A company in Oakland called SmokeLand is looking for a person who can do three things: test weed, roll blunts and post on social media. They will pay this person $85,000 per year. This is a very rare job and many people are interested in it. The company wants someone who is good at organizing, rolling blunts really well and sharing pictures and videos online. Read from source...

1. The headline is misleading and sensationalized, implying that only a few people have what it takes to be a weed tester or blunt roller, when in fact, there are thousands of such jobs available across the country, as evidenced by the link provided to California Cannabis Jobs. This creates an artificial scarcity and demand for these positions, which may not reflect the actual supply and demand dynamics of the cannabis industry.
2. The article fails to provide any objective or verifiable criteria for what constitutes a high-quality blunt or preroll, leaving the reader with the impression that this is merely a subjective matter of personal preference, rather than an established standard based on scientific or technical factors. This may lead to inconsistencies and unfairness in the hiring process, as different candidates may have different opinions on what makes a good blunt or preroll.
3. The article also does not explain how social media content creation is related to the core tasks of weed testing and blunt rolling, nor does it provide any evidence that such skills are required or desired by SmokeLand or other cannabis companies. This may suggest that the company is looking for candidates who can promote their products on various platforms, rather than those who have a genuine interest or expertise in cannabis culture and quality control.
4. The article cites an ad from SFGate as the source of the job opportunity, but does not provide any link to the original advertisement, nor does it verify its authenticity or accuracy. This may raise questions about the credibility and reliability of the information presented in the article, as well as the motives behind publishing such a story. Is the author trying to attract more readers by appealing to their curiosity or interest in cannabis? Or is there some other ulterior motive behind this piece?
5. The article also mentions that the debate over whether cannabis judging is a legitimate profession or not, but does not offer any insights or perspectives on this issue. This may suggest that the author is either ignorant or indifferent to the broader implications and challenges faced by the cannabis industry and its workers, as well as the social and legal norms that govern it.