A new law in Nevada lets people have twice as much weed as before. This means they can carry up to 2.5 ounces instead of just one ounce. The law also makes it easier for some businesses and people with past mistakes to join the marijuana industry. Read from source...

1. The title of the article is misleading and sensationalized, as it implies that secret shoppers are a new phenomenon in cannabis dispensaries, when in fact they have been used for decades in various industries to monitor quality and compliance. Secret shoppers are not specific to marijuana laws or regulations, but rather a general practice of evaluating customer service and business performance.
2. The article focuses too much on the positive aspects of the new marijuana laws in Nevada, such as doubling the possession limit and removing barriers for entry into the market. However, it fails to mention any potential negative consequences or challenges that may arise from these changes, such as increased public consumption, black market competition, or public health concerns.
3. The article mentions Maryland's first quarter of pot sales generating $12 million in taxes, but does not provide any context or comparison for this figure. For example, it does not mention how much revenue was generated from alcohol or tobacco sales in the same period, nor does it compare Maryland's tax revenue to other states that have legalized marijuana. This makes it difficult to assess the actual impact of cannabis legalization on the state's economy and budget.
4. The article also briefly mentions Oklahoma's new marijuana laws, but only focuses on one aspect: the use of secret shoppers. It does not provide a comprehensive overview of all the changes that have been introduced in the state, nor does it explain how these changes will affect patients, businesses, and regulators. This creates an incomplete and biased picture of Oklahoma's marijuana reform efforts.
5. The tone of the article is generally positive and supportive of cannabis legalization, which may reflect the author's personal views or opinions. However, this also means that the article does not present a balanced or objective analysis of the different perspectives and arguments surrounding marijuana policy. For example, it does not mention any potential risks or harms associated with increased cannabis consumption or availability, nor does it consider the views of those who oppose legalization for moral, medical, or social reasons.