An April 1 federal indictment charged two men, Antonio Venti and Michael Kuilan, with supplying the drugs that killed transgender activist Cecilia Gentili in February. Among other things, Venti and Kuilan are accused of causing Gentili's death by distributing a mixture of heroin and fentanyl, a felony punishable by a mandatory minimum of 20 years in prison and a maximum of life.

Gentili "was tragically poisoned in her Brooklyn home [by] fentanyl-laced heroin," Breon Peace, the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York, said in a press release. "Fentanyl is a public health crisis. Our Office will spare no effort in the pursuit of justice for the many New Yorkers who have lost loved ones due to this lethal drug." The indictment "delivers a strong message to anyone who profits from poisoning our communities with illicit drugs," New York City Police Commissioner Edward Caban added. "It is imperative that we continue to hold distributors accountable for their callous actions."

That self-righteous stance obscures the role that drug warriors like Peace and Caban played in killing Gentili. If Venti and Kuilan were "callous," how should we describe public officials who are dedicated to enforcing laws that predictably cause tens of thousands of deaths like this one every year?

Those laws create a black market in which the composition and potency of drugs is uncertain and highly variable. They also push traffickers toward highly potent drugs such as fentanyl, which are easier to conceal and smuggle. As a result, drug users like Gentili typically don't know exactly what they are consuming, which magnifies the risk of a fatal mistake. The "poisoning" that Peace and Caban decried therefore is a consequence of the policies they were proudly enforcing in this very case.

In this context, it would be perverse to hold Gentili responsible for causing her own death. Peace and Caban instead blamed Venti and Kuilan, which might seem more plausible until you consider the complexities of illicit drug distribution. As the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) noted, "People who sell drugs rarely know the exact contents of their drug supply or a given dose. Research shows drug mixing is typically done at much higher levels of the supply chain."

It is clear neither Kuilan nor Venti intended to kill Gentili. Yet the mandatory penalties they face are much more severe than the federal penalties for voluntary or involuntary manslaughter and New York's penalties for criminally negligent homicide. That distinction hinges on the legal status of the drugs they sold, as opposed to their culpability in Gentili's death.

Prosecutions like these make a mockery of justice. "Drug-induced homicide laws, mandatory minimum laws, and other severe penalties that people face when they sell or share drugs that result in a fatal overdose primarily punish people involved with low-level selling who often use drugs themselves," the DPA noted. The New York Times reported that Venti, who was previously convicted of "petty larceny and attempted drug sales," is an electrician who has "struggled with drug addiction." Even drug users who merely share purchases with friends or relatives have been prosecuted for causing their deaths.

These attempts to convert accidental overdoses into homicides are dangerous as well as morally dubious. They "cost lives because fear of prosecution deters people from seeking help in an emergency," the DPA argues. "Drug-induced homicide prosecutions may have the unintended consequence of people failing to seek medical help in a drug overdose situation, resulting in increased likelihood of death."

Prohibition, in short, created the hazard that killed Gentili. It compounded that hazard by fostering the use of additives such as fentanyl and the animal tranquilizer xylazine (which was also detected in Gentili's blood). And it made the resulting overdoses more perilous by discouraging prompt intervention. The answer, according to Peace and Caban, is zealous enforcement of the same laws that produced this disaster.

Frank Tarentino, special agent in charge of the Drug Enforcement Administration's New York Division, concurred. "Fentanyl is a deadly drug that dealers mix into their product and has accounted for 70% of drug related deaths nationwide," he said in Peace's press release. "Drug poisonings take too many lives too soon from communities nationwide and DEA is committed to bringing to justice those responsible."

If Americans truly demanded accountability from "those responsible" for drug-related deaths, they would start with the politicians and law enforcement officials who are perversely committed to making drug use as dangerous as possible.

The post Don't Blame Dealers for Fentanyl Deaths. Blame Drug Warriors. appeared first on Reason.com.

Earlier this week, lawmakers on the House and Senate Appropriations Committees put forward six spending bills that would fund the government through the end of the year. In a press release, Republicans on the House committee bragged that the bills would "save taxpayers more than $200 billion over the next ten years"—a period of time over which the Congressional Budget Office predicts the national debt will expand by $20 trillion and eclipse the nation's gross domestic product.

Some of those savings come from cuts to federal law enforcement agencies, including the FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). Unfortunately, even those cuts are much more modest than they appear.

In their press release, House Republicans boasted that the appropriations package "utilizes the power of the purse to address the weaponization of the growing bureaucracy within the FBI and ATF." Specifically, they do this by "reversing [ATF's] anti-Second Amendment overreach…by significantly reducing its overall funding by $122 million, a 7% decrease" from 2023, as well as holding the FBI "accountable for targeting everyday Americans by reducing its overall operating budget by $654 million and cutting its construction account by 95%."

But these already-meager cuts don't involve very much actual cutting.

The FBI's salaries and expenses totaled over $10 billion in 2023, and it requested over $11 billion for 2024; the appropriations bill would grant $10.6 billion—a bit less than the FBI wanted but only about one-half percent less than last year's budget and certainly nothing approaching the 6 percent cut Republicans bragged about.

Republicans get around this with some tricky math: In a 2022 omnibus spending bill, the Bureau received $652 million toward the construction of a campus in Huntsville, Alabama. Republicans include the $652 million when touting a 6 percent cut, even though the money apportioned for salaries and expenses barely budged.

In fact, when Republicans bragged about "cut[ting] the FBI's construction account by $621.9 million"—for a whopping 95 percent decrease—that precipitous drop uses the one-time Huntsville cash as its starting point. Besides, the FBI only asked for a $61.9 million construction budget, which would have constituted a 90 percent decrease on its own.

Meanwhile, the ATF received $1.672 billion for salaries and expenses in 2023, while the appropriations bill would apportion $1.625 billion—a decrease of just 2.8 percent, not the 7 percent drop House Republicans claimed. That supposed 7 percent cut of $122 million comes from adding the $47 million cut in salaries and another $75 million cut from construction costs. The ATF did not request any construction money in its 2024 budget, so boasting that this a cut is laughable. Just like with the FBI, judging salaries and expenses in an apples-to-apples comparison yields a much more modest cut.

Any sort of fiscal discipline should be welcomed, of course. But it's not like Republicans are dedicated to pruning federal law enforcement agencies across the board.

"The Drug Enforcement Administration was an outlier in the bill, as it would receive a modest funding bump," writes Eric Katz at Government Executive. The bill would fund the DEA with $2.57 billion; when accounting for revenue from diversion control programs, Republicans say the department would receive "$42.4 million more" than it did in 2023.

The bill also directs not only the DEA but also the FBI to prioritize the policing of fentanyl. The FBI is directed "to allocate the maximum amount of resources" to target the "trafficking" of fentanyl and other opioids. There's no sign of any recognition that prohibition is exactly why fentanyl has proliferated in the first place and that harm reduction measures would be much safer and more effective than a law enforcement solution.

In fact, Republicans openly state in their press release that the cuts are not intended to save taxpayers money, noting that the bill "right-siz[es] agencies and programs and redirects that funding to combat fentanyl and counter the People's Republic of China."

Clearly, when the federal government consistently spends much more than it takes in, there is room to cut and an imperative to do so. It's unfortunate, then, that Republican lawmakers are bragging about plans to cut $200 billion over 10 years—1 percent of the anticipated federal debt accrued in that time—and it's even more disturbing to know that they're fudging the numbers to even get that much.

The post Republicans Use Fuzzy Math To Claim Large FBI, ATF Cuts in Budget Bill appeared first on Reason.com.

Man. I have seen some shit since taking up a regular post at this fine website. I have had my mind blown with an alarming frequency. I have been sent into waves of mocking laughter more times than anyone writing for a respected website should admit. I have, in other words, been ruined by the internet.

Despite all of this unaddressed trauma, I continue to write for this site. Why? Well… several reasons. First and foremost, I enjoy writing. This site has an amazing group of regular readers. Some days, the hate is as enjoyable as the love. And, if nothing else, I’m provided constant opportunities to see things I’ve never seen before, even considering my many trips around the internet block. In other words, I need help but still prefer the company of others in my same position.

We’re seeing some amazing stuff right now. Fentanyl does indeed have the power to kill. People unfamiliar with its power are at risk of overdosing.

But fentanyl is, at its base, just another opiate. These have always presented this sort of risk, especially because getting high is almost indistinguishable from getting dead, which tends to result in a higher number of overdoses.

Meanwhile, everyone on one side of the drug experience (the DEA, FBI, and the local media) portrays this drug as capable of killing people who aren’t even ingesting it. Every drug bust is broken down to the minimum lethal level — 2 milligrams — by government spokespersons or journalists willing to push the government’s narrative forward.

While it’s likely true two milligrams can kill someone, that dosage would most likely only be able to end the life of an infant forced to ingest this dosage while having its mouth and nose held shut by DEA agents or entirely-too-credulous reporters.

Then there’s the DEA’s insistence drug cartels are not just seeking to addict children but kill them by offering up multi-colored variations of fentanyl products. While it’s undeniably true the drug trade often involves death, very few drug dealers actually want their customers to die. If kids are uniquely susceptible to a product, it makes little sense to market to them, especially when their funds are limited to allowances and birthday cards.

So, it’s unlikely cartels are marketing to children. But that hasn’t stopped the DEA from claiming otherwise. The real reason for multi-colored pills isn’t to make them attractive to children (who are capable of ending their own lives using any number of OTC and prescription medicines that are also multi-colored). It’s marketing. It’s brand differentiation and an indicator to buyers what product they’re getting and what its potency is.

While the government is busy claiming drug cartels are turning deadly drugs into candy, the government is also seeking to obtain deadly drugs in the form of candy. I am not making this up. Here’s Julia Ainsley with the details for NBC News.

The chief medical officer for Customs and Border Protection pressured his staff to order fentanyl lollipops for him to take to the United Nations General Assembly meeting in New York in September, according to a whistleblower report sent to Congress on Friday. 

The whistleblowers said Dr. Alexander Eastman’s staff raised questions about why he would need to order fentanyl lollipops to take with him, and he answered that it was part of his duties to make sure that any injured CBP operators were cared for, making the argument that the lollipops would be necessary for pain management should an emergency occur.

lololololollipop

This sounds like the actions of a person with a drug problem. This sounds exactly like Dr. Eastman wanted a personal stash of fentanyl edibles to get him through the day(s). What this doesn’t sound like is an actual medical need for these products.

Dr. Eastman claimed he was concerned about those flying him to his UN appointment via a Marine helicopter. He also claimed they might be useful in case he or the others on his flight “encountered a patient in need.”

The real reason can only be imagined. But there are some eye-opening things here:

Eastman’s staff initially responded to his request by explaining that Narcan, which can save the lives of those who overdose on fentanyl, has been requested for CBP operations in the past, but not fentanyl itself. The whistleblowers say staff members raised questions about how he would store the lollipops and what he would do with unused fentanyl at the end of the operation, according to the report. 

Eastman responded by writing his own policy regarding procurement of Schedule II narcotics, which omitted any mention of how narcotics were to be stored and disposed of, the whistleblowers allege.

Absolutely on the up and up here. Definitely not the actions of an opiate addict. I mean, we all know the saying: a thief will steal your stuff; a junkie will help you look for it.

On top of this, the whistleblowers pointed out the doctor was an uninvited guest. The chief medical officer is rarely, if ever, asked to attend UN general assemblies. But Eastman inserted himself (and his desire for opioid lollipops) into this equation by insisting his presence was necessary because [squints at report] the CBP was assisting the Secret Service with event security. The addition of a doctor with fentanyl lollipops would apparently make this security even more secure.

While it’s nice the whistle was blown, it appears Dr. Nick Eastman still retains his position as the chief medical officer for the CBP. I guess that’s good news for the boys in green, who will be able to indulge their opiate sweet tooth without fear of reprisal. On top of that, we’re now assured it’s safe to bring opioid edibles on board a government aircraft without having to worry about killing everyone on board with these airborne contaminants. Let’s hope Dr. Eastman continues to maintain his position while simultaneously undercutting the federal government’s “every milligram is a killer” narrative. The more he destroys his own reputation, the more he dismantles anti-drug hysteria that makes people stupider, rather than safer.