Manisha Krishnan: A Fentanyl Czar and the End of Progressive Drug Policy
Like previous crackdowns, this will likely make the crisis worse
This is the first, of hopefully many, commissioned pieces published by The Hatchet. And we’re so excited to have Manisha Krishnan, who for years has been one of North America’s best drug journalists, writing for us about the “fentanyl theatre” that’s taken a central role in our trade war with the United States.
Canada’s new fentanyl czar will help wipe fentanyl “from the face of the earth.”
At least that’s what Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s office said when announcing that former Mountie Kevin Brosseau will be taking on the role, noting that Brosseau’s job will be to “detect, disrupt, and dismantle the fentanyl trade in partnership with the United States.” He’ll carry out that effort with 10,000 new frontline personnel, Black Hawk choppers and drones providing 24/7 border surveillance.
So far, Canadian officials are claiming that this is working.
"There is a recognition that Canada has made important steps and we are doing good work," Kirsten Hillman, Canada’s ambassador to the U.S. told CBC News. "Continuing to report on those results is something we're going to be doing over the coming days and weeks as well."
It sounds too good to be true. And that’s because it probably is.
The fentanyl czar was created in response to U.S. President Donald Trump’s threats of tariffs on Canadian products and his baseless accusations that that the northern border is responsible for allowing drugs and migrants into the U.S.
Only a tiny amount of fentanyl seized by U.S. border guards comes from Canada. In 2024, that amount was around 43 pounds compared to over 20,000 pounds seized at the U.S./Mexico border. The vast majority of fentanyl seized at the southern U.S. border is smuggled into the country by U.S. citizens who drive through at legal border crossings.
Still, this is a significant moment for Canada. The adoption of American drug war rhetoric marks a turning point for our relationship with drugs and drug users.
It comes at a time when we’re facing a country-wide backlash to harm reduction measures like safe consumption sites, safe supply drugs, and decriminalization. With Trudeau, who has overseen many of those policy shifts, about to leave government, it feels like the end of a relatively progressive era for drug policy in Canada.
Trump already appears to have moved on from blaming Canada for fentanyl, at least for the moment. He said that he still plans to introduce 25 percent tariffs against us next week. But Canada has nonetheless dedicated $1.3 billion to the cause; it has already designated cartels as terrorist organizations, created a cross-border task force to share intelligence, and will be doing more detailed analyses of drug samples to determine where they were produced and crack down on the precursor chemicals used to manufacture synthetic drugs like fentanyl.
Illicit fentanyl first started appearing in Canada’s drug supply around 2013. Since 2016, over 50,000 Canadians have died of overdoses and in some communities, including British Columbia, life expectancy has dropped. It is a full-blown crisis and if it could have been solved by increased border security and having a fentanyl czar, one would think those measures would have already been in place.
In the U.S., both the Democrats and the Republicans have thrown billions of dollars into prosecuting the drug war, pressuring countries like China to ban fentanyl, increasing border security and detection tools, seizing drugs domestically, and even charging drug dealers with murder. Every crackdown has resulted in a stronger and deadlier drug replacing its predecessor.
When both the U.S. and Canada cracked down on prescription opioids like OxyContin many people dependent on those drugs moved to heroin. Heroin has since been replaced with fentanyl, once traffickers realized it was far easier to produce (no poppy crops needed) and smuggle, as lesser amounts are more potent. In 2019, China, under pressure from Trump, banned fentanyl and all its derivatives, at which point cartels began processing their own fentanyl, using precursor chemicals purchased from China and other countries. In Canada, where drug traffickers also used to purchase finished fentanyl from China, we’ve also seen an uptick in domestic fentanyl production. Last fall, the RCMP conducted the largest “super lab” bust in Canadian history, seizing 54 kilograms of fentanyl and "massive" amounts of precursor chemicals in Falkland, B.C.
Essentially, the crackdowns on fentanyl actually led to increased innovation from traffickers. Even Todd Zimmerman, a Drug Enforcement Administration special agent based in Mexico City, told the LA Times, he hopes cartels will “step back away from fentanyl, and they’ll just go back to what they’ve always done, which is cocaine and methamphetamines and a little bit of heroin.”
I’m not saying that nothing can be achieved by Canada’s new plan to disrupt the drug trade. There could be a benefit, for example, in going after money laundering schemes used by organized crime. But increased scrutiny on precursor chemicals used to make fentanyl could also make the drug supply more unpredictable and worse.
We’re already seeing that play out with the influx of strong illicit benzodiazepines and the animal tranquilizer xylazine being cut into fentanyl to make frankenstein drugs known as “benzo dope” and “tranq.” I first reported on Philadelphia tranq users’ horrific wounds and amputations being cause by the drug in 2022; since then, xylazine has spread throughout the entire U.S. and has been found across Canada.
Meanwhile, Alberta and Ontario are shutting down safe drug consumption sites, despite the fact that they have reversed over 58,000 overdoses in Canada and only one person has ever died at one of these sites, worldwide. British Columbia has gutted its drug decriminalization pilot project and is restricting safe supply programs, through which people addicted to fentanyl are given pharmaceutical-grade opioids, after a recent report indicated there is “significant” diversion in the program. Alberta is also building involuntary care treatment centres, which will force people who use drugs into abstinence—a policy that is not only ineffective but can actually increase the risk of overdose once people are released with a decreased tolerance for opioids.
Trudeau’s legacy on drugs was a stark contrast to his predecessor Stephen Harper, who once argued that weed is “infinitely worse” than tobacco. He legalized weed federally, approved more safe drug consumption sites, made naloxone—the drug that reverses opioid overdoses—easier to get, and funded safe supply during the pandemic. His government also approved B.C.’s bid to decriminalize small amounts of drugs.
But, as is clear from the $1.3 billion that he approved for fentanyl border theatre within a few days, he could have done a lot more to fund and expand these programs, many of which are hanging on by a thread.
Of his potential Liberal party successors, Mark Carney hasn’t said much about the overdose crisis while Chrystia Freeland said drug policy in B.C. went too far too fast.
Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre has said he will cut all federal funding for safe drug consumption sites, which he calls “drug dens,” and send anyone selling more than 40 milligrams of fentanyl to life in prison. Fentanyl is sold on the street in 10-milligram units, so it wouldn’t take much to trigger an extremely harsh punishment. He’s also targeted doctors who prescribe safe supply.
Many of the things people are angry about, such as visible drug use and poverty, are being blamed on progressive drug polices. But those projects were never scaled up to the level needed to address this crisis.
In the meantime, drug users, activists, advocates, and doctors will continue to fill the gap. They’re tired and burned out from having these fights, having been exposed to more death than most of us can comprehend.
The more systemic factors that play into this, like lack of housing, inflation, and wealth inequality, are much harder to solve. Beefing up police budgets is not only easier, but it provides a narrative that’s straightforward for the public to grasp.
No one can predict the future, but it wouldn’t surprise me to find that in another decade’s time, doubling down on the war on drugs hasn’t achieved the results we were promised. By then, we may not have many progressive policies left to blame.
Drug policy has lagged behind the times- and well behind the science- for decades.
We know what methods are proven to work; a program of medical treatment, replacement drugs and psychiatric care combined to build up a solid rate of recovery. When you identify substance addiction as a medical issue and you treat it accordingly, people get their lives back on track.
But for a lot of people, substance abuse disorders are still viewed as a moral failing rather than an illness. When those people are in power, any assistance- even those forms of it that we know for a fact will solve the problem- is seen as being lenient on people who are a 'burden' on society.
They prefer programs that punish addicted persons rather than helping them get better.
It's a stunning lack of empathy that reveals a sick mindset. That kind of worldview doesn't belong anywhere near elected office. If your job is to be a public servant, then you should be serving the public, not going out of your way to be a complete bastard to people who need help.
Decades ago, I, while always sympathetic, looked down on those who had ‘allowed’ themselves to become heavily addicted to hard drugs or alcohol. Yet, I myself have suffered enough unrelenting PTSD symptoms to have known, enjoyed and appreciated the great release upon consuming alcohol or THC.
Addictions and addicts are still largely perceived by sober society as being products of weak willpower and/or moral crime. At the same time, pharmaceutical corporations have intentionally pushed their own very addictive and profitable opiate resulting in immense suffering and overdose death numbers — indeed the actual moral crime! — and got off relatively lightly and only through civil litigation.
The unfortunate fact about self-medicating is: the greater the induced euphoria or escape one attains from it, the more one wants to repeat the experience; and the more intolerable one finds their non-self-medicating reality, the more pleasurable that escape will likely be perceived. In other words: the greater one’s mental pain or trauma while not self-medicating, the greater the need for escape from one's reality — all the more addictive the euphoric escape-form will likely be.
When substance abuse is due to past formidable mental trauma, the lasting solitarily-suffered turmoil can readily make each day an ordeal unless the traumatized mind is medicated. (Not surprising, many chronically addicted people won’t miss this world if they never wake up.)
Societally neglecting, rejecting and therefore failing people struggling with crippling addiction should never be an acceptable or preferable political, economic or religious/morality option. They definitely should not be consciously or subconsciously perceived by sober society as somehow being disposable. Too often the worth(lessness) of the substance abuser is measured basically by their ‘productivity’ or lack thereof. They may then begin perceiving themselves as worthless and accordingly live and self-medicate their daily lives more haphazardly.