To me, the shift in the public conversation about WeedPress’s policy work over the past 20 months appears to reflect a pattern that tends to prioritize personal criticism over substantive engagement with statutory and policy arguments. In my view, this sort of discourse can undermine constructive policy debate and may contribute to reputational challenges for WeedPress and its associates.
Below I share my assessment of recurring rhetoric and communication patterns as I have perceived them. These are presented as my opinions and interpretations of public exchanges, offered in good faith for the sake of clarity and context.
Observed Argumentation Patterns
In my assessment, rather than addressing the specific statutory or policy points I have raised, some responses have shifted toward personal characterizations. Below are categories of rhetorical tactics that, in my view, do not engage with the substantive policy critique:
1. Abusive Ad Hominem
Examples of comments that, in my opinion, focus on personal attributes rather than the policy issues include:
“You are not a pro.”
“You’d have reasonable laws.”
“You live in SD.”
“Your time in jail didn’t teach you manners.”
“You worked in vape shops.”
“Ridiculous nonsense.”
“Legalization fantasies.”
From my perspective, these statements emphasize traits or background rather than responding to the arguments themselves.
2. Potential “Poisoning the Well”
In my observation, some remarks seem structured in a way that could potentially pre-emptively discredit future contributions before they are considered on their merits:
“You are not a stakeholder.”
“You are never invited.”
“Nobody in this state works with you.”
“You are not heard out.”
In my view, comments like these frame the speaker as unworthy of consideration rather than addressing specific policy content.
3. Circumstantial Ad Hominem
Examples that, in my view, suggest that personal circumstances explain or undermine the policy critique:
“You’d say that because of where you live.”
“You’re not in the meetings.”
“You’re not part of the MMOC.”
In my opinion, discussion of place of residence or association should not substitute for direct engagement with the merits of policy analysis.
4. Tu Quoque Responses
I have noticed arguments that, to me, seem intended to deflect by pointing to perceived inconsistencies in background or history rather than addressing the policy claims:
“Your time in jail…”
“Working vape shops…”
The rhetorical effect, as I see it, is to imply a moral disqualification rather than to respond substantively.
5. Lack of Direct Policy Rebuttal
In my view, I have not seen a direct counter-argument to the statutory or policy analysis I presented. From where I stand, the absence of rebuttal in policy terms seems notable.
My Overall Observations
In my judgment, the pattern of exchanges I have witnessed appears to emphasize personal characterization over substantive policy engagement. From my perspective, focusing on the person rather than the argument does not advance understanding of the statutory issues I have raised, and this style may be less effective in promoting meaningful policy discussion.
These are my interpretations based on what I have seen in public discourse. I offer them here in the hope that clarifying the nature of the conversation may help readers evaluate both the rhetoric and the policy content more clearly.
WeedPress: The Paper Trail 
Leave a comment