form of lying is trying not to get caught, whereas the Middle East form of lying, and again this is just an observation so I'm not making any claim that anything I'm going to say here would hold up to any kind of scientific scrutiny, it's just an observation that I'd be interested if it held up to scrutiny but I'm not predicting that. You can't predict that based on anecdotal evidence. But anecdotally it seems to me that the style of lying is fundamentally different and that to us their style of lying looks like not even trying, whereas the Western style of lying looks like you're at least trying to get away with it. That's just an observation. So I don't know if there's a cultural difference there that matters or not.

Let's talk about opioids. So I'm getting a lot of pushback on my call for China to execute their fentanyl lab owners as they find them. And people have pushed back this way. They said, hey you idiot, don't you know that if you shut down one lab there will just be another lab? Or people are saying, you idiot, don't you know that there are thousands and thousands of illegal fentanyl labs? China couldn't possibly know where they all are, couldn't possibly shut them down.

To my critics I say you are completely right. There's nothing that China can do or that we could do that will ever change the supply because the nature of it is you can start an illegal lab just about anywhere. So if you shut down one, sure enough another lab would jump up. But you're missing my point entirely. There's nothing I'm saying that has anything to do with supply.

All right, so when I say that China should execute its illegal fentanyl lab dealers, it's not to reduce the supply because that can't be done. I'm not suggesting that anybody try to do the impossible. What I'm suggesting is that they're mass murderers. And if somebody is a mass murderer, and collectively they're killing perhaps 30,000 Americans a year, that changes everything.

If one person was dying in America, even I would say well maybe that person should have made better choices. If a hundred people per year were dying in America from Chinese fentanyl I might say, that's terrible but that's a hundred people who should have made better choices. If a thousand people per year Americans died from Chinese fentanyl I might be tempted to say, a thousand? Wow that's a lot of people but that's a lot of people who should have made better choices. When 30 freaking thousand people a year are dying from Chinese fentanyl, that's a war. That's not personal choice anymore. Personal choice is always involved in the fabric of it but the size of it changes entirely what it is and therefore your approach to it has to entirely change to recognize what it is.

And one of the things it is, is a big freaking problem that should be attacked with maximum strength on every dimension you could attack it. So when I say that China should be executing their fentanyl dealers and if they can't that we should do it for them with whatever wetwork type people we can arrange, literally kill them is what I'm talking about and don't care if we get caught. So if we get caught executing Chinese citizens who are illegal drug dealers in their country, I don't care. I don't care if that becomes public. I don't care if China doesn't like it. Because this is no longer about some supply and demand and a product and some people should have made better choices. It's a war. In a war you don't care that some of your guys get caught killing the other side. It's a war.

We are not at war with the government of China and I think we could make that distinction because they would be on the same side trying as hard as they can to go after their own fentanyl dealers. Now let me ask you this. If we killed a few of their fentanyl lab owners and China's government found out about it, what is the most likely response? Well of course they'd complain and they might make some trouble about it but the most likely response is they're going to try a lot harder to police their own business. Now they can't stop all their fentanyl. That's never the goal because it can't be done. Here's the goal: to send a message about how big the problem is. That's my goal.

When I say China should be executing the fentanyl lab dealers or we should go in and do it for them on their soil even at the risk of getting caught, when I say that it's because I'm sizing the problem. I'm persuading. I'm using death of people who deserve it because they're mass murderers and they know it. I'm using their death simply to amplify the message. That's it. I want to kill people who have it coming. They're mass murderers. I'm not in favor of killing any innocent people ever, period. But people who are mass murderers we can morally kill if it improves our result. It changes the size of the message.

So don't argue with me about supply. If you would like to try legalizing fentanyl in a small trial I say let's try it. So anybody who's arguing that the problem is on the supply side, I'm not ruling that out. In fact that's a very good argument and we should work on that as hard as we can at the same time we're helping the world see the size of the problem by executing Chinese fentanyl lab dealers if their government won't do it for them. And by the way even if China is doing it as fast as they can and they're really trying to help, if it's not enough we should also kill their fentanyl dealers because again it makes the size of the problem look more realistic.

Let me put this in starker terms. There are two dumb opinions on every big policy decision. So whether you're talking about how to treat opioids or climate science or just about any other problem from the urban situations, if you say here's a proposal and if you say yes let's do it or you say no let's not do it, those are the two stupid opinions. All right let that hang there for a while. No matter what the proposal is, if it's a big government proposal there are two stupid opinions. And I'm being blunt here. There's no way to shade it. There are two opinions that are stupid about every major proposal. One of them is yes let's do it and the other is no let's not do it. Those are the stupid opinions.

Now let me tell you what a smart opinion is. Can we test it small? That's what a smart opinion looks like. A smart opinion says if you're considering doing this big plan we don't know how it'll turn out. Nobody knows. Nobody's smart enough. So if you say yes let's do it you're stupid. If you say no let's not do it you're stupid. Those are the two stupid sides. If you say is there some way to test this small so that we would have better visibility about whether it would work, that's a smart decision.

So when you're saying to me it's smart or it's dumb to do this or that about fentanyl, you're not part of the intelligent conversation. If you say is there something we could test in a small scale and then we'd know whether it's worth considering for large, you're part of the smart conversation. So when somebody says to me, Scott why have you ruled out making it legal in some cases so that people could get a safe supply of their drug and then you work on the addiction problem, and I say can you trial it? Is this something you can do small? The answer is absolutely yes. So if you can te