"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."
The argument presented has numerous fallacies. The argument claims that higher vigilance in efforts to prevent illegal drugs has resulted in increase in the illegal use of cocaine. Primarily, the argument is based on an unwarranted that most of the cocaine is imported from outside the country, rendering its main conclusion that enforcement efforts have resulted in an observed increase in the illegal use of cocaine, invalid.
The argument suggests that the increase in drug abuse can be avoided, if illegal drugs can be prevented from entering the country. But the argument does not take into consideration that those drugs could be home grown. Thus, the enforcement efforts would have no direct results on the illegal use of drugs.
Although the argument claims that drug traffickers have switched from marijuana, because it is bulky, and heroin, because it has a small market, it does not provide any claim that cocaine is not bulky and has a big enough market.
More significantly, even if we assume that cocaine is mostly imported from outside the country and has some added advantages over marijuana and heroin, the argument fails to address whether the increase in drug abuse is due to illegal drugs. The victims of drug abuse could be using legal drugs in excessive amounts, resulting in an increase in drug abuse.
Had the argument presented evidence that cocaine is mostly imported from outside the country, it would have made a more convincing case. Also, the argument could have been stronger, if it stated how cocaine has significant incentives over other drugs, mentioned in the argument.
As the argument assumes a number of baseless assertions, it does not make a strong case to prove that the enforcement efforts have resulted in an observed increase in the illegal use of cocaine. The argument does not cite any evidence to support its claim and, thus, fails to be cogent.
Thanks!