6 Comments
User's avatar
Philipp's avatar

This seems simple to me.

Fentanyl distributed as an illicit drug is not a WMD in any technical, legal sense, though one can politicize the label, and the administration's recent order is incoherent.

On the other hand, fentanyl weaponized by either a state or a non-state actor, to the extent that has or might happen, is unequivocally a WMD under every definition.

Joseph Collins's avatar

Al, drugs are a weapon that some of our citizens pay to attack us. The terminological weaponization of non-weapons is just part of the artful dodgery that we have become used to in America. Orwellian.

Al Mauroni's avatar

I can’t agree. The laws in place clearly define what a weapon is and what an illicit drug is. The Orwellian aspect of this argument is how the White House claims that “fentanyl is a WMD” to justify military action against a nation state. Let the law enforcement community deal with the citizens willingly dealing with illicit drugs. The military and State Dept need to focus on those actual weapons that they may face on the battlefield.

Joseph Collins's avatar

Al, l agree w you, totally. I must not have been clear.

Al Mauroni's avatar

Re-reading your note, I understand your intent now. I read it wrong. The first sentence threw me off, I didn’t take your point. Thanks for the note.