The political class is currently engaged in a kabuki debate over the utility of blowing up a speedboat that we are told was owned by a Venezuelan gang. The infighting between JD Vance and Senator Rand Paul over the strike does more to highlight the country’s incoherent approach toward dealing with illegal drugs than to promote a viable solution.
If, as Vance says, the strike constitutes “the highest and best use of our military,” then when can we expect similar attacks against the Mexican narco state or its suppliers in China? And if it’s all about due process, as Paul says, when does the US pursue criminal or civil action against countries that facilitate illegal immigration and other offenses?
Drug interdiction is not a military function, despite what the VP thinks. Nor is the central issue one of procedure, as the Senator claims. This isn’t even a new problem, just one that evolved from the unregulated overuse of certain drugs in the 19th century to amphetamine abuse in the 1960s to the spread of crack in the 80s and to the opioid problem of today.
Each episode was and is driven by demand; every single response from DC is aimed at supply. It’s as if no one learn a thing from Prohibition - when there is an appetite for something, someone will find a way of catering to it. Banning items and activities does not make them go away; it just makes them more dangerous and more expensive.
The alleged ‘war on drugs’ is more than 50 years old and its primary “success” has been to create the world’s most drug-addled nation. At some point, it is reasonable to ask if that’s not the goal. Huge amounts of taxpayer money have built expansive bureaucracies that occasionally lead to photo ops where a fortune in illicit product is displayed while a few bit players go to prison. Ignored is the malicious truth of the drug trade – when one head of the Hydra is chopped off, a new one grows in its place.
This rhetorical food fight is also a distraction from more pressing concerns. The strike came on the heels of a White House dinner with multiple tech titans. The dinner was served just hours after Trump, for the first time, reconsidered Operation Warp Speed and the Covid vaccines that it spawned, while questioning the pharma data behind the jabs and demanding to see it. Imagine how surprised the MAGA faithful might be to hear more about Trump rubbing shoulders at a dinner where Bill Gates sat next to Melania and regaled the president with tales of gene editing and more jabs.
The DC dustup also shoved the Middle East into the background; it further obscured the languishing effort to broker a peace in Ukraine; any concern about China courting Russia and India was buried; and the Epstein matter was shoved aside just as a new bill calling for all the files to be released was introduced. In other words, the distraction is working as intended. American politicians are suddenly arguing among themselves over an issue they have ignored since the 1994 crime bill.
Still, for the sake of discussion, let’s play along and address the narcotics problem. What can be done? Start by accepting that there is no single solution or perfect outcome. Then, review what a host of nations - from Iceland to Singapore, Japan to Portugal – have done to reduce abuse and overdoses. Some approached the issue with harsh, even draconian, penalties for both distribution and usage. Others focused on harm-reduction measures and treated addiction as a matter of public health.
Portugal is considered the gold standard for addressing drugs. Its method works to the extent that it does through a unique mix of carrots and sticks. There is a heavy dose of treatment and rehab, often used in coercive fashion, as in “do this or else.” There are also fines and, for the most stubborn cases, wage garnishments. In other words, the country took a page out of Psychology 101 and understood that you always get more of what is allowed and less of what is not. Further, there was the acknowledgement that this approach would be a process that takes time, resources, and an ongoing commitment.
The system operates under the auspices of a commission of health and legal professionals who form an alternative system of justice that pushes abusers toward cleaning themselves up. But even the Portuguese methodology has had its hiccups. The great financial crisis of 2008 and the Covid era saw spikes in both abuse and overdoses as public resources were diverted to other priorities and existing programs withered on the vine.
Therein lies the underlying truth – resolution is difficult, expensive, and ongoing. It takes more than a pithy X post or a glib soundbite. The question is which approach is more beneficial, the health and treatment strategy or relying on enforcement and incarceration. We remain immersed in the latter, despite its dubious record. A few jurisdictions, Oregon most notably, tried a cheap version of the former by decriminalizing all narcotics, an exercise doomed to failure because it allowed abuse without consequence. When the worst thing facing a chronic user is a $100 fine, it’s not hard to see that this will end badly.
Going back nearly a century, the repeal of Prohibition did not result in a society of either alcoholics or teetotalers, nor did it rid the country of all booze-fueled issues. Over time, it led to a mix of approaches that included law enforcement, public health, and the activist group MADD, whose biggest accomplishment was cultural. Public perception of drunkenness, particularly of driving under the influence, changed dramatically. In my youth, stories of “the car drove itself home” were told more frequently than I want to remember. Fast forward some years and people took away each other’s car keys when someone overdid it. Also, bars and restaurants became much quicker in cutting off customers and getting a cab ride or Uber.
The point is that solutions must have value to be accepted and utilized. What is the benefit of blowing up a random speedboat that will be replaced by ten more the following day? The president has ratcheted up the tension by threatening to shoot down planes that buzz the armada he dispatched to the Venezuelan coast. Meanwhile, the influx continues as do the overdoses, though in smaller numbers than a couple of years ago. As with alcohol and MADD, the opioid problem has also spawned grass-roots activism to do what policymakers cannot or will not do by focusing on the user instead of the supplier.
My mother spoke about the opium dens when she was growing up in Seattle in the 1920's. It had been going on for a long time then. We only went to China town in daylight hours. I personally don't believe it can be controlled but there are lots of other games you can play that will be very costly and accomplish very little.
The synthetic opioid crisis will abate as the demand drops off, because a great many of those who've tried it are now dead, while many who would have tried it don't wish to be dead. As to whether we should try to stop it, or if this is a national security concern, we should consider that China, et al, aren't getting rich off this export - but they are destroying an economic and cultural competitor. So yes, I do see a national security angle.