Rehabilitation and Radical Sentence Increases: How to Finally Win the War on Drugs
Combining a liberal idea with a conservative one to solve a problem for everyone
Tuesday was Fentanyl Awareness Day, which gave the Trump team the opportunity to hype up the all the fentanyl seizures that it says have resulted from its toughened border policies. Attorney General Pam Bondi served as the White House’s mouthpiece, heralding the occasion with an X post that stated that the administration, in its first 100 days, had already “seized over 22 million fentanyl laced pills, saving over 119 million lives." The following day, in a Cabinet meeting, Bondi expanded on both the details and the estimate in her claim, saying that 3,400 kilos of the substance had been taken out of circulation, "which saved—are you ready for this, media—258 million lives."
Like her boss, Bondi seems prone to considerable exaggeration. According to DEA figures, through April 28, more than 3,100 lbs. of powdered fentanyl had been confiscated in 2025. That amount converts to 1,400 kilos not 3,400 kilos. (Bondi’s claim about the seizure of 22 million-plus fentanyl pills, however, is accurate, according to the DEA, which says it has nabbed more than 22.2 million such pills this year, through April 28).
The origin of Bondi’s initial assertion that 119 million lives have been saved is at least provided on the DEA website. The quantity of fentanyl seized is equivalent to “119 million deadly doses.” The agency says that 2 mg of the drug “equates to a potentially deadly dose.”
Trump’s Department of Justice attempted to account for the disparity between Bondi’s original quote of 119 million lives saved and the next-day revision to 258 million lives. The uptick, DOJ said, was due to the inclusion of FBI fentanyl busts in the tally, whereas the 119 million were solely the results of DEA actions.
Of course, equating a loss of life to a “potentially deadly dose” implies both that there is a 100% possibility that the dose would otherwise been consumed by a single person and that it would have proved fatal. But, if that were an accurate depiction, fentanyl would have long since decimated the U.S. population as if it had been ravaged by the plague.
Also, Bondi’s pair of estimates would suggest that between a third and two-thirds Americans were saved by Trump’s border patrols. The reality is that between 2018 and 2023, around 325,000 Americans were killed by fentanyl overdoses. The deadliest years were 2022 and 2023, which each saw more than 70,000 fentanyl fatalities, or about 1/50 of the U.S. population.
So, the fentanyl seizures did not save 258 million Americans or 119 million Americans. Whatever lives were saved number in the thousands, not the millions.
However, just as Team Trump predictably crowed about the fentanyl seizures and inflated the numbers, Democrats and the press predictably crowed about Team Trump’s inflation of the numbers, rather than the actual news, which was that 1,400 kilos of fentanyl powder and more than 22 million fentanyl capsules were prevented from entering the U.S.
A rational drug policy
In a functional political system, the administration would announce the results—accurately—and, while accepting praise for its leadership, would give most of the credit to the agents who actually stopped the fentanyl from getting into the country. The president’s opponents, in turn, would also cheer the announcement and thank the agents on the ground.
The reason both sides would celebrate the news is because they would both recognize that it’s good news. Because here’s what the main takeaway should be: a lot of fentanyl was kept out of the U.S., and a lot of American lives were saved because of it. And that’s a very good thing.
Vastly enhanced border and coastline security
But, a second takeaway is that stepping up U.S. border defenses is an effective way to reduce the inflow of foreign drugs. Border security is usually discussed in conjunction with immigration, but it helps keep out more than just unauthorized entrants. It also shuts out many terrorists and human and drug traffickers.
And it’s not just our southern border that needs to be fortified. Our northern border needs enhanced protection also, as do our eastern and western coastlines.
Border defense is an important tool in what could become the campaign that finally wins the oft-derided “war on drugs.” But, it’s only one component in the multi-pronged strategy that would be necessary for the effort to be successful.
It’s the other elements of the strategy that would produce victory where all the previous wars-on-drugs have failed. Prior incarnations of the war on drugs have taken a punitive approach on the demand side, as well as on the supply side. On the demand side, this translated to steep penalties for users.
Decriminalization (NOT legalization) of drug possession and use
What this policy overlooked, however, is that the worst that people who use drugs can be accused of is hedonism. And it’s often more correct to look at them as victims of an illness, even though it’s self-inflicted.
The distinction that drug policy—universally—fails to adequately make is the between the hearts, if you will, of the people involved in a narcotics transaction, the buyer and the seller. People who buy and use drugs are generally doing so out of desperation. They’re just looking for a fix that will help them get through the day.
So, first, on the demand side, a rational drug policy should take a rehabilitative approach. All drug use should be decriminalized, with all apprehended users sent to mandatory treatment. Failure to complete the treatment program would result in incarceration, however.
Radical increase in penalties for drug distribution and sale
On the other hand, people who distribute and sell drugs (other than marijuana and, possibly, mushrooms) are poison peddlers. They are predatory leeches that drain individuals, families, schools, neighborhoods, communities and regions dry of their promise and vitality, and, in almost all cases, they do so out of cold, naked greed.
Thus, a rational drug policy would take a very different approach to the sale of drugs (other than marijuana or mushrooms), the poison that sucks the lifeblood from communities. The consequences for participation in the drug trade should be severely raised. Specifically, all state and federal penalties for the sale or distribution of narcotics, other than marijuana or mushrooms, should be tripled. At minimum.
(Some critics may balk at the second part of this plan based on the rationale that steeper penalties for drug dealing could disproportionately impact communities of color. But, where do these critics think the dealers that they’re concerned about are pushing their product? Hint: it’s not in white neighborhoods).
Radically increasing the sentences for drug trafficking would reduce the U.S. drug trade to an extent, but as long as drugs are in supply, there will be a demand for them, and there will be individuals who are willing to risk tougher penalties to supply the market.
Thus, deterrence can only go so far. To exterminate the infestation of drugs within our borders, we have to cut off the supply.
The first step, as covered, is to secure America’s boundary lines like never before. The specific strategies that the U.S. should use to defend its borders and coastlines can be deliberated, and civil liberties and the unimpeded flow of commerce should be of paramount consideration. But, the endgame is not debatable: America’s perimeter must become impenetrable to illegal drug traffickers (and human traffickers, terrorists etc.).
Even more extreme penalties for foreign traffickers in the U.S
And, for any narcotics smugglers who manage to get their product through our defenses, what would await them? The likelihood of spending a large part of their remaining years in federal prison. Because, just as the penalties for domestic drug trafficking should be severely escalated, so too should the punishment for international trafficking within the U.S.
In fact, the increase should be even harsher. Those who would test their luck and try to bring illegal drugs into the U.S. should expect consequences only moderately less harsh than are typical among the nations of southeast Asia—you know, where, at least in some places, traffickers get put to death. This will create a powerful deterrent against international trafficking, which will be a critical complement to our heavily fortified borders and coastlines in keeping illegal, foreign drugs out of the U.S.
Once foreign supplies are cut off, it will make it more difficult for local drug dealers to obtain product. The logistical problems alone would probably wipe out a sizeable portion of the domestic drug business. And the impending prospect of an extremely lengthy prison sentence for anyone who still wants to take their chances will shrink the industry even more.
Coordinated effort to eliminate U.S. drug trade by enforcement agencies
The remainder of the domestic trade could then be targeted via the coordinated efforts of law enforcement agencies. With our perimeter locked down, we’ll know that any narco-activity that happens within our borders has domestic origins. At that point, we can start taking down production facilities and bringing down drug kingpins and drug rings, beginning with the largest, until we drive the entire industry from our shores.
The plan outlined above is one of the most innovative strategies ever put forth on how to eliminate the nation’s drug problem. Instituting it could let us to win the “war on drugs” within years—without losing American lives abroad in battles with foreign cartels or locking away non-violent users at home.
Yet, it would never pass in our current system. Democrats/liberals would instinctively attack the idea of boosting the penalties for selling drugs as authoritarian and racist. And Republicans/conservatives would condemn the decriminalization of drug use as morally depraved and anti-American.
Ultimately, partisans would, as usual, pass nothing and do nothing. Meanwhile, the drug trade will continue to ravage American lives, families, neighborhoods, communities and regions.
Portions of this post have been adapted from my book The Anti-Partisan Manifesto: How Parties and Partisanism Divide America and How to Shut Them Down. Buy the book here. For the time being, it is only available digitally. To read, download the Kindle app to your phone, your iPad or tablet, your Kindle device or your computer.
Follow me on X at @JeffGebeau or on Facebook