Mexico's new drug use law worries US police

Recently, Mexico has legalized the use of small amounts of personal recreational drugs. I read two articles about these new laws, but the second one I read seemed to be much longer and much more biased and opinionated. Why and how does the author do this? Unlike the first article, this second article has an interview with a homeless addict in order to use our basic human sympathies and emotions to make us believe the author's point. There are a few facts included in the article, enough to help the reader understand what the laws do, but other than that, the majority of the article has complaints by different people about why these laws are worrisome. I think the author chooses to omit a lot about why the laws were passed and what they intend to do, as well as a few basic aspects of the law that were in the other article. In the middle, there is another sob story about how the same addict lost his brother to drugs and how they were "finishing him off". Next, the author tries to hit home by discussing how legalization will lead to drug-fueled vacations and spring breaks, which could lead to many deaths and other tragedies for citizens of other countries other than Mexico, such as our own friends and family. Finally, the author adds a counter argument just to show that he knows the argument for the other side, but only briefly in about one sentence. It seems that the author's main way to convince us of the point is to basically let us forget there is another side to the argument as well. If the author gave us the other side, could we have made a more educated decision?

One of the parts of the article that interested me the most was the part in which the addict is being interviewed. The man, Ivan, talks about how drugs have ruined his life and killed his brother. The author is using our emotions to get us to agree that these laws are dangerous and negative. By telling us about how his life has been ruined, we can't help but feel sympathetic and side with the argument being presented to us. A counter argument could possibly be that while drugs have ruined Ivan's life, legalizing the drugs will make it easier for Ivan to stay out of jail and focus on treatment instead. Why does the author omit this if she want us to make an informed decision?