Is a conviction for possessing a small amount of methamphetamine sufficient to warrant a longer sentence?

Appellant urges this court to compare the alleged insignificance of his drug possession conviction with the magnitude of his sentence. Appellant's argument fails to recognize that the triggering offense is not viewed in isolation. Contrary to appellant's approach, his strike convictions were not irrelevant, and his sentence cannot be viewed just as punishment for possessing a small amount of methamphetamine; it was punishment for committing a felony and doing so as a recividist offender. In other words, he "was punished not just for his current offense but for his recidivism. Recidivism justifies the imposition of longer sentences for subsequent offenses. [Citation.]" (People v. Cooper (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 815, 825.)