P2 If people are willing to take a possible health risk by smoking pot, that's their decision. P3 A small fine isn't going to deter them. P4 Besides, a fine is similar to a tax and the state should not reap profits from pot. Taube goes on to conclude that; Ottawa's proposed fines for simple marijuana possession should be scrapped or the police should at least be given wide discretion in deciding when they will be enforced. This argument commits the fallacy of begging the question, a fallacy of presumption. Using the false hidden presumption that [P5], which is false because P1 and 2nd part of the conclusion is saying that the same thing twice negatively and positively respectively, a logical problem which could have been avoided if Taube had understood the concept of begging the question, in which case the argument fails to prove is conclusion.
Taube's third argument about how marijuana should be legalized, decriminalized or continue to be criminalized can be mapped as follows: The over-aged hippies who use to run grow-ops are being replaced by very shady characters. Inspector Paul Nadeau of B.C's marijuana enforcement team said 41% of grow-ops are now controlled by people with criminal records. B.C solicitor General Rich Coleman, a former RCMP officer, believes it's time for Canada to 'Wake up' and hand out stiffer penalties for grow-op operators. Taube then concludes his premises with the statement; Casual marijuana users are not the problem; the real culprits are the growers. This argument commits the fallacy of appeal to authorities, a fallacy of presumption. Using the false hidden presumption [P4] which is false because no evidence is offered by the argument to show that what the inspector and the solicitor said about grow-ops is true, but rather the argument rest its case on their pronouncement, a logical problem which could have been avoided if the argument understood the concept of appeal to authority, in which case the argument fails to prove its conclusion.