The author seems to believe that law enforcement’s increased vigilance in combating illicit drugs has led to an increase in cocaine use. But does the evidence support this conclusion?First, the author assumes that current enforcement efforts have indeed resulted in an increase in cocaine use. This statement, however, lacks sufficient evidence. The author does not cite any data that would support this claim. What evidence could the author provide to backup this claim? Assuming the author has access to law enforcement data, can the author claim that the increase in cocaine use is a direct result of increased law enforcement efforts? Perhaps, but it is hard to quantify or attribute the increase in cocaine usage solely to increased law enforcement. Drug enforcement efforts have been intensified since 2011, when the United States began arming its border personnel with automatic weapons, but it does not appear that the increase in cocaine use followed immediately afterward. Furthermore, there is no evidence that increased cocaine use is the result of increased enforcement efforts. The rise in cocaine use may be the result of a variety of other factors, such as increased awareness among users regarding the dangers of the drug, increased availability of cocaine, or changes in cocaine prices. In short, the author’s conclusion rests on a shaky foundation, and that certainly does not help persuade the reader

Second, the author contends that ‘cocaine is cheaper, and has a market too small to justify the risk of severe punishment,’ which is true, but only in the short run. Cocaine is very cheap, but its price has been steadily increasing. In 2011, the price per kilo of cocaine was about 3,000 dollars, but in 2013, the price per kilo reached 8,000 dollars, and continues to increase. However, cocaine’s price has been decreasing for marijuana, which lends credence to the author’s argument that users are now shifting from marijuana to cocaine. But the decrease in the price of marijuana is likely a result of increased enforcement efforts. The demand for marijuana is high, and its price has been increasing, and that has several consequences. First, the high price of marijuana encourages users to buy as much marijuana as they can possibly use, which increases the demand for cocaine. Second, the high price of marijuana encourages users to grow their own marijuana, which increases the demand for fertilizers to grow marijuana, and that in turn increases the demand for more fertilizer and pesticides, which further increases the demand for cocaine. Finally, the high price of marijuana encourages users to buy other drugs from dealers who grow marijuana legally. As the price for marijuana increases, fewer users of marijuana are discouraged, and more users turn to it. So, although cocaine is cheaper, its price is not decreasing for marijuana, which means that cocaine’s price is not decreasing. Consequently, the increase in cocaine use cannot be attributed to its lower price

Finally, the author also suggests that ‘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.’ Again, the author’s statement lacks supporting evidence. It is difficult to ascertain from the author’s statement whether the author is referring to criminals’ aversion to being caught with marijuana or heroin, or whether the author is referring to their fear of getting caught with cocaine. If the author is referring to the latter, the author’s argument is weak. Why has the author’s belief changed? Perhaps, the author thinks that the DEA has increased its efforts in combating cocaine, but the author does not provide any evidence indicating that the DEA has increased its efforts in combating cocaine. While the DEA is certainly active in combating marijuana, there is no evidence to suggest that the DEA has increased its efforts to combat cocaine. If the author is referring to criminals’ fear of being caught with marijuana or heroin, the author’s argument is weak. Why have criminals changed their preferences from marijuana to cocaine? One possible explanation is the increased incidence of human trafficking, during which many drug traffickers have been caught. Many traffickers are caught with drugs, and since they are carrying drugs, they are easy targets for authorities. The traffickers have no other means of transport, so they decide to switch to cocaine, which is easier to transport. However, the author did not provide enough evidence to back up his claim. If the author is referring to smugglers’ aversion to being caught with heroin, then the author’s argument is weak. Smugglers have other means of transport, and have increased their attempts to avoid getting caught. If the author is referring to smugglers’ aversion to being caught with marijuana, then the author’s argument is unfounded. Smugglers have no alternative means of transport, and even if they are caught, they are unlikely to face severe punishment

Consequently, the author’s conclusion is flawed. The author’s lack of supporting evidence makes his argument baseless. The rise in cocaine use cannot be attributed to enforcement efforts, and the rise in cocaine price is unrelated to increased enforcement efforts. The bottom line is that law enforcement’s increased vigilance in combating illicit drugs has not resulted in an increase in cocaine use.