Best way to critique this letter

From the globe and mail letters to the editor:

Rx for disaster

In the story about the RCMP helping U.S. authorities hunt down a 25-year-old who dared to establish an online marketplace beyond American control, I was curious to see U.S. Attorney-General Jeff Sessions blaming the dark web for the opioid crisis (Canadian Allegedly Behind Dark Web Marketplace Undone By Hotmail Address, July 21).

That’s like blaming the liquor store for deaths caused by alcoholism or drunk driving. Perhaps instead of chasing dark web entrepreneurs to their deaths, the powers that be might consider ending the failed war on drugs, prosecuting opioid manufacturers, and providing universal pharmacare in order to undermine the black drug market and address the opioid epidemic.

People don’t risk illegal markets for medicines they can safely and affordably access through mainstream channels. Until those steps are taken, it will remain apparent that governments are more interested in protecting the profits of Big Pharma than in protecting the lives of their citizens.

<<<end of letter>>>

How would you critique the liquor store analogy?

There are several ways but I would grant his premise for the sake of argument, then say that just because we can't police liquor store sales doesn't mean we shouldn't shut down the dark web (two wrongs).

This would be the most economical and lucid way of demonstrating the fallaciousness of the arguers point IMO.

thoughts?

Ill give it a try...
1st paragraph looks like a questionable cause fallacy..
2nd paragraph, the liquor store analogy also seems like a questionable cause fallacy, but I think individual circumstances may need to be applied in some cases. So as far as analogy to the previous cause and effect fallacy its analogous althoug its wrong...I think.
"Provide universal pharmacare to undermine the dark web market" may be a non sequitur or sweeping generalization. Just because some people go to the dark web that may be able to get a prescription doesn't mean everyone who does it are in that category. Some people I'm sure are simply recreational opioid users. Some may have gotten addicted after being prescribed and didn't tell their doctor about it honestly so as the Dr. tried to wean them off they went seeking other sources.
"People don't risk illegal markets...etc.".... Seems like an assumption but also reasonable. If I can afford to see the dr. Then I wouldn't go to the dark web. If its cheaper to buy from the dark web overall then this is lumping everyone into one example which I think is a hasty generalization.
As far as the govt. being more concerned about big pharma instead of its citizens is a non sequitur unless you have evidence that the people in government have that motivation when making policies.
I didnt really investigate this though so wait til dr.Bo's answers for a more accurate assessment as I am just a hack.
"

I think he is arguing against shutting down sites on the dark web to address the opiod crisis, and uses an analogy ( a faulty one imo) to state his case.

He then introduces several red herrings to shift the argument and uses some loaded language (chasing people to their death) for emphasis.

The red herrings are the war on drugs and universal pharmacare.

Not sure how much help I can be here. If there is a fallacy, it would be the weak analogy—but I don't know enough about policy in this area to know how strong or weak the comparison is. The author appears to be assuming causality where none has been established (Until those steps are taken...). But again, this could be an informed opinion. I think knowledge in the subject matter is needed here because I don't see any obvious fallacies in the form of the argument(s).

“That’s like blaming the liquor store for deaths caused by alcoholism or drunk driving.”

CONSISTENCY CHECK: Surely you would then cede the equally fallacious analogy of blaming (& suing) firearms manufacturers for deaths resulting from improper/illegal use of otherwise (2ND Amendment) legal weapons.

Beyond this possibility, there is there is no apparent logical inconsistency or fallacy in what you have presented, just opinion.