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 …show more content…
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