There is no shortage of information on the dangers of the infamous opiate, fentanyl. From advisories on the effects and ubiquity of the powerful painkiller as a “party drug,” to the the recent account of Nick Jansen of B.C., who lost a brother and a girlfriend to the drug, there’s no shortage of information on why it’s something to steer clear of.
A judge in B.C. is looking at putting Walter McCormick, a man accused of being a purveyor of the drug, in jail for 18 years to set an example. The rationale for such a potentially intense punishment is that the drug is so extremely dangerous that someone deliberately providing it to people is committing a particularly egregious offence.
McCormick was accused of trafficking and possession. He was then caught, again, with fentanyl and the intent to traffic it while out on bail from those previous charges. He’s pleaded guilty in court to all these things.
At a glance, the question which arises from all of this is at what point does a drug become so dangerous that the harshness of the sentence must rise, proportionate to the danger of the drug, if someone means to distribute it? The answer to this question is quite simple when you’re dealing with a drug like fentanyl.
There may be grey areas that could vary from case to case with weaker opioids or other drugs with addictive properties, but fentanyl is in a league of its own. It's mind-boggling what little of the drug is needed for it to flat out kill someone who takes it. Is 18 years in jail too much for a guy who has shown, before and after his arrest, that he is determined to bring this drug to people seeking it?
I’m not going to stick a number on it. Look at the “tough on crime” approach in the American courts. Do enormous sentences deter drug dealers down there? Not really.
Distributing fentanyl says a lot—knowingly or not—about the regard you have for the value of the people’s lives to whom you’re selling the drug. I’m not a mind-reader, but I’d say the potential for making a large profit off of a popular quick-selling drug was a whole lot greater a priority to McCormick than the ethics and hazards of the matter.
However, peddling unregulated opioids to people is a pretty heinous thing to do, and ought to mean prison time. That being said, what’s far more important than making an example out of one determined drug dealer on a mission is dismantling the market he operates in. Supply and demand only works if there’s a demand for that supply.
The federal government has demonstrated it has the right idea by adding the substances used to make fentanyl to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and the Precursor Control Regulations. Long story short, that is a good first step in curtailing the “supply” side, and will make it very hard for the people making the uncontrolled highly dangerous street fentanyl to continue doing that. Demand is trickier to reduce.
I don’t know if anyone else remembers me writing about it about a year ago, but fentanyl is 50 to 100 times stronger than heroin, oxycodone or morphine. And those aren’t casual drugs, to begin with. I’ve visited people in the hospital before, and know full well what drugs like oxycodone and morphine, on their own, are capable of doing to a person. (Can anyone say “High as a kite?”)
Since it’s completely undetectable by taste or smell, it can easily be stuck in with other drugs, which I can only imagine is a nightmare for someone thinking they’re going on an whole other trip, only for those side effects to kick in. Fentanyl, when used in the proper medical context, is supposed to be a last resort for patients suffering with the unspeakable pain usually associated with cancer or other serious illnesses that more moderate painkillers can’t vitiate.
It needs to be reiterated to the point of running the risk of sounding like a broken record, how dangerous fentanyl is. It ruins and ends lives. And if this piece dissuades one person from trying a sketchy pill and saving a life, then it's served its purpose. As the old saying goes, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
