While making some compelling points about the inefficacy of current enforcement efforts against fentanyl and need for new approaches like harm reduction policies, the article undercuts its critique with a hasty generalization about prior drug war failures and mischaracterizing mainstream Republican positions through weak man and straw man fallacies.

1. hasty generalization • The text portrays the overall war on drugs effort as a failure, saying "victory seems further away than ever." While this is true especially in relation to the current fentanyl crisis, there have been some areas of success worth considering:

• Initial reduction in overdose deaths: CDC data indicate that after Nixon's announcement of a "war on drugs" in 1971, US overdose deaths fell by half, and remained lower than the 1970 level well into the 1990's. This century, however, the rate of such deaths has risen sharply -- as the article states, largely due to fentanyl. But the war on drugs had some success, at least by this one indicator, for a considerable number of years.
• Decreased use of some substances: Efforts to restrict supply and penalize drug trafficking have contributed to declining use of certain drugs like crack cocaine from its peak levels in the 1980s and 90s.
• Disrupting drug cartels: High-profile arrests and prosecutions of major cartel kingpins like Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán have periodically disrupted the operations of large trafficking organizations.
• Interdiction efforts: While imperfect, interdiction through border control, maritime seizures, etc. has prevented some volume of illegal drugs from reaching markets.
• International cooperation: The war on drugs has facilitated cooperation agreements between the US and other nations to coordinate enforcement and extradition efforts against traffickers.
• Public education: Anti-drug education campaigns in schools and media, while criticized, may have raised awareness about drug risks and penalties.

So while deeply flawed and unable to stop supply overall, especially for newer synthetic drugs like fentanyl, the decades-long war on drugs has had some wins in specific areas. Portraying it as an overall failure risks oversimplifying a complex issue that has several dimensions.

2. weak man • The article nut-picks some extreme views as supposedly representing the Republican/tough-on-drugs stance.

Predictably, many politicians think the best response is extreme tactics... Senior Republicans have called for an invasion of Mexico, to eradicate the gangs... Donald Trump is said to have contemplated missile strikes on traffickers' hideouts when he was president.

With no other examples mentioned, this sets up an easily dismissed "weak man" argument rather than grappling with the more mainstream arguments from the tough-on-drugs side. It's doubtful that most Republicans or proponents of a hardline approach actually advocate for something as extreme as a military invasion of Mexico. More likely, the bulk of that side argues for more moderate measures like enhanced border security, harsher penalties for traffickers, more robust interdiction efforts, etc.

By nut-picking only the most outlandish examples, the author creates a weak man caricature of the "tough on drugs" position, rather than engaging with the more reality-based arguments made by the mainstream of that viewpoint.

3. straw man • The article constructs an over-simplistic strawman by saying:

Republicans in Congress have turned down Joe Biden's request for more funds to patrol the border

This omits the crucial context that Senate Republicans did approve a bipartisan border funding bill, which is now held up in the House by other Republicans who want an alternative legislative approach that may provide even more funding than Biden proposed. Speaker Johnson's stated rationale is that the bipartisan Senate bill does not go far enough in his view to truly "secure the border." So there are substantive policy disagreements at play.

​However, Johnson's denial that political considerations around the 2024 election are a factor does seem somewhat contradicted by Trump's rhetoric calling the deal a "gift" to his enemies that he would never support. So while not the outright obstruction as portrayed by the article, there does appear to be at least some political motivation from Trump and his allies in addition to the stated policy objections.

Still, the article's encapsulation of all this as Republicans merely "turning down Joe Biden's request" is an oversimplification that makes the Republican position seem easier to dismiss -- the very essence of the straw man fallacy.