Why Do Police Prevent Drug Abuse?

The argument states that people are more worried about drug abuse and therefore the police have increased its efforts on preventing drugs from entering the country. Due to this increase, drug trafickers prefer to illegaly transport cocaine which does not have the disadvantages of other drugs. Therefore increased law enforcement lead to an increase in cocaine abuse.

At first glance, the argument may seem somewhat convincing, though further examination reveals examples of lack of evidence, ill-founded assumptions and poor reasoning. For instance, there is no evidence for a switch to cocaine by drug dealers. Moreover, it may be that less cocaine is smuggled than before. And finally, the reason why the police would change its policies on drug
trafficing are not clear. Thus, the argument is rather weak, dubious and unconvincing.

First, the argument relies on the assumption that the drug traffickers switched to cocaine instead of marijuana and heroin because of the change in law enforcement practice.
On the one hand, it is reasonable to believe that an increase in border control, patrols and drug searches constrict the action of smugglers. On the other hand, the assumption that this is the only reason for the switch is far-fetched. There may be many reasons that made the change to smuggling cocaine economic. Maybe the demand in heroin or marijuana dropped. Many states, most notably Colorado, are legalizing marijuana and use the profits to support physological help for drug abusers. Consequently, many people can by marijuana legally while at the same time heroin addicts are getting the help they and take a medical substitute, such as methadone, instead of illegal heroin. Furthermore, it is possible the taste for drugs changed. Cocaine is considered the drug of the rich Wall Street bankers. Maybe the steady upturn in the economy has made many people wealthy who now start to use cocaine. Clearly, the law enforcement is not the only factor in the decisions of drug smugglers. In order to be more convincing, the argument must provide substantive evidence for its
assumptions.

Second, it is highly doubtful that more cocaine than before is smuggled across the border. While the reduction of marijuana and heroin abuse makes this a tempting assumption, its truth is by no means obvious. Since the law enforcement activities increased and it is becoming increasingly difficult and expensive to traffic drugs, it is not economic to increase smuggling any drug, including cocaine. Consequently, the author fails to make a convincing case for his conclusion. The argument could be considerably strengthened if it clearly stated why it assumes that more cocaine is smuggled across the border.

Third, the argument claims that law enforcement officers have increased their activities to prevent drug trafficing because the public is more concerned about drug abuse than before. However, it is highly doubtful that this is an effective response to the worry of the people. If the public was so concernced about drug abuse, then the most policies to enact would have been to introduce help drug abusers, not make the drug smuggling more difficult. For example, the country could increase its support for instutions that help drug addicts. This would have been more effective than preventing drug trafficing. Even if drug smuggling is prevented, people can still get high by making their owns drug such as methamphetamine. Stated in this way, this claim seems more like a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.

In conclusion, the argument is not completely well-reasoned as it stands. To allow for a better evaluation of the argument, the author needs to explain why he believes that drug traffickers are now smuggling more cocaine than before and why law enforcement increased its activities to crack down on drug dealers.