Alright, imagine you're in school and the teacher is about to decide if a new game can be played during recess. But now, only some students are allowed to talk about why they think the game should or shouldn't be played.

DEA (like the teacher) said only certain people could talk because they think those people will have better reasons to say whether the game (marijuana scheduling change) is good or bad for everyone else.

Some students (smart scientists and others who support changing how marijuana is scheduled) are sad because they're not allowed to speak up. They think it's unfair, just like some grown-ups (like SAM) who want the DEA teacher to listen to them too.

Now, there's a special meeting coming up where everyone can argue their points like in a debate class. But because the original speaking list was biased, some people worry that the best arguments might not be heard, and it could be like listening to only half of an interesting story. Read from source...

Based on the provided article about the DEA's decision regarding cannabis rescheduling and the Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) organization's involvement, here are some key points that might be seen as inconsistent, biased, or using emotive language:

1. **Inconsistencies and Biases:**
- SAM is described as "undermin[ing] the legitimacy of the process" by criticizing the DEA's decision to limit participants in the rescheduling hearing. However, it's argued that key scientific voices were excluded, implying a biased selection process.
- The article mentions that "the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the DEA’s Office of Legal Counsel support rescheduling," suggesting these entities' views are unbiased. Still, it remains unsaid why other supporting voices may not have been included in the participant list.

2. **Irrational Arguments:**
- The article doesn't delve into specific irrational arguments made by either side but implies SAM's criticism is irrational by describing their reaction as "thwart[ing] a legitimate process."
- Additionally, the concern that an imbalance in witnesses could skew outcomes might be seen as an irrational assumption since court (or administrative hearing) processes usually allow both sides to present their cases and cross-examine witnesses.

3. **Emotional Behavior/language:**
- The article uses emotive language like "thwart," which suggests a sense of obstruction or undermining, conveying a feeling of frustration or disapproval.
- The phrase "raising concerns about the process's fairness" indicates worry, further evoking an emotional response in readers.

To maintain neutrality and avoid these biases, it might be helpful to:
- Present both sides' arguments fully and fairly
- Avoid emotive language in reporting facts and quotes
- Highlight any inconsistencies or biases objectively

Neutral to slightly bearish. While the article mentions concerns raised about fair process and potential biasing of opinions in DEA's cannabis rescheduling process, it also reports that a hearing is scheduled to allow cross-examination and potentially address these issues.

Here are some sentiments expressed in the article:

- **Concerns/ Criticisms** (bearish signals):
- "undermines the legitimacy" of the process (from Smart Approaches to Marijuana)
- "exclusion of key scientific voices has raised concerns about... fairness"
- "unlawful conversations with anti-cannabis groups ahead of the hearing"

- **Actions towards addressing concerns** (neutral/positive signals):
- "The upcoming hearing will allow cross-examination..."