Controlling Drug Abuse

The following appeared in the editorial section of a newspaper:

"As public concern over drug abuse has increased, authorities have become more vigilant in their efforts to prevent illegal drugs from entering the country. Many drug traffickers have consequently switched from marijuana, which is bulky, or heroin, which has a market too small to justify the risk of severe punishment, to cocaine. Thus enforcement efforts have ironically resulted in an observed increase in the illegal use of cocaine."

Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.

The reasoning effectively blames efforts to prevent illegal drugs from entering the country for the increase in the illegal use of cocaine. The observation is flawed on some counts.

Even though it is mentioned that the number of cocaine users has increased, the number of total drug addicts is not discussed. It is very much possible that the number of drug addicts consuming other drugs has come down due to fear of authorities. In the depleted pool the number of cocaine drug addicts may dominate as they are still able to get cocaine. On the other hand, if the number of total addicts has not fallen and they have simply switched to cocaine, then this argument is justified to some extent.

Moreover, the effort to control a disease can sometimes make the disease stronger. But blaming the effort for the transmutation is not accurate. The effort to prevent illegal drugs from entering the country may also have been responsible for bringing drug lords to justice, making it harder for drug cartels to operate and reducing the number of drug addicts. Citing only one statistic to disparage the efforts does not sound convincing.

Finally, there can be an alternative reason to explains the increase. It is possible that for some reason the cocaine has become cheaper to buy. Or that even though the drugs are prevented from entering the country, if they manage to enter then the local law enforcement agencies do not take it seriously. In that case the reason may lie due to an external market force or some other agency. If the argument explores alternate reasons and shows that they are not responsible for the increase in cocaine users, the reasoning can become stronger.

Concluding, the reasoning attributes increase in the number of cocaine users to the efforts of authorities to prevent drug-trafficking. The reasoning conveniently forgets to mention the actual numbers and does not compare them to the number of illegal drug users in the previous years. It also fails to highlight if there were any positive effects that the efforts may have had in terms of busting drug cartels and bringing drug mafia to justice. Neither does it try to show that cocaine usage did not increase due to any other reason except the one mentioned. Without additional information, it seems that the reasoning seeks to disparage the efforts of the authorities. Nevertheless if it categorically mentions concrete numbers, shows that cocaine usage did not increase due to any other reason and states as a fact that the control efforts did not help in any way, the reasoning can be made stronger.