How We Misread Data: The Fentanyl Seizure Fallacy
This article is written with a completely neutral political position. This post isn’t about whether fentanyl is being used as a political tool, whether the broader drug crisis is being handled justly, or whether Canada is being unfairly blamed. Those are separate debates.
This is about how data can be used incorrectly—and why that matters.
It’s tempting to ignore flaws in reasoning when the “larger point” feels more important. But when we accept false equivalence or misapplied statistics, we do everyone a disservice. If a conclusion is built on shaky logic, even a noble cause is weakened. That’s exactly what’s happening with how people, including The Toronto Star, are citing fentanyl seizure data at the northern border.
Low Seizures ≠ Low Trafficking
A common claim: “Since only a tiny percentage of fentanyl is seized at the northern border, Canada must not be a major source.”
At first glance, that seems reasonable. But let’s put it in perspective:
Imagine a highway where very few speeding tickets are issued. Does that mean no one is speeding? Not necessarily. It could mean:
1. Few people actually speed.
2. There aren’t enough officers or speed cameras to catch speeders.
The same applies here—low fentanyl seizures might indicate little trafficking or weak enforcement. Assuming one without considering the other is a hasty generalization fallacy.
The Toronto Star’s Statistical Misstep
The Toronto Star’s recent article analyzing U.S. fentanyl seizure data makes this exact mistake. The piece suggests that, because only a small fraction of fentanyl seizures occur at the northern border, Canada is not a significant contributor to fentanyl smuggling.
The statistics don’t lie. But they can be misapplied.
Low seizures could mean fentanyl isn’t being trafficked in high volumes—or it could mean enforcement at the northern border is less aggressive or less effective than at the southern border. The article presents only one possibility while ignoring the other, leading to a misleading conclusion based on incomplete reasoning.
The Fallacies at Play
This misinterpretation of fentanyl data involves several logical fallacies working together:
1. Hasty Generalization
• Fallacy: Drawing a broad conclusion from limited data.
• Example: “We didn’t catch much fentanyl, so there must not be much fentanyl being smuggled.”
• Why it’s wrong: Seizures reflect what’s caught—not what’s actually out there.
2. Survivorship Bias
• Fallacy: Focusing only on what’s visible (seized drugs) while ignoring what’s undetected.
• Example: “Because the amount seized is small, the problem must be small.”
• Why it’s wrong: The real number includes both seized and successfully smuggled fentanyl.
3. Base Rate Fallacy
• Fallacy: Ignoring the overall likelihood of detection.
• Example: “Only 0.07% of fentanyl seizures happen at the northern border, so fentanyl from Canada must not be a major issue.”
• Why it’s wrong: If enforcement at the northern border is weaker, then naturally, fewer seizures will occur—regardless of actual trafficking volume.
4. Cherry-Picking Data
• Fallacy: Selecting only the numbers that fit a narrative.
• Example: “Most fentanyl is seized at the southern border, so all fentanyl must be coming from Mexico.”
• Why it’s wrong: Different trafficking routes use different methods. A lack of seizures doesn’t mean a lack of activity.
5. Correlation ≠ Causation
• Fallacy: Assuming that one thing directly causes another.
• Example: “Fentanyl seizures are low at the northern border, so fentanyl trafficking from Canada must be rare.”
• Why it’s wrong: A low seizure rate could be due to undetected trafficking rather than an actual lack of trafficking.
Why This Matters
Misreading statistics leads to bad policy and bad conclusions. If fentanyl is part of the debate, it should be debated accurately. Instead of assuming that low seizures mean low trafficking, the real questions should be:
• How effective is fentanyl detection at the northern border?
• What methods do traffickers use, and are they harder to detect?
• Are authorities allocating enough resources to fentanyl interdiction in this region?
Conclusion: Data Literacy Matters
Statistics don’t lie. But they can be misapplied.
Whether fentanyl trafficking from Canada is a major issue or not, we should never assume that what’s seized is the full picture. Critical thinking is essential when using data to shape opinions and policies.
Even when we care deeply about an issue, we have to get the data right. Otherwise, we risk making the very mistakes we criticize in others.
Read the article here: https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/reality-check-is-donald-trump-right-about-drugs-and-migrants-coming-across-the-canada-u/article_c1e11346-ac29-11ef-ade6-378c3a72786d.html
