamine dealer.

In the last three years, lawmakers have taken incremental steps to increase penalties for fentanyl trafficking, but the public policy response to the fentanyl crisis remains inconsistent and incomplete. In 2023, the Legislature passed a bill to increase sentences for selling or possessing for sale two or more milligrams of fentanyl, but Gov. Hobbs vetoed it, claiming it would criminalize substance use disorder. In 2024 and 2025, lawmakers passed, and the governor signed, bills increasing sentences for selling at least 200 grams of fentanyl (the equivalent of approximately 2,000 fentanyl pills) and for possessing for sale at least 200 grams of fentanyl in a motor vehicle.

For those of us who prosecute drug traffickers every day, these bills were steps in the right direction. However, the law still leaves major gaps.

Specifically, enhanced sentencing does not apply to drug dealers who possess fentanyl on their person or drug traffickers who store large quantities of fentanyl in houses or apartments. Many of the largest drug seizures in Arizona result from search warrants on stash houses where bulk quantities of fentanyl are stored. Currently, enhanced sentencing does not apply to these seizures. Without additional fixes, the current law also creates potential sentencing disparity. Under current law, a drug courier transporting 2,000 fentanyl pills in a car faces a higher sentencing range than a stash house operator storing 200,000 fentanyl pills in a house. Fentanyl stored in a house or carried in a backpack is just as dangerous as fentanyl transported in a car. Arizona law should treat fentanyl traffickers the same, regardless of where the fentanyl is found.

In the most recent year for which statistics are available (April 2024 to April 2025), more than 73,000 Americans died from drug overdoses, 60% of which were caused by fentanyl, and Arizona experienced the highest increase in overdose deaths in the country. Arizona must do more to address this crisis.

Expanding enhanced sentencing to all fentanyl sales offenses would give prosecutors the tools to seek longer sentences for traffickers of this highly addictive and potentially deadly drug. Lawmakers should finish what they started and bring the sentencing ranges for fentanyl trafficking fully into line with the ranges that apply to methamphetamine sales offenses.

Arizonans deserve a comprehensive and lasting criminal justice approach to the supply side of the deadly fentanyl epidemic.

David Hanselman is the deputy county attorney at the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office. The views expressed herein are the author’s and not MCAO’s.