A state senator wants to help people who need special medicine from a plant called cannabis. The price of this medicine is very high in his state, so he has two ideas to make it cheaper and easier for them. One idea is to let these people grow the plants at home and another idea is to limit how much the stores can sell the medicine for. Read from source...

1. The title of the article is misleading and clickbaity, as it does not accurately represent the content or focus of the article. The main topic is about high cannabis prices in New Jersey, but the subtitle implies a solution for medicinal users only, while the article also discusses legalization, dispensary growth, and taxation issues.
2. The article uses vague terms like "rapidly" and "issues" without providing any quantitative or qualitative data to support the claims. For example, what does it mean by "rapidly"? How fast is the market growing? What are the specific issues faced by patients, dispensaries, or regulators?
3. The article mentions that adults over 21 can purchase up to one ounce of cannabis with a state-issued photo ID, but does not explain how this system works, what are the requirements for obtaining such an ID, and what are the potential risks or benefits of having legal recreational use.
4. The article only briefly mentions the proposed solutions by State Sen. Troy Singleton, without providing any details on his bills, their rationale, or their implications for the cannabis market and consumers. For example, how would home cultivation or price caps affect the quality, availability, and safety of medical cannabis? How would they impact the licensed dispensaries and their profitability? What are the potential legal challenges or loopholes associated with these proposals?
5. The article does not explore any alternative perspectives or counterarguments from other stakeholders, such as patients, dispensary owners, regulators, law enforcement, or opponents of cannabis legalization. This makes the article seem biased and one-sided, and prevents the reader from understanding the complexity and diversity of opinions on this topic.
6. The article ends with a vague reference to "this situation" without specifying what it refers to or how it relates to the main argument of the article. It also does not provide any conclusions, recommendations, or implications for future research or policy actions. This leaves the reader unsatisfied and confused about the purpose and message of the article.