Should marijuana be legalized, decriminalized, or continue to be criminalized in Canada? According to one response, including the view of Taube, weed should be decriminalized but not legalized. According to another response, including the liberal party of Canada, weed should be legalized both medical and recreational use with criminal regulations on growers and distributers in the event of violation. According to a 3rd response, as indicated by 30% of the recent Globe & Mail survey, weed possession and growing for non-medical use as well as trafficking should remain criminalized. The following will do an ABC (logical and conceptual) analysis of the Michael Taube's article, "Decriminalizing pot is the right thing to do" It will argue that Taube has/has not/ has partially succeeded, logically and conceptually, in arguing his position that "discrimination of pot possession makes the most sense. .
Taube's first argument about how marijuana should be legalized, decriminalized or continue to be criminalized in Canada can be mapped as follows: P1 There is no reason a person carrying around a few joints for personal use should face prosecution or have a criminal record. P2 As long as he isn't selling pot on the black market or to children, he should be free to smoke in the privacy of his home. Taube goes on to conclude; Decriminalization of pot possession makes the most sense. This argument commits the fallacy of hasty generalization, a fallacy of presumption. Using the false, hidden presumption that [P3], which is false because it violates the evidence principle, a logical problem which could have been avoided if the argument had understood the concept of hasty generalization in which case the argument fails to prove its conclusion.
Taube's second argument about how marijuana should be legalized, decriminalized or continue to be criminalized can be mapped as follows: P1 The police should not be required to waste precious time and resources on people possessing a few joints.
