The Fentanyl Crisis is finally solved....

[Gadianton]

So, let me thumb through my Trump talking points. Oh, here it is! Trump plans to get rid of fentanyl by ---- wait for it ---- imposing tariffs!

If it were a normal president implementing the policy, it's a cost-benefit analysis for Mexico: how much will it cost to conquer the cartel vs. how much are the tariffs going to cost -- with the silver lining US also gets hurt.

It's dubious that Mexico has the incentive to go all in against the cartel for any US president, but, with Trump, the plan fails out of the gate. And that's because Trump has complained recently and for years about terms of trade, "we're getting screwed and it's enough!" Originally, his tariff contemplations were over bad terms of trade with the rest of the world. Now it's "cuz fentanyl."

Why should Mexico think that even if they could wipe out the cartel at the border that Trump would be satisfied and remove the tariff? Bad terms of trade are suddenly okay? The US is fine now with not living a glorious new age of mercantilism?

This is much like dad comes home from work in a huff and tells you there's going to be more room cleaning and lawn mowing and all kinds of work because you're not pulling your weight. Then he sees your report card and it's more work as punishment for the grades. Then it's because the neighbor kid is outside working every weekend; but then he just seems mad all the time and unpredictable anyway. So why try at all?

It's a huge problem negotiating with somebody who has big expectations but little consistency in what they want and why.

[Markk]

Could I be any more clear that there is a phase A and a phase B of my plan? Phase B comes after phase A. My FEMA camps only come after phase A is successful. If phase A isn't successful, the FEMA camps never come -- we don't move on to phase B if there are drugs available that our users can relapse into. If phase A fails, then phase B never happens.

Yes you have said this several times. And you also said that phase A is supplying hundreds of thousands of American addicts with superior fentanyl or higher grade opioids and keeping them addicted and dedicated only to your product. And that new folks trying it, could no longer get it off the street but from a pharmacy. You state it could be free, cheaper or even more expensive.

And that during this time you would be recruiting cartel members to quit selling for the cartels, and have them to go to parties and sell your higher quality product. And because of your ex-cartel members marketing your better product, all the addicts will then start hanging around in crowds to get your product.

You also turn a blind eye here to teens getting your product, so you won't blow the cover of your dealers and employees. And if a person did want cartel product he would get arrested because they would by this time not know where to get it. Etc. Etc....

in my opinion this is a false premise in that it is just 1000% nonsense. Starting phase B, and your tiers of camps would never happen, in that phase A is again just nonsense. And phase B is equally nonsense in that when these folks are forced to quit, and later released, you believe that they could not find opioids anymore, and that somehow the cartels stopped making and selling fentanyl, despite the US is not their only customer.

[Gadianton]

And that new folks trying it, could no longer get it off the street but from a pharmacy.

I did not say that, I have NEVER said that, I'm saying the opposite. Nobody who isn't already an addict or a user as identified by our undercover supply force has any access at all, once we transition out from phase A. Not from the pharmacy, not from anywhere. New users are entirely blocked at this point.

If there is a pharmacy, and read this very carefully, it does NOT have the same role that the pharmacy has today in fentanyl distribution nor does it have the same role it would have in a world as found in Chap's article. It would only service tier A users who are high enough functioning for house "detainment" if you will, and only as a distribution point to get what has been authorized by their counselor as assigned by our program. Not for walk-ins who are interested in experimenting and not for patients in pain with a prescription from Doc Candyman.

I don't even understand why this is misunderstood. What could possibly be my motivation in such a program to allow "new users" to waltz into a pharmacy and experiment?

there is a theory underpinning my plan vs. plans that allow for people to make their own choices. And that is that fentanyl is special; unlike beer and pot, it's not possible for it to exist in a happy equilibrium with society because it's too addicting. It breaks the threshold of possible free choice for too many people. Thus in my world, it will ultimately be perma-banned.

[Markk]

I did not say that, I have NEVER said that, I'm saying the opposite. Nobody who isn't already an addict or a user as identified by our undercover supply force has any access at all, once we transition out from phase A. Not from the pharmacy, not from anywhere. New users are entirely blocked at this point.

2. Markk wrote :The plan you have already creates a new class of addicts, including teens, in your tiered plan.

Gad replied: "not at all. definitely not a new CLASS of addicts. It's taking over the current market plus whatever the newcomers the current market would have brought in had they operated without my intervention.

A new CLASS of addicts would be created by legalizing fentanyl and selling it through pharmacies. People without connections to the underground who otherwise never would have experimented will be tempted to try it in that scenario."

Adding to the false premise....here you project no one would experiment with drugs except those that "would have" and that some how your flooding the streets with your new super drug would not tempt new people.....this is a sort of prophetic slant to your plan?

Also this again assumes you have wiped out all cartel product, and you have some sort of secret exclusive underground fentanyl club of over half a million chronically addicted addicts secretly using your super product.

Gad:there is a theory underpinning my plan vs. plans that allow for people to make their own choices. And that is that fentanyl is special; unlike beer and pot, it's not possible for it to exist in a happy equilibrium with society because it's too addicting. It breaks the threshold of possible free choice for too many people. Thus in my world, it will ultimately be perma-banned.

So if banned, what will keep the cartel from doing what they are doing now? Seems to me that we have gone full circle here also. How would you stop the fentanyl production feeding the rest of the worlds addicts, and by default opening a door for the cartels or anyone else to sell product to all these folks being released from you forced rehab camps?

Are you going to have a open border or will you close it? And after you corner the market of illegal drugs in the US, what are you going to do with all these cartel members you recruited to sell your product? Are you going to deport them?

Are you going to re-release all these "recovered" addicts back into the streets?

[Gadianton]

...here you project no one would experiment with drugs except those that "would have" and that some how your flooding the streets with your new super drug would not tempt new people.....this is a sort of prophetic slant to your plan?

It would only lure people with connections to the criminal underground who are already likely to try it. How on earth would the existence of a new purer strain of fentanyl only available through drug dealers reach beyond that? It's possible that somewhere, there is a real stoic who hangs out with user friends and goes to user parties who has never personally tried the drug because it seems too dangerous, comes to see that friends are ODing less and terrifically satisfied with the new product, and now this person decides to give it a whirl. So be it. At that point, I weigh the cost against alternative solutions, or the solution of doing nothing.

Also this again assumes you have wiped out all cartel product, and you have some sort of secret exclusive underground fentanyl club of over half a million chronically addicted addicts secretly using your super product.

well yes, this is essentially phase A. This is the goal. If it's not achieved, there is no phase B.

[Markk]

...here you project no one would experiment with drugs except those that "would have" and that some how your flooding the streets with your new super drug would not tempt new people.....this is a sort of prophetic slant to your plan?

It would only lure people with connections to the criminal underground who are already likely to try it. How on earth would the existence of a new purer strain of fentanyl only available through drug dealers reach beyond that? It's possible that somewhere, there is a real stoic who hangs out with user friends and goes to user parties who has never personally tried the drug because it seems too dangerous, comes to see that friends are ODing less and terrifically satisfied with the new product, and now this person decides to give it a whirl. So be it. At that point, I weigh the cost against alternative solutions, or the solution of doing nothing.

Also this again assumes you have wiped out all cartel product, and you have some sort of secret exclusive underground fentanyl club of over half a million chronically addicted addicts secretly using your super product.

well yes, this is essentially phase A. This is the goal. If it's not achieved, there is no phase B.

So you would sell in pharmacies?

You did not respond to many of my questions.

Well you already conceded that folks can buy or get your product per need….some need more than others. What is going to keep those folks from re-selling the product, and again from it being re-engineered, or even counterfeited with the current cartel product, which is equally additive and deadly. That is how.

There would never be a phase B, impossible. Thus, phase A is a false premise.


What would you do with all these cartel pushers you recruited to sell your product after phase A was completed?

[Gadianton]

So you would sell in pharmacies?

Dude, how many times do I have to explain this? NO. Making the dose available in a pharmacy to Tier A addicts under house detainment (for free) at the sole discretion of the user's counselor. that is not "selling fentanyl in a pharmacy."

There would never be a phase B, impossible. Thus, phase A is a false premise.

"false premise" isn't actually a logical fallacy. Logical fallacies are concerned with the structure of the argument, not the truth or falsity of the premises. If you ever read a book on logic, which I highly, highly recommend you do, you'll find that examples often contain false premises in order to avoid confusion that logical validity has anything to do with factuality.

As it were, phase A of my plan isn't a "false premise" because it's not a premise at all -- it's not the premise of any argument I'm making.

But you, Markk, are begging the question:

Phase A must happen before phase B begins.
Phase A will fail, therefore, there will never be a phase B.
Thus, because there will never be a phase B, phase A will fail.

Your assertation that phase B won't happen is exactly because you believe phase A will fail, therefore because phase B won't happen, you conclude, thusly, that phase A will fail ('is a false premise").

In order to avoid circularity, in your bolded statements, you need to provide a reason independent of anything about phase A's inadequacy in your assertion that there would never be a phase B. If you can do that, you'll avoid circularity, but then you run headlong into another fallacy called affirming the consequent. "if phase A fails then phase B will never happen" does not imply that if phase B never happens that phase A fails.

[Markk]

Markk: So you would sell in pharmacies?

Gad: Dude, how many times do I have to explain this? NO. Making the dose available in a pharmacy to Tier A addicts under house detainment (for free) at the sole discretion of the user's counselor. that is not "selling fentanyl in a pharmacy."

Well until you get your story straight.


You wrote:

Well then you didn't read very carefully. Group A is not recreational users. And they are also going to quit. They are higher functioning users. Typically, people who have housing and can basically take care of themselves. Perfect example would be Rush Limbaugh. Under my regime, he would still be expected to quit, but he could get his product from either a pharmacy or a designated counselor; I haven't decided which yet. For the sake of making it easier for you to understand to point, I'm happy to not use a pharmacy, and have Rush only be able to get it from his designated counselor.

Are they detained, or are they functional?

A counselor, or a pharmacy?

"false premise" isn't actually a logical fallacy. Logical fallacies are concerned with the structure of the argument, not the truth or falsity of the premises. If you ever read a book on logic, which I highly, highly recommend you do, you'll find that examples often contain false premises in order to avoid confusion that logical validity has anything to do with factuality.

As it were, phase A of my plan isn't a "false premise" because it's not a premise at all -- it's not the premise of any argument I'm making.

But you, Markk, are begging the question:

Phase A must happen before phase B begins.
Phase A will fail, therefore, there will never be a phase B.
Thus, because there will never be a phase B, phase A will fail.

Your assertation that phase B won't happen is exactly because you believe phase A will fail, therefore because phase B won't happen, you conclude, thusly, that phase A will fail ('is a false premise").

In order to avoid circularity, in your bolded statements, you need to provide a reason independent of anything about phase A's inadequacy in your assertion that there would never be a phase B. If you can do that, you'll avoid circularity, but then you run headlong into another fallacy called affirming the consequent. "if phase A fails then phase B will never happen" does not imply that if phase B never happens that phase A fails.

No I don't, you have to start answering my other questions for one. One being, what will keep the cartels, or anyone else from offering their product? The cartels well still be making fentanyl for Canada, Mexico, and central and south American addicts....what is keeping them from coming here once you allegedly corner the market?

What are you going to do about all those cartel members you recruited to sell and/or distribute your product? What will you do to keep them from selling cartel product again?

These are two of many questions you are not addressing, that would not allow phase 2 to begin.

[Gadianton]

Are they detained, or are they functional?

A counselor, or a pharmacy?

I'll answer these but they shouldn't need answering.

"High-functioning" is a mental health concept. It has nothing to do with law enforcement ideas like arrests and detainment so "either / or" makes no sense. Someone who is "high-functioning" autistic is an autistic person who can live more or less independently. Maybe hold a job or drive a car. Same for a high-functioning fentanyl addict. They have homes, jobs or income and can manage their lives around the addiction. We're not going to strip these people from their otherwise manageable lives and put them in camps, but they still must stop the drug use. And so they are detained, confined to home and work (the restrictions vary by case), but not formally arrested or charged with anything so long as they stick with the program.

"counselor or pharmacy" also doesn't make sense because it's not "either / or". The counselor is the person who visits with the addict and gets feedback on how their case is progressing. A pharmacy is a distribution point for medication. The counselor must approve the prescription along with any doctors who are retained by our program. Where does the user fulfill the prescription? The pharmacy makes the most sense logistically because pharmacies will be in any neighborhood that users live and therefore makes the transaction convenient. I did mention that we would entertain bypassing the pharmacy as a distribution point. The counselor could physically obtain the dosage from our program's distribution points* but it will be far less convenient for everyone as we obviously wont have anywhere near the presence that pharmacies do.

*don't be confused here -- when I say our program's distribution points, these are not physical facilities that are open to the public.

[Markk]

Are they detained, or are they functional?

A counselor, or a pharmacy?

I'll answer these but they shouldn't need answering.

"High-functioning" is a mental health concept. It has nothing to do with law enforcement ideas like arrests and detainment so "either / or" makes no sense. Someone who is "high-functioning" autistic is an autistic person who can live more or less independently. Maybe hold a job or drive a car. Same for a high-functioning fentanyl addict. They have homes, jobs or income and can manage their lives around the addiction. We're not going to strip these people from their otherwise manageable lives and put them in camps, but they still must stop the drug use. And so they are detained, confined to home and work (the restrictions vary by case), but not formally arrested or charged with anything so long as they stick with the program.

"counselor or pharmacy" also doesn't make sense because it's not "either / or". The counselor is the person who visits with the addict and gets feedback on how their case is progressing. A pharmacy is a distribution point for medication. The counselor must approve the prescription along with any doctors who are retained by our program. Where does the user fulfill the prescription? The pharmacy makes the most sense logistically because pharmacies will be in any neighborhood that users live and therefore makes the transaction convenient. I did mention that we would entertain bypassing the pharmacy as a distribution point. The counselor could physically obtain the dosage from our program's distribution points* but it will be far less convenient for everyone as we obviously wont have anywhere near the presence that pharmacies do.

*don't be confused here -- when I say our program's distribution points, these are not physical facilities that are open to the public.

How are you going to find functioning fentanyl addicts? And, how are you going to manage these functioning drug addicts and make them quit, when the don't want to quit? Also, you are going to arrest and formally charge all non-functioning addicts, and detain them? Similar what we did in the 60's and 70's. Will you offer a methadone type of detox? Will the charges be a felony?


You said it was "either or," in regard to pharmacy or counselor. You wrote...."Under my regime, he would still be expected to quit, but he could get his product from either a pharmacy or a designated counselor; I haven't decided which yet."

But I guess you decided on a counselor and a pharmacy.

Aside from that, why are you ducking my questions; they are important to my point about your phase A being a false premise?

Third or fourth request?

What are you going to do about all those cartel members you recruited to sell and/or distribute your product? What will you do to keep them from selling cartel product again?