How about tackling dependency as well as supply?
Texas Governor Greg Abbott is on a mission to tackle the US-Mexico border issue.
In June, he pledged to revive a project to build a new wall along the border, picking up where President Donald Trump had failed (having extended the existing wall by just three miles during his presidency).
Later that month he announced that the wall project would be in part funded by $250 million from state funds and the rest would rely upon public donations - a throwback to the "We Build a Wall" campaign that raised $25 million and led to Steve Bannon and others being charged with conspiracy to commit wire fraud and money laundering after allegedly diverting $1.3 million of the money for personal use. To date around $450,000 has been donated.
With the border being one of Abbott's main areas of focus in the run up to his re-election campaign for 2022, it's clear that he's majoring on the dangerous drugs crossing the border as much as the threat he sees presented by the people crossing into the state.
The border crisis is about more than "drug dealers, criminals and rapists"
There is undeniably a problem at the border. The BBC reported on June 10th that US Customs and Border Protection had reported the capture of 180,034 migrants, mostly single adults, in May. The number of undocumented migrants reaching the US-Mexico border has hit the highest level in more than 20 years.
Trump majored on the criminal nature of those crossing the border during his campaigning for the 2016 presidency - describing Mexican citizens collectively as "drug dealers, criminals and rapists". Instead of trying to resolve the issue for what it is - a humanitarian crisis - Abbott seems determined to echo Trump, repeatedly villifying those who are crossing the border and pointing out the dangerous drugs that they bring with them:
Source: Twitter
Undeniably a certain amount of drugs like fentanyl are being smuggled across the border, and this is most certainly a dangerous drug for those who become addicted to it - but it's only that there exists such a crisis of opioid addiction in the US in the first place that has resulted in demand for the drug in the first place.
Isn't blaming Mexicans for deaths due to fentanyl equivalent for blaming Mexicans for the deaths, diabetes and obesity brought about by Mexican food in Texas?
The fentanyl problem
Fentanyl is an extremely potent and highly addictive synthetic opioid. The Texas Controlled Substances Act places it among the category of drugs known as Penalty Group 1 - drugs known to be highly addictive and dangerous. It's used clinically to treat chronic pain and is 100 times more potent than morphine.
It can have harmful side-effects even when prescribed legitimately for clinical pain relief. In 2018 the Houston Police Officers Union referred to 'The Epidemic of Fentanyl' as it reflected on the death rate from the drug that had increased by 100% from 2015 to 2016.
Certainly the drug is dangerous whether obtained legitimately for its intended purpose or illicitly by those who've become addicted. As with all such issues though, the challenge is in whether to address the symptoms or the cause - or both?
Consider the border crisis itself - is it best treated by simply blocking those who want to cross the border with a wall and violent border forces, or would it be better to work with the governments of Central American nations to understand why people feel compelled to flee in the first place (the approach being favored by the Biden administration) and deal with it at the source?
In the same way, is the fentanyl issue going to be solved simply by cutting off the supply, or would it be better to address some of the reasons why people use and become addicted to the drug in the first place?
In all cases, the best solution is usually a mix of both tactics.
Marijuana versus opioids
On June 15th, Governor Greg Abbott signed a bill expanding the availability of medical marijuana for cancer patients, as well as veterans and others suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).
While the bill was approved with strong support, it underwent some modifications. Most notably, it originally proposed an increase on the permissable THC limit from 0.5% to 5%, but the cap was dropped back down to 1% - a lower level of potency.
Crucially as relates to fentanyl, the bill had previously also included application of medical marijuana for sufferers of chronic pain that would usually be treated via opioids, but this eligibility was later removed.
It is questionable why the bill didn't seek to allow the use of medical marijuana in place of opioids for treatment of chronic pain. This might have meant that from September 1st (when the bill becomes law), some of those forced to use fentanyl for pain relief could have instead used medical marijuana - far less addictive and potentially as effective.
The motives for this exclusion remain as yet unclear. In the meantime, while the flow of fentanyl across the Mexican border remains an issue in its own right, it seems clear that to resolve the issue fully will rely on more than just curtailing the supply (legitimate or illegal). Part of the solution relies on stopping people from becoming dependent on it in the first place.
This is original content from NewsBreak’s Creator Program. Join today to publish and share your own content.