>Other nations with low thresholds (Canada, EU, etc.) forced traffickers into bulk smuggling channels, which are riskier and more expensive.

These countries still have issues with narcotics trafficking. Business has continued as usual. The impact of lower de minimis thresholds is a rounding error.

Drug cartels are sophisticated multinational corporations. They won't abandon a business channel that yields tens of billions of dollars' worth of annual profits because of a few lame obstacles on their path. If you factor in street value, you're talking about hundreds of billions of dollars' worth of merchandise. This business isn't going anywhere.

>Fentanyl is incredibly potent - ~2 mg is a lethal dosage. 1 kilogram can produce 500,000 doses.

I'm not making a moral judgement here. Fentanyl is obviously bad. How much friction are you willing to inflict on tens of millions of everyday Americans, individuals and businesses to stem this tide? How about ending all trade with the rest of the world? Where does the cost-benefit ratio stop/start making sense?

For the most part, Chinese syndicates don't even sell fentanyl to America directly. They ship to Mexico, American mules (sometimes hired on Instagram) drive across the border, and their cars are retrofitted with hidden drug compartments, then they drive back with it across the border. Will you also shut down vehicular traffic into the US?

These cartels hire Pakistani engineers to build them multi-million-dollar submarines that carry drugs across the oceans, to Europe, Africa, and America's coasts. And they're just going to stop because they can't ship tiny packages for free?

>I would strongly suggest doing some basic research instead of making "nativist crowd" allegations.

I'm calling out the nativist crowd because they support tariffs & other trade disruptions for inconsistent reasons. They can't even stick to a reason, so they're guaranteed to fail because of the showbiz nature of US politics. First, it was trade deficits. Then Fentanyl. Taiwan. American debt. Raising revenue. Getting Mexico and Canada to do something about the border. Something, something Golden Age of America. Then the tariffs were dialed back significantly across the board.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not fighting the War on Drugs on the side of drugs. I think narcotics destroy the fabric of society. But the only realistic way to combat it is Singapore-style death penalties for possession exceeding certain amounts. HN's libertarian crowd may dislike this, but it's how Singapore has become one of the world's wealthiest countries by gdppc without a pronounced drug problem.

Stop chasing around small fish, wasting time pandering to American nativists who love showbiz-style politics. Or maybe I'm wrong. The problem isn't even supposed to be solved. It's designed to rile people up and it's working as intended.

Postal traffic to US sank 80% after low-value parcels exemption ended