Arkansas House Bill HR1048

Arkansas 2023 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/13/23
• Refer: 3/13/23
• Report Pass: 3/15/23
• Passed: 3/16/23

Caption

To Call On The United States Government To Declare Fentanyl To Be A Weapon Of Mass Destruction And To Designate The Mexican Drug Cartels As Foreign Terrorist Organizations.

Impact

Should this resolution pass, it would lead to a heightened scrutiny of the Mexican drug cartels, advocating for their designation as foreign terrorist organizations. The resolution argues that such a designation is justified given the documented links between these cartels and terrorism. Furthermore, it positions fentanyl as a weapon of mass destruction, which could prompt the federal government to adopt more aggressive measures to combat the influx of synthetic opioids and reduce their availability that has cost countless lives across the nation.

Summary

HR1048 is a resolution proposed by Representative Richmond that calls on the United States government to take decisive action against the collaboration between drug cartels and terrorist organizations. The resolution particularly highlights the dangers posed by fentanyl—a synthetic opioid—that has led to over 100,000 overdose deaths in the past year. The bill's preamble outlines the significant public health and national security crises that have arisen due to drug trafficking, especially by Mexican drug cartels like the Sinaloa and Jalisco New Generation Cartels. It categorizes their actions as akin to chemical warfare against American citizens.

Contention

There are complex layers of contention surrounding HR1048. Proponents argue that the resolution is a necessary step to confront an escalating crisis that threatens both public safety and national security. However, critics may view it as an oversimplification of the drug epidemic, potentially sidelining other essential strategies to address addiction and substance abuse. The language used in the bill, especially referring to fentanyl as a 'weapon of mass destruction,' may also raise concerns regarding its potential implications for military engagement and federal response, drawing criticism from those wary of militarized approaches to drug policy.