Talk:US Senator Rand Paul blocks synthetic marijuana legislation

Original and notes
Paragraph 1: The news event centers around Paul because nothing can happen until he lifts his block. I made repeated attempts both last week and this week to contact his office but found his staff difficult to engage and his press officer unresponsive.

Paragraph 4: For information on the states legislation, I went straight to the best source on tracking this, which is the National Conference on State Legislators. Media reports were different and inaccurate.

Paragraph 5: Primary Source I requested and received the embargoed copy of the journal article from the March issue of Pediactrics and summarized the observations in an emergency room.

Paragraph 6: Primary Source but dated The Monitoring the Future Report is a a survey of high school youth about self-reported drug use.

Paragraph 7: The number of emergency room visits, comes from a American Association of Poison Control Centers, "Synthetic Marijuana Data" updated February 8, 2012. This is the most recent data for 2011 and covers the entire year.

Lower paragraphs: Primary Source US Senate, Senate Session, Feb. 15, 2012. Members of the Senate debate synthetic drug legislation. Sen. Chuck Schumer was vocal about Sen. Rand Paul's block and also wrote an editorial in the New York Daily News, which is listed under sources.

Lower paragraphs: Primary Source US House of Representatives, House Session, Dec. 7, 2011. Members of the House debated the Synthetic Drug Control of 2011, which I summarized. The link was also the source for the videos acquired and are in the public domain. The vote occurred the next day.

Moved from Sources, per note further down on this page. --Pi zero (talk) 16:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Thoughts
--Pi zero (talk) 05:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This headline should be "US Senator Rand Paul ...". Btw, glad you removed the abbreviation; note that the SG warns away from abbreviations in headlines, without reference to whether the abbreviations would be understood.
 * The sense of a wc discussion some time back was that parentheticals of the form (party, state/territory) after politicians' names should be avoided not only if the party and state/territory were abbreviated (which of course an international audience wouldn't understand), but also because parentheticals should generally be avoided in news: in most situations, if it's not important enough to say outside parentheses, it's not important enough to say.  The qualification "in most situations" is because, though I can't think of an exception atm, most rules have exceptions that we don't think of till we actually encounter them.


 * In this case, I'm hoping we can keep the party - state, because it shows that Senator Rand Paul, a Republican, is taking the side of some of the Democrats in the US House of Representatives yet he is standing against his fellow caucus member Senator Chuck Grassley. The Senate legislation is bipartisan, as was the vote in the House. What is interesting about the states is that Paul's state of Kentucky has the statewide ban but Schumer's state of New York is uneven. This is not a party line issue! Crtew (talk) 05:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The point is that if it should be said, then it should be said in the prose, not in a parenthetical breaking up the flow of the prose. I agree it's significant here; so, say it in the prose.  "Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky is ...", or whatever other prose phrasing gets all the elements across and works in context.  --Pi zero (talk) 06:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

✅

Feedback
These are just a few things I saw when the reading the article. Keep in mind that I'm only looking at the problems, there is some very good information here.
 * "Paul has made an issue of the number of years meted out for tough sentences against criminalized marijuana." - awkward ✅
 * "in Cass County, Michigan, four teenagers between the ages of 13 and 14 had an emergency after using synthetic marijuana" - why list only the cases in Cass County? what is special about this county?

It was just an example from a state that is similar to Kentucky in its approach. Michigan is having problems enforcing the state law because the chemicals are altered to stay outside of the law's reach.Crtew (talk) 07:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "which is Senator Chuck Schumer's state" - his relevance hasn't been introduced yet so this seems out of place.

I tried to edit this for your concerns and still maintain the reference because Schumer's state, unlike Kentucky and Michigan, has an uneven approach to the law. Schumer is the most outspoken person about Paul's hold. Crtew (talk) 07:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "which is like a running list of banned chemicals" - why is 'like' necessary here? it weakens the statement. Plus Schedule One was already introduced, the explanation should be there. ✅
 * "makes the case" - argues ✅
 * "Grassley's legislation is named for his constituent David Rozga, 18; the boy's parents had told Grassley about how their son had committed suicide after using synthetic marijuana." - since he is dead, he is no longer a constituent or 18, and his parents are not relevant. Suggestion: "Grassley's legislation is named for David Rozga, who committed suicide at age 18 after using synthetic marijuana." ✅ with a tweak on my part, which I hope you'll like.Crtew (talk) 07:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "Karen Dobner, a mother from Aurora, Illinois, is blaming Senator Paul for any deaths that may still occur because he is holding up a legislative solution to a problem that killed her own son. Her son Max was in college, tried a synthetic marijuana product which triggered a panic attack and agitation. Shortly afterward, he was killed in a car crash." - From this alone, I'm not seeing a connection between the panic attack and the car crash. As it reads now, the "car crash" killed her son, not the aforementioned "problem".

I hope this addresses your concern. Crtew (talk) 07:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "Senator Paul's office was contacted about this report but it did not respond." - via phone or e-mail? ✅
 * The article does not explain why Paul has the authority to block the legislation. ✅ I tried to do this as simply as possible without it getting in the way or going into to much detail Crtew (talk) 07:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The article seems slanted against synthetic marijuana. I assume there must be proponents of it.

I can see your point and it's a good one, but it's one of those cases where there are so many voices on one side and the minority is being silent. I would describe Paul in this debate as highly visible and yet at the same time invisible. I tried to handle this by bringing out the House debate. But even there the vote was lopsided in favor of synthetic legislation. What I'm trying to say is that the article largely reflects the lopsided nature of the debate. If the article were 50 percent pro and 50 percent con, it wouldn't actually reflect the reality of what is being voiced.Crtew (talk) 07:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The other interesting thing about this, is that it is actually possible to see Paul's stance and silent style on this issue as heroic. Most voices are against him and yet he stands by his principles. Some of his supporters or people who are against criminalizing more substances will find this appealing. Crtew (talk) 07:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you William for your feedback! You were able to look at this with fresh eyes and experience. Much appreciated! Crtew (talk) 07:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Chrono order dates in sources sect
Looks like some of the sources are not in chrono order in the Sources sect. -- Cirt (talk) 18:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

They are in order. Are you looking at accessed date? Then they are not. I was doing it by distribution date. Crtew (talk) 19:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Which way is it?Crtew (talk) 23:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry......
...but can you help me with the word "embargoed" above? Bddpaux (talk) 20:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I got an early release of the journal article before its public release. This allows journalists to write copy and for the news but is generated in advance. Later the publication occurs.Crtew (talk) 20:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Review notes
Starting a running list of stuff as it comes up. --Pi zero (talk) 14:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd like a short sentence tacked on to the end of the lede explaining the nature of the OR of this article ("Wikinews has investigated blah blah.", that sort of thing). Because that seems to be an essential part of what makes this article news.
 * It's actually possible that "Wikinews investigated." or something similarly simple would be sufficient, though perhaps not ideal; if it turned out to be the only obstacle to publication, I'd probably tack it on and go.
 * I agree with the "investigated" the "Senate hold" on "synthetic drug legislation." The follow up on this would be to look more closely at the practice. There is a Wikipedia link for the "Senate hold", but I don't want to edit it now because the sign is up.Crtew (talk) 16:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * This has shelf life because it's OR, but wants a last-moment double-check that the block is still current. Thoughts?
 * It is current as of now. I've been tracking developments.Crtew (talk) 16:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The Pediatrics link doesn't appear to be to a web-available copy of the article; so I'm atm thinking that should be moved to the talk page.
 * Yes, I don't think it's available to the public until the journal releases it for general research.Crtew (talk) 16:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've moved it. --Pi zero (talk) 16:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The March 23 Daily News link is to a different article than cited. (This may actually be effectively the same article; we'll see.) Looks okay.
 * C asked that I help with cleanup (since he's about to go out of town)....if it fails, I'll jump in there. Bddpaux (talk) 17:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll know who to contact. --Pi zero (talk) 18:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)