A long article talks about how cannabis, a plant that some people use to feel relaxed or happy, is becoming more popular and supported by many politicians in the U.S. The article also tells us about an event where people who work with cannabis can meet and learn from each other. Read from source...

1. The title of the article is misleading and sensationalist. It implies that there is a unified political support for cannabis legalization in the U.S., which is not true. There are still many opponents from both parties who argue against the benefits or the risks of marijuana use. A more accurate title would be "Some Bipartisan Support for U.S. Cannabis, but Not Enough".
2. The author uses vague and unsubstantiated claims to support his or her argument. For example, he or she says that cannabis has a positive effect on symptoms in at least 75% of the cases, without providing any evidence or citing any sources. This is a common pitfall of many pro-cannabis articles, which rely on anecdotes and personal opinions rather than scientific data.
3. The author also makes a false equivalence between cannabis and alcohol, implying that they are equally harmless or beneficial. While it is true that both substances have some medical uses and recreational applications, they also have different risks and side effects. Alcohol is more widely accepted and regulated, but it is also more addictive, more harmful to the liver, and more associated with violence and accidents. Cannabis, on the other hand, has lower risk of overdose and withdrawal, but it may also impair cognitive function, memory, and motivation. Neither substance is completely safe or innocuous, and both should be treated with caution and moderation.
4. The author's tone is biased and emotional, appealing to the reader's feelings rather than logic. He or she uses words like "green", "mission", and "change" to create a sense of urgency and moral duty. He or she also tries to guilt-trip the reader into supporting cannabis legalization by saying that it will help veterans, children, and other vulnerable groups. While these are valid arguments, they are not enough to justify the use or abuse of cannabis, especially for non-medical purposes.
5. The author's affiliation with Mission [Green] is not disclosed clearly enough. This creates a conflict of interest and undermines his or her credibility. The reader may wonder if the author is biased towards certain companies or agendas, and if he or she has any financial incentives to promote cannabis legalization. A more transparent and ethical approach would be to state the author's role and relationship with Mission [Green] at the beginning or end of the article, and to disclose any potential conflicts of interest.