Denver, a big city in Colorado, where people can use marijuana for medical or fun purposes, is telling the government that they should change the rules about marijuana. They say that they have a lot of experience with marijuana and can teach the government how to do it better. If the rules change, it could help the businesses that sell marijuana because they would pay less taxes. The people who are against doing bad things and the people who want to make everyone healthy also agree that the rules should change. Read from source...

- The article starts by stating that Denver has submitted an official comment to the DOJ advocating for cannabis rescheduling, but then proceeds to repeat the same information without providing any analysis or opinion. This is a waste of space and time for the reader, who might expect some insights or perspectives from the author.
- The article uses vague terms like "significant lessons" and "expertise to offer" without specifying what they are or how they relate to cannabis rescheduling. This makes the article seem vague and unconvincing, as it does not back up its claims with evidence or examples.
- The article quotes two officials from Denver, but does not provide any context or background information about them or their roles. This makes the article seem incomplete and unprofessional, as it does not give the reader enough information to assess the credibility or relevance of the sources.
- The article mentions that Denver's cannabis businesses are struggling and facing their first recession, but does not explain why or how this affects the rescheduling process. This makes the article seem shallow and superficial, as it does not explore the underlying causes or consequences of the situation.
- The article cites a letter from Denver's DA, but does not include any excerpts or quotes from it. This makes the article seem lazy and unoriginal, as it does not provide any direct or unique information from the source.
- The article ends by mentioning that the DEA has received over 33,000 submissions and will make a decision on whether to reclassify cannabis. This is irrelevant and redundant, as it does not add any value or information to the article. It also does not indicate what the article's purpose or angle is, or how it relates to the broader context of cannabis legalization and policy.

The sentiment of the article is bullish. The article discusses the submission of an official public comment by Denver, Colorado, to the DOJ advocating for cannabis rescheduling, citing its extensive regulatory experience. Officials highlight financial struggles of Denver's cannabis businesses but say tax relief from rescheduling will help. Denver's DA supports rescheduling for better research opportunities and public health benefits.

Based on the article, it seems that Denver has a lot of expertise and experience in the cannabis industry and its regulation. They are advocating for cannabis rescheduling and highlighting the financial struggles of cannabis businesses in the city. If cannabis is rescheduled, it could provide tax relief for these businesses and help them thrive. The Denver DA also supports rescheduling for better research opportunities and public health benefits.

Here are some potential investment recommendations and risks related to this situation:

Investment Recommendations:

1. Invest in cannabis companies based in Denver or with a significant presence in the city, as they could benefit from the potential tax relief and financial support if cannabis is rescheduled.

2. Invest in companies involved in cannabis research or public health initiatives, as they could benefit from the increased research opportunities and improved public health outcomes that may result from rescheduling.

3. Invest in cannabis-related ETFs or mutual funds that include companies based in Denver or with a significant presence in the city, as they could also benefit from the potential tax relief and financial support if cannabis is rescheduled.

Investment Risks:

1. The DOJ and DEA may not agree with the rescheduling proposal, which could delay or prevent any changes in federal policies regarding cannabis.
2. Even if cannabis is rescheduled, the financial struggles of cannabis businesses in Denver may not be entirely resolved, as they may still face other challenges such as competition, regulation, and market demand.
3. There may be unforeseen consequences or complications that arise from rescheduling cannabis, which could impact the cannabis industry and its stakeholders in ways that are not currently anticipated.