Both Trump and Harris Would Crack Down on Fentanyl as President
Each party's candidate is jockeying to be more aggressive on fentanyl, whose use has proliferated as a direct result of government aggression.

Republicans and Democrats alike agree that the U.S. should do something about fentanyl, the synthetic opioid that is significantly more potent than heroin. It is often found mixed into street drugs, but not because addicts are clamoring for it: Rather, fentanyl is cheaper and easier to manufacture and smuggle, making it an attractive alternative when prohibitionist governments crack down on pain pills.
Unfortunately, neither major party seems willing to either admit the government's own role in making the drug so dangerous, or to pursue an alternative to classic war on drugs policies.
This much was evident from an early answer at last night's vice presidential debate between Sen. J.D. Vance (R–Ohio) and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz.
Vice President Kamala Harris, Vance charged, "said that she wanted to undo all of Donald Trump's border policies…and what it's meant is that a lot of fentanyl is coming into our country. I had a mother who struggled with opioid addiction and has gotten clean. I don't want people who are struggling with addiction to be deprived of their second chance because Kamala Harris let in fentanyl into our communities at record levels. So you've got to stop the bleeding."
This has been a common refrain from Republicans: "She even wants to legalize fentanyl," Trump said this weekend. (Harris has not said explicitly that she wants to legalize fentanyl, though in a 2019 questionnaire from the American Civil Liberties Union, she supported "decriminalization at the federal level of all drug possession for personal use" and said that "the opioid crisis has reaffirmed the failure of criminalization.")
"We're losing 300,000 people a year to fentanyl that comes through our border," Trump said at a July campaign rally. In reality, the numbers are thankfully far lower: Around 107,000 deaths from synthetic opioids were reported in 2022, of which around 74,000 resulted from fentanyl.
Of course, the vast majority of fentanyl brought into the U.S. is not carried by illegal immigrants or the result of porous borders: From 2019 to 2024, 80.2 percent of the people arrested at the border with fentanyl were U.S. citizens, according to David J. Bier, director of immigration studies at the Cato Institute.
And as NPR reported last year, "the vast majority of illicit fentanyl—close to 90%—is seized at official border crossings."
Nonetheless, Trump has pledged that if reelected, he would crack down on fentanyl sales and trafficking, even deploying the military against drug cartels and asking Congress "to ensure that drug dealers and human traffickers receive the death penalty."
But if one were hoping that a potential Kamala Harris presidential administration may take a softer approach to fentanyl—which, again, has proliferated as a direct result of prohibitionist government policies—Harris herself is apparently happy to disabuse us of that notion.
"Today, I visited the U.S.-Mexico border and spoke with Customs and Border Protection officials about our progress to secure our border and disrupt the flow of illegal fentanyl into our nation," Harris said over the weekend in a post on X.
"Harris pledged to double funding for the prosecution of trans-national criminal organizations and cartels, and modernize U.S. screening and vetting infrastructure," Reuters reported about the trip.
On her campaign website, Harris calls fentanyl a "scourge" and brags about the steps she took both as vice president and as the attorney general of California to crack down on drug traffickers.
While Harris has admirably expressed support for marijuana legalization many times over the years, in her current run for president, her openness to pursuing alternatives to prohibition unfortunately does not extend much further than that.
"[Harris'] campaign platform is very clear that the overdose crisis is a criminal issue, not a public health one," wrote Kastalia Medrano of Filter. "We're going to arrest our way out of it after all."
"Both candidates have prioritized criminalization and punishment responses to fentanyl and the overdose crisis. But this punitive approach is actually a primary driver of the overdose crisis which continues to claim lives despite 50 years of drug war policies," according to a statement from Drug Policy Action, the advocacy arm of the Drug Policy Alliance. "Instead of more 'lock-them-up' proposals, candidates must get serious about reducing demand and saving lives by advancing health and economic solutions that work."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
..saving lives by advancing health and economic solutions that work."
Like what?
“On her campaign website, Harris calls fentanyl a “scourge” and brags about the steps she took both as vice president and as the attorney general of California to crack down on drug traffickers.”
1900 men charged with marijuana possession by Harris’s office during her term as DA. Far more than any other DA before or after.
Harris also authored the official argument against the first Marijuana legalization Proposition.
Would they fentanyl down on crack?
As long as we don’t elect both Trump and Harris as President there would be no crackdown on fentanyl.
Then we'll have to elect Jill Stein.
Had to read that a few times to get it. Requires the fastidious chemist's pronunciation of "-yl".
Crack down on illegal immigration, and you will crack down on the fentanyl trafficking.
Exterminate the Mexican crime cartels, and both illegal immigration and fentanyl trafficking would be reduced.
Jeffy reliably informed me that the only reason anyone would want to do that is because they're a racist and hate poor people.
He is correct because they are all peaceful migrants that want to work hard and earn their keep. They would contribute to the collective social conscience that would arrive at mandatory masking and vaxxing each flu season and during an election year when the wrong candidate is in office.
Yeah but how and at what cost?
We squeezed the balloon in Colombia but it only bubbled out closer and worse in Mexico. Squeeze Mexico too hard and it will pop up somewhere else and the trend looks like that will probably be inside the US, where they are safe from military style intervention…for now…
They'll find that difficult if they're dead.
>>Republicans and Democrats alike agree that the U.S. should do something about fentanyl
push that Ruling Class line!
...fentanyl, whose use has proliferated as a direct result of
governmentaggression by hostile foreign powers.Fixed it.
Fentanyl’s proliferation on the black market is due to its extreme potency and the ability to ship large quantities in small spaces. Basically, greed. And that ain’t ever going away as hard as one may try.
but not because addicts are clamoring for it: Rather, fentanyl is cheaper and easier to manufacture and smuggle, making it an attractive alternative when prohibitionist governments crack down on pain pills.
So when you say, "making it an attractive alternative," - to whom exactly?
Oh, right. The addicts clamoring for it.
You stupid clown.
In reality, the numbers are thankfully far lower: Around 107,000 deaths from synthetic opioids were reported in 2022, of which around 74,000 resulted from fentanyl.
Oh good. "Just" 74K. Stoner logic.
"the vast majority of illicit fentanyl—close to 90%—is seized at official border crossings."
So what you're saying is that even a mere 10% is a massive and serious problem causing widespread destruction and death.
Why'd you phrase that as a positive?
Harris pledged to double funding
Of course she has. "Throw money at the problem! It's not a slush fund, I swear!"
Also, where does she plan to get that funding? America's writing bad checks.
While Harris has admirably expressed support for marijuana legalization
Not admirable.
"Instead of more 'lock-them-up' proposals, candidates must get serious about reducing demand and saving lives by advancing health and economic solutions that work."
Yea, but the lock-them-up works really well. For both peddlers and users. Starve the market, and the market will die.
This whole "health and economic solutions" DOESN'T work. Unless your goal is tent cities and crime.
Um... IS that your goal?
AT, if you want to get addicted to fentanyl and die from an overdose, why should I care? What I do care about is drug warriors like Gerald Goines murdering innocent people because the war on drugs is totally out of control and completely disconnected to any real threat to me personally - because the emotional panic concerning drugs gives them the excuse they need to run roughshod over the people.
Because addicts increase crime in pursuit of their addiction and the same free drug warriors also generally clamor to legalize drugs also clamor to reduce policing of those other crimes.
This behavior doesn’t change if drugs are legal or illegal. Until it is addressed you will not get large support for more addicts and the crimes associated with their addictions even outside of simple use.
This behavior doesn’t change if drugs are legal or illegal.
Not so. Addicts steal to get their fix otherwise they mostly zombie out. Legal drugs are cheaper This Is the reason heroin addicts steal and drunkards beg.
same free drug warriors also generally clamor to legalize drugs also clamor to reduce policing of those other crimes.
So what? This seems like a stupid reason to oppose a libertarian 101 principle like body autonomy.
Legal drugs are cheaper
Really? Legal weed is several times more expensive than illicit weed.
Really?
Yes. By like 10‐100 fold more expensive.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w9689/w9689.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjR-uPXh_OIAxVCKFkFHaGYBDkQFnoECA0QBg&usg=AOvVaw3WJQ6PqIGqDH9pgHHm8C69
Just so long as it's not on your front porch, right? Because, I mean, the junkies would probably appreciate if you offered them your lawn (and backyard) to set up their tent cities where they can shamble about looking for their next fix.
Neighbors might have a problem with it though. But screw them, right?
Totally not the same problem. If there were a lot less “public property” for them to camp out on in blue cities then it would be quite easy for the police to arrest and prosecute violators of private property. If you live in a blue city where drug addicts and homeless camp out in public parks you have only yourself to blame if you refuse to arrest them. There are NO homeless drug addicts camping out anywhere near where I live.
Would you like some?
Why would any politician want to legalize drugs? What is there in that for anyone who craves power? The war on drugs gives every official all the tools they could ever need to push people around and toss random people into the bottomless pit whether they’re actually guilty or not. Just find an occasional drug warrior like Gerald Goines guilty when they get caught in the public spotlight and pretend that it’s the exception.
And yet they've been doing it for cannabis, just slowly over decades. Why? (1) Getting elected where it's popular. (2) Tax revenue. (3) Culture war: Stick it to the squares. (4) Better bribes/corruption from that side.
Strongly disagree on #4. We had to get to about 70% of voters in favor before politicians moved to legal weed. Police unions and prison industry have much deeper pockets than stoners. And that asset forfeiture...
And I’ll add:
(3) Culture war: Stick it to the squares.
Good! Fuck the squares. “All, we want is to not smoke pot, and not smell pot and to lock you up and take your property if you use pot and to check your home, propery and urine for evidence you may be using pot because, dammit, otherwise we can’t tell. We just ask for that and billions of tax dollars per year to do that."
Suck it squares. You had a good run, but now you lost.
Sorry, I got up on the wrong side of the bed.
It only took 50 years and a trillion dollars to replace a pleasurable poppy with a poisonous powder. Congratulations Drug War on your biggest success, the proliferation of fentanyl.
But it's popular medically too. I've had it, chances are you will some time too.
Can anybody here come up with a compromise (or as the DPF used to say, a bundle of peaceful compromises) between repeal of anti-drug laws and what we have now which would make the world better as far as both libertarians and most other people concerned about this issue would say?
The political will has long been there to prohibit non-medical narcotics use, and not to back off that prohibition. Some compromises have seemed to have been unacceptable over the long run. For instance, giving “addicts” the option to be “treated” by maintenance of the narcotic regimen of their choice, at the expense of government or private insurance, ha been an unstable solution where it’s been tried, although sometimes it’s lasted for a good number of years. The objections to such a regime are manifold and all fairly good. But maybe someone has some other idea that will sufficiently, not perfectly, satisfy those who say “addicts” deserve their predicament, those who say they deserve freedom, and those who think they deserve…something else. The problem comes up often enough in public discourse that it seems to cry out to be addressed as a priority in public policy.
The reality is that the vast majority of illicit drug users do so without committing crimes but for the use, possession, and or purchase of their drug or drugs of preference. The whole goal of prosecuting drug use appears to be more about enforcing feelings and the desire to control others in addition to implementing group punishment for the ACTUAL crimes committed by others. Or am I missing something here? It sure doesn’t make social, health, economic, or judicial sense to ruin people’s lives for such behavior.
Healthcare/Drugs monopolization?
If the people aren't allowed to self-medicate via free-markets a whole useless and wildly expensive pharmaceutical Nazi-Agency forms.
Did I take too many words to say that? Maybe I should not have drank that extra glass of wine.
Unfortunately, neither of the major party seems willing to either admit ................
There is NO CONSTITUTIONAL authority for the Union of States to regulate Food & Drugs beyond the national border.
If it is not sold legitimately, then how can it be fentanyl with any assurance that fentanyl fragrance has not simply been added as if it were fentanyl?
Echo chambers rail about fentanyl, yet it were an (almost) inescapable reality that an EMT would dose you under any of a certain number of conditions, to “help” you.
The smuggling only props up the idea that you must bear the exposure, whether it blisters out from black market trade or comes from the medical monopoly. Is there any realistic chance that you won’t encounter it? I don’t expect so. It has to be toxic to be actionable, and EMT use makes it “lifesaving.”
I am old enough to remember when no one ever heard of fentanyl, or ever heard of crack, or ever herad of meth, or ever heard of bath salts. I wonder what is next.