"Nobody’s denying that, mhaze."

Well you're not denying it now that you've been forced into a corner.

"China recently tightened controls on two key chemicals used in fentanyl production, adding them to a list of strictly regulated substances. Both 4-ANPP and NPP are widely recognized as the most immediate precursors used in illicit fentanyl synthesis. Chinese authorities have also added other related substances to their control lists in line with United Nations recommendations, and are working to schedule additional chemicals such as 4-piperidone and 1-boc-4-piperidone."

See. A clip over the ear sometimes works.

I never denied it before, mhaze.

//Well you're not denying it now that you've been forced into a corner.//

The lack of quotes is rather convenient. More performance and projection.

//“See. A clip over the ear sometimes works.”//

Except your own example undermines your case. China’s scheduling of fentanyl precursors wasn’t a result of Trump’s tariffs - it’s part of long-running UN-driven regulatory pressure. Beijing has been announcing cosmetic “crackdowns” on precursors since 2019. Experts in the U.S. and UN have noted the scheduling often comes with loopholes and weak enforcement.

That’s not tariffs making China “play fair.” That’s China doing the bare minimum under multilateral pressure while the trade war kept taxing Americans.

So once again - where’s the evidence that tariffs (not UN conventions, not diplomatic pressure) have nudged Beijing? Because swapping in fentanyl regs after the fact isn’t proof, it’s just moving the goalposts.

Would you like me to also dig up a couple of quick links showing that China’s fentanyl moves were mostly UN-led and considered ineffective, so you’ve got receipts ready if he doubles down on this “tariff made them do it” angle?

A handful of fentanyl regs doesn’t vindicate your “nudged more” claim, it just highlights how far you’ve drifted from it.

"China’s scheduling of fentanyl precursors wasn’t a result of Trump’s tariffs - it’s part of long-running UN-driven regulatory pressure. "

I can't tell if you're hopelessly naive or hopelessly blinded by your TDS.

*Trump imposes tariffs as a penalty for China's promotion of the fentanyl trade.

* China, who'd been thumbing their noses at US efforts to get them to stop supplying fentanyl precursors to the Mexican cartels suddenly decides to take action. But rather than admit it was the tariffs wot dun it, they say, innocently (!!), oh we're just doing what the UN wants. Even though they've ignored the UN on this for years.

And JD thinks its mere coincidence that they suddenly decide to "play fair" just as the tariffs kick in!!

Except the timeline sinks that story, mhaze:

//China, who’d been thumbing their noses at US efforts … suddenly decides to take action.//

Beijing announced a class-wide scheduling of fentanyl and its precursors in May 2019 - effective June 1 - long before Trump’s 2025 tariff hike. That was under multilateral and UN pressure, not a sudden tariff epiphany:

http://www.unodc.org/LSS/Announcement/Details/f2adea68-fbed-4292-a4cc-63771c943318
http://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefings-statements/statement-chinas-class-scheduling-fentanyl
http://chemical.chemlinked.com/news/chemical-news/china-officially-placed-fentanyl-and-its-analogs-under-control

//Even though they’ve ignored the UN on this for years.//

Not true.

They acted in 2019, and again in subsequent years to add precursors - but enforcement has been weak. Analysts at Brookings note traffickers simply shifted to nonscheduled chemicals and Mexican routes:

http://www.brookings.edu/articles/china-and-synthetic-drugs-control-fentanyl-methamphetamines-and-precursors/
http://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/PDF/IF10890/IF10890.11.pdf

Even Reuters (Mar 2025) reported Beijing sees this as fulfilling international obligations - and actually accused US tariffs of undermining cooperation:

http://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/china-says-us-has-undermined-fentanyl-cooperation-by-imposing-tariffs-2025-03-12

So no, it wasn’t “tariffs wot dun it.” The chronology doesn’t fit, the UN record contradicts you, and the results show cosmetic compliance, not China suddenly “playing fair.”

When your story can’t survive the timeline, the record, or the results, it’s not analysis - it’s wishful thinking.

Try again.

Kudos mhaze.

Kudos for what, Canem Malum?

Ignoring the 2019 scheduling or confusing correlation with causation?

Kudos usually means the argument landed.