Tariffs and the US’ fentanyl problem

THE tariffs that US President Donald Trump has threatened to slap on his country’s three largest trading partners have been justified, in part, as measures to counter the flow of the drug fentanyl into the United States. The US government claims that China produces fentanyl and Mexico and Canada allow it to pass through their territory into the US. Mexico and Canada are also alleged to be making inadequate efforts to halt the flows of illegal immigrants into the US. Wielding the trade tariffs is supposedly intended to induce these countries to act decisively to counter the drug and illegal immigration flows.

Even if this explanation for the new measures could be taken at face value, its logic is very questionable, particularly in the matter of combatting the damage caused to US society by fentanyl use. They may well be counterproductive.

Fentanyl is undoubtedly a menace that ruins and destroys lives. It is 50 to 100 times more potent than heroin. Fentanyl overdoses have killed tens of thousands of Americans in recent years (though not tens of millions, as White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt has claimed).

The trade in fentanyl and other opioid drugs is demand-driven. For people who become addicted, obtaining the drugs they use becomes an absolute priority in life – that’s the nature of addiction. It may cost them their job, friends and family life, in addition to their health. If they start out poor or unemployed, they’re already part-way down the path of ruin. Whether they admit it or not, they understand this, but generally feel unable or insufficiently motivated to break their habit. It feels physically impossible.

One factor that has drawn attention to fentanyl use in the US is its visibility. It is alarming to encounter a person standing but bent over, their head and arms hanging down, completely immobile and oblivious to their surroundings, but that’s the most obvious fentanyl user – the very public face of the drug’s use. Somehow, the fact that a person can be seen standing in an unnatural and apparently uncomfortable posture rather than being splayed out on the floor or a bed accentuates a non-user’s disquiet at the sight.

Others may react with fear to such people, but they’re more of a danger to themselves than to anyone else.

Given the priority that addicts give to obtaining the drugs they use, the chief result of a greater constriction of supplies crossing the US’ borders may well be to push prices up without it having any impact on addiction levels. The criminal networks that sell the drugs will react by showing greater ingenuity in smuggling and manufacturing drugs, and may compete more ruthlessly and violently with each other for control of their markets, which can have consequences for bystanders.

The example of the Prohibition in 1920s America should stand as a warning: A law that was meant to end alcohol abuse not only failed to do so, but also turned into a gift to organised crime, which supplied the drinks for which millions of Americans were ready to pay.

A serious drive to counter drug abuse needs to prioritise tackling demand. That requires investment in rehabilitation programmes alongside efforts to foster job creation, with real possibilities for upward mobility, and social engagement. This is long-term work, not an easy fix, nor something that can be achieved without social spending. That is something from which many governments shrink, not least if it would require higher taxation, not simply the reallocation of existing resources.

Maybe there are people in the Trump administration who realise this, but who prefer to lay the blame for the US’ fentanyl nightmare at the doors of China, Mexico and Canada instead of implementing the necessary policies at home. Or, maybe the tariffs to be imposed on those countries really don’t have anything to do with countering fentanyl addiction but are solely protectionist measures that may not, in reality, benefit US consumers, but will appeal to the nationalist, anti-foreigner sentiment upon which Trump built voter support.

John Gee is a Singapore-based freelance writer