Could Mexican Cartels Be Incentivized to Sell “Safer” Drugs?
Over the last few years, the US drug crisis has begun to abate, in part due to a supply shock that started around 2022. Since that time, drug overdose deaths have declined more than 30% nationally, with even larger decreases in some parts of the country. Disruption of the chemical supply chain from China has decreased the quantity and quality of fentanyl entering the US, which in turn, has led to fewer overdose deaths. At the same time, greater access to harm reduction measures such as naloxone and drug treatment programs have also contributed to these gains.
This is a step in the right direction, but it offers little cause for celebration. As Stanford addiction researcher Wayne Keper recently noted, “we’re celebrating a death toll that exceeds total American combat fatalities in Vietnam every single year.” Fentanyl remains the primary driver of drug overdose deaths in the US and the leading cause of death among Americans between ages 18 and 45.
Traditional drug control strategies were largely designed to address plant-based drugs. The rise of highly potent synthetic opioids has fundamentally changed both the economics and lethality of illicit drug markets, requiring bold new strategies to reduce overdose deaths and related harms. One question worth exploring is whether governments could incentivize drug trafficking organizations to move away from highly lethal synthetic opioids toward less potent substances, even if markets themselves persist.
Given the limitations of traditional supply control strategies, some drug policy reformers have suggestedlegalization as the answer. Legalizing drugs, they claim, would help stabilize supply, bankrupt drug trafficking organizations, and generate tax revenue similar to alcohol, nicotine, and (in some places) marijuana. It makes for a fascinating debate, but it is hard to imagine the United States legalizing substances that have just recently been designated “weapons of mass destruction.”
With legalization unlikely in the near term, it is worth asking whether intermediate strategies could lessen harms in illicit drug markets without eliminating them entirely. One radical idea is to attempt to incentivize drug trafficking organizations to move away from highly lethal synthetic drugs to less dangerous substances. This thought experiment reflects several inconvenient truths about the drug trade:
- There continues to be strong global demand for illicit drugs
- Prior efforts have largely failed to reduce the supply of illicit drugs, and
- Synthetic drugs are far more lethal than their plant-based predecessors
I am in no way suggesting we abandon supply- and demand- reduction—these remain key pillars for any successful drug control strategy. But it’s also important to acknowledge that some drugs are more harmful than others, and if we had to choose, a market consisting of “milder” opioids like codeine, tramadol, or even heroin would be preferable to today’s “synthetic soup” of street drugs. A drug-free world is an admirable goal, but in the meantime, we should also explore ways to “step down” the toxic supply of drugs that currently dominates the market—to literally “swap one drug for another”— to curb drug addiction, overdose deaths, and the associated harms.
For such a strategy to work, traffickers would need a commercially viable alternative to fentanyl and other synthetic opioids. One candidate is tramadol. Tramadol, like fentanyl, is a synthetic opioid used to treat moderate to severe pain. While not well known in the US, it is widely abused in other parts of the world due to its low cost and widespread availability. Like all opioids, tramadol carries risks, but it is substantially less potent than fentanyl and similar synthetic opioids. But because it’s weaker, traffickers would need to sell larger quantities to meet user demand or charge higher prices to maintain profit margins. The transition could therefore be disruptive for both traffickers and consumers, at least in the short term.
The obvious question is whether Mexican cartels would be willing to change their existing, highly lucrative business model. While the idea seems far-fetched, there is reason to believe they could be persuaded through a combination of “carrots and sticks.” At their core, cartels are profit-driven, rational actors that routinely adapt their operations to mitigate risk and maximize profit. This is why they embraced synthetic drugs in the first place—they’re cheaper, easier, and more profitable than plant-based drugs. It’s “Narconomics” 101.
In addition to applying greater pressure on the cartels and their supply chains, authorities might also consider taking the highly unorthodox approach of negotiating with cartels—directly or indirectly—to offer concessions in exchange for trafficking less harmful drugs. Any such approach would be ethically fraught, but there is precedent. For years, there have been unsubstantiated reports of authorities cutting deals with cartels to tamp down violence or focus on rivals, and in 2023, the “Chapitos” faction of the Sinaloa Cartel reportedly bannedfentanyl production in Sinaloa to reduce pressure from US law enforcement and manage “optics” surrounding the drug, suggesting some kind of agreement could be possible.
Synthetic drugs are different, and so too should be our response. The gravity of the drug crisis requires us to explore novel, even uncomfortable solutions. Sustained enforcement activity, combined with carefully structured cartel negotiations, could present a much needed “offramp” from the escalating potency of illicit drugs. With prohibition and legalization appearing equally unlikely, nudging the illicit drug supply toward less lethal substances could save countless lives and give policymakers a tangible way to mitigate the worst impacts of the ongoing crisis.
