The Fentanyl Crisis thread

[Markk]

.
Markk, I searched the White House web site for all mentions of the word, ‘fentanyl’, and reviewed each document for details on the Trump Administration’s plans to address this crisis:


* Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Imposes Tariffs on Imports from Canada, Mexico and China

Fact Sheets February 1, 2025

Proposed solution: Tariffs!

The first Fact Sheet. Thank you it was a good read. What do you find inaccurate or what you disagree with here?

ADDRESSING AN EMERGENCY SITUATION: The extraordinary threat posed by illegal aliens and drugs, including deadly fentanyl, constitutes a national emergency under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

• Until the crisis is alleviated, President Donald J. Trump is implementing a 25% additional tariff on imports from Canada and Mexico and a 10% additional tariff on imports from China. Energy resources from Canada will have a lower 10% tariff.

• President Trump is taking bold action to hold Mexico, Canada, and China accountable to their promises of halting illegal immigration and stopping poisonous fentanyl and other drugs from flowing into our country.

• The orders make clear that the flow of contraband drugs like fentanyl to the United States, through illicit distribution networks, has created a national emergency, including a public health crisis. Chinese officials have failed to take the actions necessary to stem the flow of precursor chemicals to known criminal cartels and shut down money laundering by transnational criminal organizations.

• In addition, the Mexican drug trafficking organizations have an intolerable alliance with the government of Mexico. The government of Mexico has afforded safe havens for the cartels to engage in the manufacturing and transportation of dangerous narcotics, which collectively have led to the overdose deaths of hundreds of thousands of American victims. This alliance endangers the national security of the United States, and we must eradicate the influence of these dangerous cartels.

• There is also a growing presence of Mexican cartels operating fentanyl and nitazene synthesis labs in Canada. A recent study recognized Canada’s heightened domestic production of fentanyl, and its growing footprint within international narcotics distribution

USING OUR LEVERAGE TO ENSURE AMERICANS’ SAFETY: Previous Administrations failed to fully leverage America’s economic position as a tool to secure our borders against illegal migration and combat the scourge of fentanyl, preferring to let problems fester.

• Access to the American market is a privilege. The United States has one of the most open economies in the world, and the lowest average tariff rates in the world.

• While trade accounts for 67% of Canada’s GDP, 73% of Mexico’s GDP, and 37% of China’s GDP, it accounts for only 24% of U.S. GDP. However, in 2023 the U.S. trade deficit in goods was the world’s largest at over $1 trillion.

• Tariffs are a powerful, proven source of leverage for protecting the national interest. President Trump is using the tools at hand and taking decisive action that puts Americans’ safety and our national security first.

• Though previous Administrations have failed to leverage America’s combination of exceptional strength and its unique role in world trade to advance the security interests of the American people, President Trump has not.

PRESIDENT Trump IS KEEPING HIS PROMISE TO STOP THE FLOOD OF ILLEGAL ALIENS AND DRUGS: When voters overwhelmingly elected Donald J. Trump as President, they gave him a mandate to seal the border. That is exactly what he is doing.

• The Biden Administration’s policies have fueled the worst border crisis in U.S. history.

• More than 10 million illegal aliens attempted to enter the United States under Biden’s leadership, including a rising number of Chinese nationals and people on the terror watchlist.

• This problem is not confined to the southern border – encounters at the northern border with Canada are rising as well.

• The sustained influx of illegal aliens has profound consequences on every aspect of our national life – overwhelming our schools, lowering our wages, reducing our housing supply and raising rents, overcrowding our hospitals, draining our welfare system, and causing crime.

• Gang members, smugglers, human traffickers, and illegal drugs and narcotics of all kinds are pouring across our borders and into our communities.

• Last fiscal year, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) apprehended more than 21,000 pounds of fentanyl at our borders, enough fentanyl to
  kill more than 4 billion people.

• It is estimated that federal officials are only able to seize a fraction of the fentanyl smuggled across the southern border.

• These drugs kill tens of thousands of Americans each year, including 75,000 deaths per year attributed to fentanyl alone.

• More Americans are dying from fentanyl overdoses each year than the number of American lives lost in the entirety of the Vietnam War.

BUILDING ON PAST SUCCESS: President Trump continues to demonstrate his commitment to ensuring U.S. trade policy serves the national interest.

• As President Trump said in the Presidential Memorandum on American First Trade Policy, trade policy is a critical component in national security.

• President Trump promised in November to “sign all necessary documents to charge Mexico and Canada a 25% Tariff on ALL products coming into the United States, and its ridiculous Open Borders. This Tariff will remain in effect until such time as Drugs, in particular Fentanyl, and all Illegal Aliens stop this Invasion of our Country!”

• During his first term as President of the United States, President Trump established the President’s Commission on Combating Drug Addiction and the Opioid Crisis and declared the Opioid Crisis a public health emergency.

• President Trump also has a long record of putting America first on trade. In his first term, President Trump successfully used threats of tariffs on Mexico to help secure our border.

• When our national security was threatened by a global oversupply of steel and aluminum, President Trump took swift action to protect America’s national security by implementing tariffs on imports of these goods.

• In response to China’s intellectual property theft, forced technology transfer, and other unreasonable behavior, President Trump acted with conviction to impose tariffs on imports from China, using that leverage to reach a historic bilateral economic agreement.

• Just last week, President Trump leveraged tariffs to successfully resolve national security concerns with Colombia, swiftly reaching an outcome that prioritizes the safety and security of the American people and the sanctity of our national borders.

[/quote]"

In regard to your assertion" I’m getting the distinct feeling that Trump either doesn’t know how to address the problem in any sort of multifaceted way, or simply doesn’t care."

Tariff's are above what is already in affect, and being ramped up.

Trump through and executive order to the DoD has,

"The Defense Department is sending 1,500 active-duty service members and additional air and intelligence assets to the southern border to augment troops already conducting enforcement operations in that region, Acting Secretary of Defense Robert Salesses announced this afternoon [6/22/25] via a statement to the media." https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stori ... rn-border/

Also the Mexican's and Canadians are sending 10K troop each, to help secure trafficking, because of the threat of tariffs. Just by issuing a phone call or tweet. Why didn't Biden do this?

He has been in office less than 1 month Pakes and because of executive order and tariff threats, there are 22 thousand new troops on the ground, along with high tech equipment....I believe that is very impressive.

Also there are bills worth billions of dollars coming up for securing the border and immigration....we will have to see what is in them and play politic on those, but in the meanwhile he is off to a good start. Again he has only been in office for about 25 days or so.

[Markk]

Marks partial quote: ..." it was justifiable because they weren't show boating..."

Gad: I did NOT say it was justifiable. People should be shocked by the use of detention centers then, and the human rights violations that happened as a matter of course. That should inform us better for the future. With Trump, the starting point is advertising "Guantanamo Bay", which is the poster child for human rights violations, and THAT is the sales pitch that you folks are standing behind. That will likely lead to unprecedented human rights violations, as I said. You also seem to be confused about something: plotting a murder is immoral (and illegal) even if the murder hasn't taken place yet.

The are you saying that they violated their Human Rights, the same as you claimed Trump was doing? Which is it Gad? This is what you wrote originally:

"If the last alarm bell wasn't loud enough, you sound the next alarm bell louder, all as a way to justify human rights violations" "

People in my opinion opinion should be more concerned about the crimes these folks are committing. GB detention center was opened up in 2002 under Bush, and prisoners have stayed their under Obama, Trump and Biden. Then they are all guilty of violating human rights by your standards.

You don't have to go to the future in that case, you can look at the past how Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden all allowed the use of GB as a detention center.

Your guess and opinion that locking up criminals in GB will lead to unprecedented human right violations is just non-sense.

[canpakes]

.
Markk, I searched the White House web site for all mentions of the word, ‘fentanyl’, and reviewed each document for details on the Trump Administration’s plans to address this crisis:


* Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Imposes Tariffs on Imports from Canada, Mexico and China

Fact Sheets February 1, 2025

Proposed solution: Tariffs!

The first Fact Sheet. Thank you it was a good read. What do you find inaccurate or what you disagree with here?

Thank you for posting the entire text. Did you find anything proposed in there to address the US fentanyl crisis other than … tariffs on other countries?

Feel free to post the entire contents of the other references to explore that question further.

[Markk]

The first Fact Sheet. Thank you it was a good read. What do you find inaccurate or what you disagree with here?

Thank you for posting the entire text. Did you find anything proposed in there to address the US fentanyl crisis other than ... tariffs on other countries?

Feel free to post the entire contents of the other references to explore that question further.

Answer my questions first pakes.

[canpakes]

The first Fact Sheet. Thank you it was a good read. What do you find inaccurate or what you disagree with here?

Thank you for posting the entire text. Did you find anything proposed in there to address the US fentanyl crisis other than ... tariffs on other countries?

Feel free to post the entire contents of the other references to explore that question further.

Answer my questions first pakes.

There’s nothing of note to disagree with. As there would be nothing to disagree with if this executive order contained the sentence, “President Trump has declared that oranges are usually orange in color, and that fentanyl pills are smaller than oranges!”

Such a declaration is neither inaccurate nor would anyone disagree. But, how useful is that sentence in dealing with fentanyl abuse?

The same goes for this portion of the executive order:

President Trump promised in November to “sign all necessary documents to charge Mexico and Canada a 25% Tariff on ALL products coming into the United States, and its ridiculous Open Borders. This Tariff will remain in effect until such time as Drugs, in particular Fentanyl, and all Illegal Aliens stop this Invasion of our Country!”

What does that last line even mean? What is the criteria for Drugs (capital D in this case, because it looks much more serious-er that way) to be considered no longer doing “this Invasion of our Country!” ..?

Elsewhere in this same executive order, the following is stated:

“It is estimated that federal officials are only able to seize a fraction of the fentanyl smuggled across the southern border.”

OK, so the US - with its vast resources - can only intercept that small fraction, but we’re expecting a nation like Mexico to be able to completely stem the flow of all border-crossing fentanyl and precursors?

In the meantime, what assistance can we provide addicts today ? Is the idea to just wait out the situation to see how much less fentanyl might make it across, but just twiddle our thumbs otherwise?

By the way, I appreciate your socialist approach to have all Americans pay 25% more for all goods from two of our largest trading partners to handle the drug abuse problems of a small subset of Americans, so that the Trump Administration can blame other countries while offering few domestic assistance programs, and then redirect those tariff dollars to fund tax cuts for the wealthiest segment of the population. It’s an interesting approach and a cool way to use fentanyl addiction as a way to initiate a massive transfer of wealth from Joe and Jane Six-Pack for purposes of enriching Trump’s and Musk’s close circle of friends and donors… with the bonus that tariffs alone cannot solve the problem, so the money train can be justified for years. ; )

That being the case, is there anything else that Trump has proposed to assist addicted Americans and to bring the fentanyl crisis to an end?

[Kishkumen]

Public service announcement: "begging the question". It's a standard expression, but it's kind of old-fashioned. It doesn't mean what it sounds like today, which would be something like "brings this question to mind". Instead it means a certain kind of bogus argument for a point ("the question") which is under debate.

The particular kind of bogus argument is like this. It starts by asking everyone to accept some big assumption. The assumption would—if only it were true—directly imply the conclusion one is trying to defend. The connection between the assumption and the conclusion may be so direct, in fact, that they are effectively just the same thing expressed in different words.

An example of a question-begging argument would be me trying to convince you that I am rich, by saying, "We all know that I'm wealthy, right? Well, just look at this dictionary. Says right here: if you're wealthy, you're rich. See? I'm rich." I make out that the only reason you don't believe that I'm rich is that you don't get the connection between wealth and richness. So, in case you don't believe the dictionary, I explain all about how wealth lets one behave like a rich person, and so on.

I never actually offer any evidence at all for my wealthiness, though. I just assume that we all take it for granted that I am wealthy. The whole reason we're talking is that you don't believe that I'm rich, and "wealthy" and "rich" are the same; but still I just ask you to agree that I'm wealthy, and pretend that the argument starts from that point. So in fact I'm only pretending to argue that I am rich, when I'm really just asking you to agree that I'm rich, without offering any real evidence or argument. I'm just begging you to agree with me, the way a beggar asks for money for nothing. "Come on, please, gimme this. Just agree."

That is begging the question. The requested assumption isn't always a literal synonym for the desired conclusion, like "wealthy" and "rich", but it's something that would quite directly imply the conclusion, and it's assumed without adequate justification. It focuses attention on something trivial while taking something huge just for granted, like trying to win a triathlon by starting half a mile from the finish line.

Begging the question is a kind of bogus argument that people often really do use. It's easy to beg a question without realising it, if you just haven't noticed how questionable one of your long-term assumptions really is. It's perfectly possible to beg a question even when you are actually right about it, if you just can't explain a big part of why your answer is true, because you don't understand that part, but have just taken it for granted.

So it's worth having a special name for this particular kind of bogus argument, since it so often comes up. It's kind of unfortunate that the traditional and established name for this fallacy, "begging the question", is one that is so easily misunderstood nowadays. It might be worth finding a new name for the concept.

It's worth bearing the concept in mind, because it makes one more cautious. If I'm sure something is true, because I have such a clear and simple argument for it, am I maybe just begging the question? Is my clear and simple argument taking for granted something that isn't clear and simple at all? At any rate this is my excuse, to all those who know very well what question begging means, for this pedantic little essay: it doesn't hurt any of us to think now and then about begging the question. Plus I have now spent enough time writing this that I have to go for supper and cannot write that last evaluation. Oh darn.

Thank you for correcting the misuse of begging the question. Raises the question always worked just fine.

[Gadianton]

You don't have to go to the future in that case, you can look at the past how Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden all allowed the use of GB as a detention center.

I think you're checked out, Markk. DUH. Yes, abuses were carried out there. That's the point. That's why it's an effective symbol for MAGA to raise up and say, "this horrible place that should never have happened, that Obama was trying to close, we embrace it, ha ha ha; we're going to expand it like crazy, instead of hundreds, we'll have 30,000, we'll put as many immigrants as we can in there." This is your culture war. You're ruining real lives of innocent people for no reason aside from scoring points against Democrats.

If all this started as you said it would in November with a focus on drug dealers and if all Guantanamo were to be is a side show for a few gang members (it's pointless for its stated use), then we wouldn't be having this conversation. Yes, even drug dealers and gang bangers have rights but that's never going to be my fight.

You should really take a long hard look at what you've become a part of. If you're going to send tens, hundreds of thousands, or millions of people to their doom who for the most part have done nothing wrong except engage in the economic status quo, you should have a solid idea of why you support it and what it is you and the country are really getting out of it. Is this what you really think being a Christian man is about? Forget about the arguments here, I realize I'm not going to convince anyone. Just think about it on your own. mass deportations of non-criminals, backed by millions screaming in adulation. What could go wrong? How does this reflect your supposed Christian values? Don't go by what other people say on Fox News, think about it yourself. I have no more to say to you on the matter.

[Markk]

Pakes: There’s nothing of note to disagree with. As there would be nothing to disagree with if this executive order contained the sentence, “President Trump has declared that oranges are usually orange in color, and that fentanyl pills are smaller than oranges!”

Such a declaration is neither inaccurate nor would anyone disagree. But, how useful is that sentence in dealing with fentanyl abuse?

The just to be clear, we can agree on some key points here...

1. "The [there is an] extraordinary threat posed by illegal aliens and drugs,"
2. "including deadly fentanyl, constitutes a national emergency ..."
3. "the Mexican drug trafficking organizations have an intolerable alliance with the government of Mexico."
4. "The government of Mexico has afforded safe havens for the cartels to engage in the manufacturing and transportation of dangerous narcotics,
which collectively have led to the overdose deaths of hundreds of thousands of American victims. ..."
5. ..."This alliance endangers the national security of the United States, and we must eradicate the influence of these dangerous cartels."
6. ..." Previous Administrations failed to fully leverage America’s economic position as a tool to secure our borders against illegal migration and
combat the scourge of fentanyl, preferring to let problems fester. "

There are are lot more, but lets focus on these then I will go through the next batch. I just want to be clear on what we agree on, which will help us sort through what we disagree on.


To answer your questions....

Cakes...What does that last line even mean? What is the criteria for Drugs (capital D in this case, because it looks much more serious-er that way) to be considered no longer doing “this Invasion of our Country!” ..? "

First it is in the context of "BUILDING ON PAST SUCCESS: President Trump continues to demonstrate his commitment to ensuring U.S. trade policy serves the national interest."

The last line:
This Tariff will remain in effect until such time as Drugs, in particular Fentanyl, and all Illegal Aliens stop this Invasion of our Country!”

That he will hold tariffs over the heads of Mexico and Canada, until drugs stop coming over the border, and people stop entering our country illegally. We know now that he suspended the order given they do their share in securing the borders and fighting the drug trafficking.

Trump and many other believe that 10 million people coming here basically unvetted, including some very bad folks, an invasion. He and others believe that they should follow our immigration laws.

That is my opinion of what that means.

“It is estimated that federal officials are only able to seize a fraction of the fentanyl smuggled across the southern border.”

OK, so the US - with its vast resources - can only intercept that small fraction, but we’re expecting a nation like Mexico to be able to completely stem the flow of all border-crossing fentanyl and precursors?

Yes. It is about will. If we work together we can make a huge dent or more in it. Vast resources only work if we use them. As an example in Ca. If a DEA agent busts a illegal immigrant for having a million fentanyl tablets, and for murder, they by law, can't contact ICE. Even if it was a joint task force with ICE....they are not allowed to communicate they are illegal. Point being we have to have the will.

In the meantime, what assistance can we provide addicts today ? Is the idea to just wait out the situation to see how much less fentanyl might make it across, but just twiddle our thumbs otherwise?

No, we have programs coming out of our ears for any addicted person that wants help. Federal, State, local , and private. But, and this is the reality, like us teaming with Mexico and Canada with a united will, if an addicted person on drugs or alcohol, does not want help, there is nothing we can really do. If you have dealt with addiction or with someone close, you will get that.

That being the case, is there anything else that Trump has proposed to assist addicted Americans and to bring the fentanyl crisis to an end?

I don't know, he has only been is office for 3 weeks. He has cut some programs, that I assume they thought weren't working. What we know is that under Biden it was not working. It will take some time to see how this all unfolds, and what programs will be funded, and which ones won't.

[Markk]

You don't have to go to the future in that case, you can look at the past how Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden all allowed the use of GB as a detention center.

I think you're checked out, Markk. DUH. Yes, abuses were carried out there. That's the point. That's why it's an effective symbol for MAGA to raise up and say, "this horrible place that should never have happened, that Obama was trying to close, we embrace it, ha ha ha; we're going to expand it like crazy, instead of hundreds, we'll have 30,000, we'll put as many immigrants as we can in there." This is your culture war. You're ruining real lives of innocent people for no reason aside from scoring points against Democrats.

If all this started as you said it would in November with a focus on drug dealers and if all Guantanamo were to be is a side show for a few gang members (it's pointless for its stated use), then we wouldn't be having this conversation. Yes, even drug dealers and gang bangers have rights but that's never going to be my fight.

You should really take a long hard look at what you've become a part of. If you're going to send tens, hundreds of thousands, or millions of people to their doom who for the most part have done nothing wrong except engage in the economic status quo, you should have a solid idea of why you support it and what it is you and the country are really getting out of it. Is this what you really think being a Christian man is about? Forget about the arguments here, I realize I'm not going to convince anyone. Just think about it on your own. mass deportations of non-criminals, backed by millions screaming in adulation. What could go wrong? How does this reflect your supposed Christian values? Don't go by what other people say on Fox News, think about it yourself. I have no more to say to you on the matter.

Just answer me these few questions. Do you believe we should have open borders? Do borders, anywhere, violate Human rights?

[Jersey Girl]

I don't know, he has only been is office for 3 weeks. He has cut some programs, that I assume they thought weren't working. What we know is that under Biden it was not working. It will take some time to see how this all unfolds, and what programs will be funded, and which ones won't.

Some programs?