Sure, let's simplify the news story:

1. **What's happening?** A government group (DEA) is deciding if a plant (cannabis/marijuana) should move from being very restricted to less restricted.

2. **Who are the players?**
- **DEA**: The Drug Enforcement Administration, they make rules about drugs.
- **SAM**: An organization that wants marijuana to stay restricted. They said some things and the DEA is now checking if they did something wrong (called ex parte communication) before the decision.
- **MedPharm**: A company that studies cannabis. They want to join the discussion but were not invited.

3. **What's happening next?** Both sides are talking about this at a meeting (hearing). Everyone wants the DEA to make a fair and right decision based on what's best for people's health and safety.

4. **Why is it important?** If the plant moves to a less restricted group, it would be easier for more people to use it for medical reasons or research, which could help with health problems. But some people think it might cause problems if it's too easy to get. Read from source...

Based on the provided text, here are the key criticisms and inconsistencies highlighted:

1. **Lack of Transparency and Potential Ex parte Communications:**
- **Criticism:** Some argue that SAM (Smart Approaches to Marijuana) president Kevin Sabet's social media post about "confidential sources inside DEA" raises questions about transparency.
- **Inconsistency/Unaddressed Point:** While SAM denied any ex parte communications after the NPRM publication, they acknowledged earlier posts by Sabet. However, there's no clear explanation as to why these posts were made or what information, if any, was shared with the DEA before the NPRM issuance.

2. **Hearing Process and Witness Selection Bias:**
- **Criticism:** Some criticize the imbalance in witness selection for the upcoming hearing, with prohibitionist groups included while DEA-licensed marijuana researchers are excluded.
- **Inconsistency/Unaddressed Point:** The DEA judge's decision to deny MedPharm's participation citation raises questions about the process' fairness. Despite support from other federal agencies for rescheduling, critics worry this bias could skew the hearing’s outcomes.

3. **Focus on Irrelevant Issues vs Substance:**
- **Criticism:** Some argue that SAM is diverting attention towards "sideshow" claims instead of focusing on the main issues during the hearing.
- **Inconsistency/Unaddressed Point:** While SAM does mention arguments around substance, the focus on alleged ex parte communications and other concerns suggests a potential shifting of the narrative.

4. **Emotional Behavior:**
- **Observation:** Some portions of the text seem to infer emotional behavior or sentiment, such as "urge" and "worry," which could be seen as less objective than purely factual reporting.
- **Implication:** While not necessarily critical in itself, emotions can indicate bias in presentation. Focusing more on facts helps maintain a balanced perspective.

5. **Rational Arguments vs Emotional Appeals:**
- **Criticism:** Some arguments appear to rely more on emotional appeal (e.g., "you can't afford to miss out") rather than rational, evidence-based reasoning.
- **Implication:** A more balanced presentation would weigh both emotional appeal and solid arguments based on facts and logic.

To present a well-rounded view of the topic, it's essential to fact-check all claims, address inconsistencies, and ensure both sides of the story are presented fairly. Additionally, focusing more on objective reporting helps maintain journalistic integrity.

Based on the provided article, here's a sentiment analysis:

- **Overall Sentiment:** Neutral/Possibly Leanings Towards Negative
- **Reasoning:**
- The article discusses ongoing controversies and critiques regarding the DEA's cannabis rescheduling process.
- It mentions critics' concerns about potential biases in witness selection for the hearing and the possible influence of prohibitionist groups.
- There are no significant positive points or optimistic outlooks presented in the article.

The article focuses on criticisms, alleged issues with transparency, and worries about the fairness of the process, which keeps the overall sentiment neutral to slightly negative.