Opioid deaths in the US are twice the rate of gun deaths. While both are equally horrific they are treated differently in the media and public opinion.

One engenders empathy, the other callous indifference.

If we want to save the most lives, there’s a clear choice. If we want to save them all, the choices are more difficult.

Let’s focus on the one with the highest body count and some potential, if drastic, solutions.

One could make the argument that those who manufacture and export fentanyl to the US are committing an act of war. And those who distribute it within the US are committing acts of terrorism and treason by colluding with the enemy.

On 9/11, predominantly Saudi hijackers, harbored by the Taliban in Afghanistan, killed three thousand Americans. Clearly an act of war.

Fentanyl kills that many every two weeks. (https://www.statista.com/statistics/895945/fentanyl-overdose-deaths-us/)

We went to war in Afghanistan.

We buy oil from Saudi Arabia, defend their country, and ignore their cold-blooded execution of an American citizen. Geopolitical choices are an ugly game.

So far, we’ve dealt with the ongoing fentanyl threat with impotent enforcement and nonexistent addiction treatment. We’re not targeting the cause, we’re putting Band-Aids on the symptoms.

But what if we considered this an act of war?

An Act of war or casus belli is an action by one country against another with an intention to provoke a war or an action that occurs during a declared war or armed conflict between military forces of any origin.

Hmm, that won’t work.

The US code 18 U.S. Code § 2331 – Definitions mimics this…

4) the term “act of war” means any act occurring in the course of— (A) declared war; (B) armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations; or (C) armed conflict between military forces of any origin;

Not quite.

The United Nations is no help…

Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in this Definition…

Still not on point.

Dictionary.com has this…

an act of aggression by a country against another with which it is nominally at peace.

That might be workable.

Now the issue is defining country. Are Mexican Narco-traffickers acting on behalf of the country? Are the Chinese selling precursor chemicals to Mexico considered an official act of aggression by China?

Then the problem becomes, who do we declare war on? What country?

China, Mexico, who?

Trying not to be insulting to another nation, attacking Mexico would be one thing, attacking China would be a bit more challenging.

In Mexico, a few well-directed B52 runs, reminiscent of the Arc Light Missions in Vietnam where we pulverized the countryside, would make short work of the rural labs. Some Air Cav deployments over the border would make short work of the transport routes.

Maybe a few Long Range Recon Units inserted into the country to interdict (kill) the traffickers would slow things considerably.

We buy oil from Saudi Arabia, defend their country, and ignore their cold-blooded execution of an American citizen. Geopolitical choices are an ugly game.

Joe Broadmeadow

China would be an entirely different animal. The logistics for an invasion would dwarf D-Day and likely result in far more casualties. A first strike nuclear attack would provoke a response that would be cataclysmic. So going to war with them might not be the best option.

It would seem the geopolitical realities dissuade such an approach to the problem, no matter how simple and appealing it may sound.

In this age of asymmetric warfare where armed groups not necessarily in political power wield as much weaponry as armies, the question is who controls them?

And the answer is surprisingly simple. Profits. The driving force are the profits derived from the drugs which then fund more weapons to exert more control and secure their position.

What if we removed the profits?

Could we remove the profits?

According to a study by Brown University, the cost of the Post 9/11 wars is eight trillion dollars and we killed around 300000 enemy fighters. (https://www.brown.edu/news/2021-09-01/costsofwar)

Dividing the cost of the war by the number we managed to kill in pursuit of the goal (ignoring for simplicity the 500000 civilian and assorted other non-combatant personnel killed) the net cost per dead enemy was twenty-seven million dollars ($27,000,000.)

On a cost basis alone, Mexico might be less costly per drug trafficker killed, China would be higher.

So perhaps seeking a way to remove the profits by eliminating market demand may be the most cost effective solution. It would be in keeping with our capitalist economy, seeing opportunity for new markets. In this case, a market for addiction prevention and treatment.

There are an estimated 2.5 million addicted opioid users in the United States. The national cost of opioid addiction is 1.2 trillion dollars ($1,200,000,000,000.) (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7015a1.htm)

The cost per addict to the country is four hundred eighty thousand dollars ($480000) per year. If we spent $50000 per addict in drug treatment and prevention we reduce the annual cost to one hundred twenty five billion ($125,000,000,000) a substantial savings.

And not to be cold hearted, but another less costly choice might be flood the market with cheap fentanyl and let nature take its course. Not the kindest solution but certainly the cheapest.

So what should it be? Casus Belli, caustic indifference, or a more nuanced and humanitarian approach?

JEBWizard Publishing (www.jebwizardpublishing.com) is a hybrid publishing company focusing on new and emerging authors. We offer a full range of customized publishing services. Everyone has a story to tell, let us help you share it with the world. We turn publishing dreams into reality.