Why Do Critics of Harsh Drug Penalties Support Them When the Drug Is Fentanyl?

A new Drug Policy Alliance report highlights this puzzling and dangerous inconsistency.


Even as President Donald Trump brags about his support for sentencing reform, he pushes enhanced fentanyl penalties that threaten to repeat the mistakes he claims to be correcting. As a new report from the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) shows, that sort of inconsistency is hardly unique to the president.

"Many legislators who support scaling back mass incarceration and the drug war are now supporting extremely harsh measures for fentanyl, undercutting the effectiveness of criminal justice reforms," write Michael Collins, former director of national affairs at DPA, and Sheila Vakharia, the organization's deputy director for research and academic engagement. One striking example: The Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act of 2017—a bill that would have gone further in reducing drug penalties than the FIRST STEP Act, which Trump signed in 2018—nevertheless included a "mandatory sentencing enhancement" for heroin mixed with fentanyl.

At the state level, politicians who favor reducing drug sentences, such as Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan (R), likewise want to increase them when the drug is fentanyl. Since 2011, Collins and Vakharia found, 39 states and the District of Columbia have responded to the upward trend in opioid-related deaths by enacting harsher penalties for fentanyl offenses, a strategy that is both ineffective and unjust.

These politicians are responding to the increasing prevalence of fentanyl as a heroin booster and substitute. That development, driven by the economics of prohibition, has made illegal opioids more deadly.

Since fentanyl is roughly 50 times as potent as heroin, its use has made the potency of illicit opioids more variable and unpredictable, magnifying the risk of accidental overdose. "The lack of knowledge whether an illegal drug may contain fentanyl (or how much) could mean that people may not be taking necessary precautions to reduce their risk of overdose, such as using a smaller amount, not mixing with other classes of drugs or consuming their drugs more slowly," Collins and Vakharia note. Furthermore, fentanyl is faster-acting than heroin: "Whereas there may be 2-3 hours to respond to a heroin or prescription opioid pill overdose, the effects of a fentanyl-related overdose are virtually immediate (death can occur in a matter of minutes) and someone must reverse the overdose with naloxone [an opioid antagonist used to treat overdoses] immediately to prevent a fatality."

Fentanyl has become very common in many parts of the country. "Fentanyl is now present in most heroin in the Midwest and Northeast, while rapidly spreading west of the Mississippi," Collins and Vakharia write. Between 2010 and 2017, according to data collected by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, opioid-related deaths more than doubled, while the share of those deaths involving "synthetic opioids other than methadone"—the category that includes fentanyl and its analogs—more than quadrupled, from 14 percent to 60 percent. In 2017, that category was implicated in more than 28,000 deaths.

Given those trends, it is not surprising that legislators have reacted to fentanyl the way they usually react to the latest drug menace: by ramping up penalties for distribution in the vain hope of shrinking the supply, raising retail prices, and ultimately reducing consumption. But it is striking that this punitive response has coincided with bipartisan recognition that past attempts to reduce drug-related harm by sending more people to prison for longer periods of time—in particular, draconian mandatory minimums for crack cocaine offenses—resulted in excessive punishment for low-level dealers that disproportionately affected racial minorities.

The fentanyl crackdown promises more of the same. Looking at federal fentanyl convictions in 2016, Collins and Vakharia find that half the defendants were black, while a quarter were Hispanic. Although the average sentence was five and a half years, 26 percent of the fentanyl defendants were classified as "couriers/mules," while 24 percent were described as "street-level" dealers. Even more striking, 53 percent of the defendants "did not seem to know they had fentanyl," according to the U.S. Sentencing Commission.

Since fentanyl is commonly added to heroin high up in the distribution chain, people convicted of selling it, like their customers, "are often unaware of the composition and potency of their drugs and have little control over the quality of product available," Collins and Vakharia write. "How can a tough sentence be a deterrent for behavior that people cannot prevent and may not even know they are engaging in?"

Politicians may imagine they are punishing callous kingpins who are "agents of death," as former Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R–N.H.) put it while promoting a bill that would have increased federal fentanyl penalties. Under her proposal, the weight threshold triggering a 10-year mandatory minimum would have been reduced from 400 to 20 grams for fentanyl and from 100 to five grams for fentanyl analogs; the cutoffs for a five-year mandatory minimum would have dropped from 40 to two grams and from 10 grams to half a gram, respectively. Yet the low-level players who would often be subject to those mandatory minimums not only might not realize they were selling fentanyl; they might be users who sell drugs to finance their own habits or who qualify for distribution charges when they pool their resources with other users to buy drugs.

While Ayotte cited Prince's fentanyl-related death as an example of the problem she was trying to tackle, Collins pointed out that Prince himself could have qualified for a mandatory minimum sentence under her bill. Collins and Vakharia warn that "differentiating between people who use and sell drugs is not possible," especially since sentences are based on weight and prosecutors generally assume "intent to distribute."

Is there any reason to think that enhanced penalties will actually reduce fentanyl-related deaths? "There is no evidence that punishing the use and sale of a drug more harshly due to its potency will reduce its availability," Collins and Vakharia say. They quote an observation that Marc Mauer, executive director of the Sentencing Project, made in 2018: "Increasing already high penalties for drug offenses is not effective because 1) most people do not expect to be apprehended for a crime, are not familiar with relevant legal penalties, or criminally offend with their judgment compromised by substance abuse or mental health problems, and 2) those who are apprehended and sentenced are often in the lower levels of the drug trade and are readily replaced by other sellers willing to fill their roles."

The fentanyl crackdown could actually increase drug-related deaths, since it includes a surge in prosecutions for "drug-induced homicide," a trend documented in a 2017 DPA report. By threatening to imprison people who share drugs that are implicated in fatal overdoses, such prosecutions may deter them from seeking lifesaving help, undermining the goal of "Good Samaritan" laws that are supposed to protect bystanders in such situations.

Instead of more punishment, Collins and Vakharia recommend several harm-reduction measures that are more likely to be effective, such as stronger Good Samaritan laws, increased access to naloxone, distribution of test strips that indicate the presence of fentanyl in black-market drugs, legalization of supervised drug consumption sites, and expansion of treatment using substitute opioids, including research on injectable alternatives. "We cannot have a public health response to some drugs and a criminal justice response to others," they write. "We cannot talk about 'treatment, not incarceration' and then revert to interdiction and enforcement when a new substance that frightens us appears on the scene."

NEXT: Lawmakers Say the FBI’s Problematic Carter Page Warrants Require Congressional Surveillance Reforms

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. My mother was on the fentanyl patch for a while, but now she can’t get them. And now she’s been sick for a while too, saying it’s some kind of cold that won’t go away. I think I know what it really is.

    1. there’s a cure for that
      perhaps it is better described as a treatment
      she’s lucky it wasn’t more flu-like

  2. What the fuck do you care? You already got your jailbreak legislation ensuring that the darkies and the beaners are immune from prosecution for any crime less than premeditated first degree murder on camera (1970s crime rates here we come). The white trash flyover plebes ODing on fentanyl are precisely the people you want to mass murder anyway. Does it just piss you off when they do it themselves and rob you of the pleasure?

    1. “muh white genocide”

  3. If ever there were a photo illustration crying out for alt text, this would be the one.

    “See, if you pretend to be a crab, they’ll let you pinch them titties.”

  4. Not one word on China which is the leading producer of the drug.

    Reason doesn’t want to go after the low level people. (fine)

    Reason bitches and moans about tariffs on China. (Cheap Stuff!)

    Reason just wants us to let china get rich while killing us and making us cheap plastic garbage, and asks us to pay for shelters for victims of Chinese evils.

    Keep the clown show rolling. Honk Honk.

  5. Why Do Critics of Harsh Drug Penalties Support Them When the Drug Is Fentanyl?

    Because if someone’s shit has fentanyl in it, and fentanyl not only kills your customers, but also gets you more time, they you stop getting shit from the guy whose stuff has fentanyl in it


  6. it is not surprising that legislators have reacted to fentanyl the way they usually react to the latest drug menace

    That reminds me. Whatever happened to “Ice”?

    1. “Ice” is meth, and it went nowhere.

  7. A new Drug Policy Alliance report highlights this puzzling and dangerous inconsistency.

    Probably because Fentanyl is the wrench in the social science machinery that, for one example, said that things like Safe Injection Sites were “settled science” and reduced overdoses. While this is admittedly a narrow example, Vancouver’s Insite (regularly used as a model for ‘successful’ safe injection sites) saw a continued downward trend of overdose deaths (a trend that had been steady for years previously) suddenly shoot through the ceiling after the introduction of Fentanyl. Insite officials, when trying to explain away the failed prediction of lowered overdose deaths, pointed to Fentanyl as the culprit.

    So therefore, the drug war is a failure *checks statistics around permissive social experiment for drug use and sees overdose figures blasting a hole in the ceiling of the chart* but Fentanyl is bad, mmkay.

  8. “We cannot have a public health response to some drugs and a criminal justice response to others,” they write.

    She said while Democratic lawmakers are suing and threatening to prosecute legal drug companies for the Oxycontin crisis.

  9. Take all these arguments and substitute cyanide for fentanyl, then see how the arguments look. On the continuum ranging from pot to certain death, there is a point where the character of the debate has to change. Ideology, taken straight, apparently has trouble coping with that.

    1. It’s the basic problem with Left/Social Libertarian pure ideology.
      There is a difference between Fentanyl and Pot. There is a difference between Krokodil and Crystal Meth and Coke and Molly.
      Reasonable people who raise children and work in ERs or in Social Services believe policies can and should differentiate for risk

    2. Not if the ideology you take straight is the idea that people should be free to do whatever they want to themselves, including poisoning themselves, as long as they’re not initiating force against someone else.

  10. Treatment, enforcement– who cares as long as government SPENDS MORE MONEY on whatever it frames as “the problem” this week?

  11. Hey, gotta throw somebody under the bus, or we’ll never get anywhere. If you take a principled, consistent, extreme position, the only people who’ll go along with you are those who believe that principle. To get others on your side, you have to assure them you don’t hold an opposing principle. If you have an extreme position, they’ll discount everything you have to say as the ranting of an ideolog. If you convince them you have no ideology, then maybe they’ll consider what you’re saying on a case-by-case basis and take your judgment seriously.

    Could we have gotten censorship of porn ended had an exception not be made for obscene material? Got to let the pressure off by conceding something or they’ll explode.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.