By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President Donald Trump signed an executive order classifying fentanyl as a weapon of mass destruction, broadening the U.S. government’s authority to combat the opioid crisis. This designation allows the Pentagon and intelligence agencies to deploy tools typically used against weapons proliferation to combat drug traffickers. The move follows Trump’s earlier designation of drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations, leading to military strikes against suspected drug vessels. While the administration claims these actions are necessary, critics, including legal experts, question their legality and call for congressional oversight.
Read the original article here
Trump declaring fentanyl a “weapon of mass destruction” with an executive order certainly seems like a move that’s… well, it’s a lot. My initial thought is a mix of bewilderment and cynicism, honestly. It’s hard not to see the echoes of past, arguably disastrous, policies in this. It feels like the “War on Drugs” and the “War on Terror” are getting a bizarre, if not predictable, remix. Combining two failures and hoping for success doesn’t exactly inspire confidence, does it?
The immediate implications are quite vast, and frankly, a bit nonsensical. If fentanyl is a “weapon of mass destruction,” then what? Does that mean hospitals, which routinely use fentanyl for pain management, are suddenly harboring a WMD arsenal? What about ambulances? Vets? It just doesn’t make sense in a practical way. And the idea of treating pharmaceutical companies, or even individual doctors, as potential terrorist organizations is, to put it mildly, a stretch.
It’s also hard to ignore the timing and the potential motivations. It’s pretty clear that desperate people do dangerous things. With public opinion potentially turning against him, and perhaps with the looming deadline for the release of the Epstein files, the cynic in me can’t help but wonder if this is a strategic distraction. Declaring war on fentanyl certainly has a dramatic flair, and it might just divert attention from other issues.
Of course, the comparison to historical events is inevitable. It reminds me of the Roman Emperor Caligula declaring war on the ocean. A bit of theatrical madness meant to distract from a lack of any real accomplishment. This, too, smacks of showmanship. It feels less like a genuine effort to tackle a serious problem and more like a performance, a way to appear strong and decisive.
And if we’re being honest, the “War on Drugs” hasn’t exactly been a resounding success. So, to simply rebrand the problem as a “weapon of mass destruction” without a radically new approach seems like a recipe for repeating past mistakes. A serious response to the drug crisis would require a multifaceted approach, not just a dramatic pronouncement. It would involve addressing the root causes of addiction, improving access to treatment, and holding those responsible for the opioid crisis accountable. It’s hard to see how this executive order does any of those things.
The irony here is almost too rich to handle. The very people who often argue against gun control are now treating a drug as a WMD, potentially opening the door to stringent regulations. Additionally, we are led to believe that drugs kill people, despite drugs only affecting the person using it. The hypocrisy is, quite frankly, staggering.
The potential for unintended consequences is also worrying. The blanket categorization of fentanyl as a WMD could lead to overreach and the criminalization of healthcare providers. It might lead to further border disputes. Also, what does this mean for legitimate medical use of fentanyl? Would there be a declaration made to declare that only certain people can use it?
And let’s not forget the bigger picture. Are we now at war with China, where many of the fentanyl precursors originate? The whole situation feels like a poorly scripted play. It feels like he’s going for the “tough on crime” image, while simultaneously trying to protect himself from various accusations.
It’s worth noting the many questions this raises. Why didn’t he do this sooner? Is this just a prelude to more aggressive actions in South America or elsewhere? How many pardons will be granted this week? If we’re at war, who is the enemy, and how will this war be fought? And, more importantly, will it actually achieve anything positive?
Overall, it feels like a move born of desperation and a desire for control. It’s a bit like when you see a sinking ship – you know it won’t solve anything, but it might distract from the bigger problems.