Jeremy Douglas is the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime Regional Representative for Southeast Asia and the Pacific, based in Bangkok.
In times of high demand for a product or service, existing businesses are often blindsided by new players offering something cheaper, better or faster. Traditional distribution networks are challenged, and new products flood the market. The term "disruption" is commonly used these days to describe what is happening to different parts of the economy, but it has not yet been applied to illegal drug markets – even though that's precisely what's happening.
Globe editorial: To solve the opioid crisis, stick to harm reduction
Unlike the evolving landscape of legitimate businesses, the illegal drug trade has victims. In Canada and the United States, surges in opioid consumption have included a hidden supply of fentanyl, a synthetic drug killing thousands. Fentanyl is both a business story and a warning that the traditional approach to drug control needs an urgent rethink.
Fentanyl has similar effects to powerful opioids such as heroin, but that's like saying a missile is similar to a bullet. Fentanyl is 50 times stronger than heroin, and some variations are even stronger. If users think they are injecting heroin when it's actually fentanyl, they are likely to harm themselves or worse.
The only legal use of fentanyl is for the treatment of extreme pain. But it is now widely available in illicit drug markets, and in some instances it has been diverted from pharmaceutical supplies. This echoes another diversion problem: people obtaining opioid painkillers such as OxyContin on the black market. However, if organized crime can't pay someone to divert fentanyl, it can be found on the dark web, and some non-controlled variants produced in Asia are readily available online. And of course it can be synthesized in a few steps from chemicals available in pharmaceutical supply chains.
From a criminal's point of view, fentanyl has several advantages over a drug such as heroin. First, you've got something consumers want badly – your product is addictive and there is pre-existing market demand. Second, it is cheap to procure and can be cut and sold at high prices. Third, it is compact, which facilitates concealment and distribution. Fourth, you can bypass traditional suppliers who likely source from troubled places such as Afghanistan and Myanmar.
Finally, barriers to market entry are low. Major organized crime groups remain dominant, with established distribution networks and the ability to protect themselves from enforcement. But they are now competing in a fragmented market with entrants who do not need to invest in production, can source supply virtually anonymously and make high profits quickly. It is not a stretch to say there are parallels between the fentanyl business and the loosely connected network of Uber drivers taking on traditional taxi fleets.
As with disruption by Uber, North America is at the forefront of disruption by fentanyl. But it has begun showing up in other places, including Australia, Britain and parts of Europe. It is the most dramatic recent example of a decentralized shift to synthetic drug supply – and of the speed with which new drugs can capitalize on existing market demand.
If drugs such as fentanyl are like a new disruptive app, then the common approach to drug control is a clunky fax machine. The current system of surveillance and response is clearly much slower than the drug markets. Enforcement and international co-operation tools – which have already been struggling for years – were originally devised to focus on a small number of plant-derived substances coming from a few places. And there is a division between internationally scheduled "bad drugs" such as heroin and "dual-use" substances such as fentanyl produced by the pharmaceutical industry but also now made and trafficked by criminals.
Obviously we need systems of domestic and international surveillance that focus on rapidly understanding the sources, production and use patterns of new drugs. Crucially, interagency responses are needed that involve different disciplines and an understanding of globalized supply chains. And we need a much more effective public health and education response. The idea that drug users can be protected because "word gets around" about new substances is clearly not true. We need nimble, effective outreach to those most vulnerable. And we need to support the people who help them.
Disruption can test any existing business and throws up unexpected challenges for governments. While the illegal drug trade is ruthless and profit-driven, we can't lose sight of the fact the market is not regulated and operates in the shadows. It needs the right response. If thousands of people were dying from a contaminated water supply or new contagious disease, what would we expect from our governments? Fentanyl is showing us that traditional drug-control tools are just not responsive enough, because we haven't fully recognized the problem as a fast-moving disruption of illegal drug markets.