Partisan piece. The Plains Sentinel brands itself as "dedicated to restoring integrity and balance." This article is not balanced.
SAMHSA's data comes from an agency now bending science to politics. SAMHSA falls under HHS, led by Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has pushed vaccine policy reversals contradicting established science. The same department recently redirected teen pregnancy prevention funding toward abstinence-only criteria. SAMHSA, tasked with advancing public health, has cut its staff by roughly half since January 2025 and has been canceling grants with little explanation. Their focus is no longer public health. It is partisan politics.
Trustworthy data requires an agency insulated from partisan pressure. SAMHSA no longer qualifies.
Additionally, the word "addictive" and "addiction" appear no less than five times in this short piece. Only one expert gets quoted: Charles Fain Lehman of the Manhattan Institute, a right-leaning think tank.
This article ran the same day the outlet published an unrebutted commentary calling state universities "far-left super PACs." Plains Sentinel is starting to read like an outlet with a conservative editorial lean, not the balanced coverage its branding promises.
Note, I am not a marijuana user, but I am opposed to incarceration for marijuana and Nebraska's failure to obtain tax revenue in a state with over a one billion budget shortfall. That's my commentary, which I frequently write. I don't brand myself as being balanced. Fact based, yes. Balanced, no. I suggest the Plains Sentinel adjust their branding or write truly balanced pieces.
You are mixing in your prejudices with the facts. The issue mentioned here is the extent of marijuana usage. The article could mention more about how poorly marijuana is marketing, how it has negative drug interactions with other drugs, and the fact it is far stronger than marijuana of 25 years ago. Other drugs such decongestants and adderall are also abused but receive far more scrutiny than marijuana.
I did mix in my prejudice, but I was explicit about it. That doesn't change the fact the piece is not balanced. The data comes from SAMHSA, an agency under HHS, which is now pushing policy reversals that contradict established science. The only expert quoted is from a right-leaning think tank. The word choice ("addictive"/"addiction" five times) is obvious framing and isn't balanced either. Naming your own bias is honest. An article branding itself as balanced while making no effort to be balanced is not.
Partisan piece. The Plains Sentinel brands itself as "dedicated to restoring integrity and balance." This article is not balanced.
SAMHSA's data comes from an agency now bending science to politics. SAMHSA falls under HHS, led by Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has pushed vaccine policy reversals contradicting established science. The same department recently redirected teen pregnancy prevention funding toward abstinence-only criteria. SAMHSA, tasked with advancing public health, has cut its staff by roughly half since January 2025 and has been canceling grants with little explanation. Their focus is no longer public health. It is partisan politics.
Trustworthy data requires an agency insulated from partisan pressure. SAMHSA no longer qualifies.
Additionally, the word "addictive" and "addiction" appear no less than five times in this short piece. Only one expert gets quoted: Charles Fain Lehman of the Manhattan Institute, a right-leaning think tank.
This article ran the same day the outlet published an unrebutted commentary calling state universities "far-left super PACs." Plains Sentinel is starting to read like an outlet with a conservative editorial lean, not the balanced coverage its branding promises.
Note, I am not a marijuana user, but I am opposed to incarceration for marijuana and Nebraska's failure to obtain tax revenue in a state with over a one billion budget shortfall. That's my commentary, which I frequently write. I don't brand myself as being balanced. Fact based, yes. Balanced, no. I suggest the Plains Sentinel adjust their branding or write truly balanced pieces.
—A Disappointed Reader
You are mixing in your prejudices with the facts. The issue mentioned here is the extent of marijuana usage. The article could mention more about how poorly marijuana is marketing, how it has negative drug interactions with other drugs, and the fact it is far stronger than marijuana of 25 years ago. Other drugs such decongestants and adderall are also abused but receive far more scrutiny than marijuana.
I did mix in my prejudice, but I was explicit about it. That doesn't change the fact the piece is not balanced. The data comes from SAMHSA, an agency under HHS, which is now pushing policy reversals that contradict established science. The only expert quoted is from a right-leaning think tank. The word choice ("addictive"/"addiction" five times) is obvious framing and isn't balanced either. Naming your own bias is honest. An article branding itself as balanced while making no effort to be balanced is not.