Considering the enforcement effort over illegal drugs, we should view the efforts over the total amount of marijuana, heroin¹, cocaine² and other illegal drugs. Since many drug traffickers have consequently switched from marijuana and heroin to cocaine because of government’s action, We can not tell the change on the total amount of drugs if, with the dramatic decrease of marijuana and heroin, this total amount decreased as the result of enforcement. We can claim that opposite the argument, the enforcement of effort do overawe the drug traffickers. The argument also tells us that government’s efforts to prevent illegal drugs from entering the country had effectively made drug traffickers switched form marijuana and heroin to cocaine, which means with the decrease on marijuana and heroin, the government can focus their effort on cocaine.

 We can see the bright future that authorities will effectively beat the cocaine traffickers just as they beat the marijuana and heroin traffickers. So the argument’s conclusion would absurd though reasoning. The authorities action did some efforts to the illegal drug abuse they should continue the enforcement against drug abuse, with efficiency. Revised Essay In this argument, the arguer concludes that the government’s efforts to prevent illegal drugs from entering the country have resulted in an obvious increase in the illegal use of cocaine. To support this conclusion, the arguer points out that the authorities’ more vigilant³ efforts to thwart⁴ the illegal drug traffic in the country have forced drug traffickers to switch from marijuana and heroin to cocaine.

In addition, the arguer reasons that the increase in the supply of cocaine has resulted in its increasing use. This argument commits two critical fallacies. In the first place, this argument commits a fallacy of causal oversimplification. The arguer assumes that an increase in the supply of cocaine is sufficient to bring about an increase in its use. While the supply of cocaine may be one of the contributing factors to its use, it is insufficient⁵. The presumption⁶ required to substantiate⁷ this view is that drug users are not particular about which drugs they use, so that if marijuana and heroin are not available, they will switch to whatever drug is available--cocaine in this case.

This assumption is not reasonable. 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 addictive⁸ properties. The view that drug users’ choice of drugs is simply a function of supply overlooks these important differences. Besides, the argument is self-contradictory. If it were true, as stated by the arguer, that cocaine trafficking is both safer than the bulky marijuana and more profitable than heroin that has a small market, this fact alone would have motivated the drug traffickers to switch to cocaine. In this case, the government enforcement effort should not be held accountable for the rise in the use of cocaine.