So, this article talks about how different U.S. presidents have felt about cannabis (a plant also known as weed) over time. It starts with George Washington and Thomas Jefferson who grew hemp, a type of cannabis used to make things like ropes and clothes. Then it goes through history showing how some presidents made laws against cannabis because they thought it was bad, while others were more open to it. The article also talks about Harry Anslinger, who really didn't like cannabis and tried to make people scared of it, which led to many laws against it. Read from source...

- The author uses a rhetorical question to begin the article, which is not very effective in engaging the reader or presenting a clear thesis statement. It sounds more like an opinion piece than a news article. A better way to start could be something like "Presidents' Day celebrates all U.S. Presidents and their historical impact, but how much do we really know about their relationship with cannabis?"
- The author jumps from discussing the hemp cultivation of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson to the modern-day legalization debates without providing a clear transition or explanation of how these two topics are connected. It would be helpful to provide some historical context on how the perception of cannabis changed over time, and what factors influenced this shift.
- The author relies heavily on Harry Anslinger as the main source of information on the anti-marijuana crusade, without acknowledging other perspectives or sources that could challenge or support his views. This creates a one-sided narrative that lacks credibility and objectivity. A more balanced approach would be to include different viewpoints from politicians, researchers, activists, etc., who have contributed to the cannabis discourse over time.
- The author uses emotive language and value judgments throughout the article, such as "shadowed by stigma and regulation", "instrumental in changing public perception and policy", "marking the start of federal marijuana prohibition". These words convey a strong bias towards one side of the issue, and do not allow for nuanced or complex analysis. A more neutral tone would be preferable, especially when dealing with a controversial topic that has multiple interpretations and implications.