Dec. 19, 2025: Marijuana reclassification, package theft, shoplifting, and a Lakewood man’s search for his stolen stuff⁠68%

By Arlo Pérez Esquivel⁠0% Bazi Kanani⁠0%

12/19/2025, 2:00:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 7 faulty reasoning types, including Anchoring Bias, Availability Heuristic, and Negativity Bias, with Optimism Bias as the most egregious example at 27.5% saturation with 42 hits. Analysis detected 196 faulty-reasoning hits from 153 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 61.5% and a BS Rank of ⁠68% (6,848 of 21,176 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 67.70% of the article peer group.

President Trump is downgrading how federal authorities view marijuana, which could open new doors for research, and make life easier for Colorado's industry. 
Then, three stories about people taking what doesn't belong to them: tips for keeping your packages safe from porch pirates; Douglas County cracks down on shoplifting; and a Lakewood man's surprisingly successful effort to track down his stolen possessions. 
Email us at coloradotoday@cpr.org. 
Colorado Today is supported by CPR’s members. 
Read more on the stories in today’s show: 
- CPR’s Sarah Mulholland, John Daley and Bente Birkeland on marijuana reclassification 
- Zack Newman’s Colorado Sun article on how Bret Dallas, with help from the internet, solved his own burglary 
This episode of Colorado Today is hosted by Arlo Pérez Esquivel and Bazi Kanani. 
It’s edited and produced by Mateo Schimpf, Stephanie Wolf, Sandy Battulga, Megan Verlee and Tyler Bender. 
The executive producer is Megan Verlee. 
Theme music by Pedro Lumbraño. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Arlo Pérez Esquivel: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 0.4%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 25.5%Arlo Pérez Esquivel: 13.5%Colorado Public Radio: 4.8%Anchoring Bias25.5%This article: 25.5%Arlo Pérez Esquivel: 29.6%Colorado Public Radio: 6.4%Availability Heuristic25.5%This article: 0.0%Arlo Pérez Esquivel: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 0.2%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Arlo Pérez Esquivel: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 5.7%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Arlo Pérez Esquivel: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 15.0%Arlo Pérez Esquivel: 23.5%Colorado Public Radio: 26.7%Framing Effect15.0%This article: 0.0%Arlo Pérez Esquivel: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 1.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 4.6%Arlo Pérez Esquivel: 17.6%Colorado Public Radio: 5.0%Halo Effect4.6%This article: 0.0%Arlo Pérez Esquivel: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Arlo Pérez Esquivel: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 0.7%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 4.6%Arlo Pérez Esquivel: 3.1%Colorado Public Radio: 7.6%In-Group Bias4.6%This article: 0.0%Arlo Pérez Esquivel: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 4.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 25.5%Arlo Pérez Esquivel: 25.5%Colorado Public Radio: 19.5%Negativity Bias25.5%This article: 27.5%Arlo Pérez Esquivel: 23.3%Colorado Public Radio: 6.6%Optimism Bias27.5%This article: 0.0%Arlo Pérez Esquivel: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 1.9%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Arlo Pérez Esquivel: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 2.1%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Arlo Pérez Esquivel: 8.5%Colorado Public Radio: 4.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Arlo Pérez Esquivel: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 0.7%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Arlo Pérez Esquivel: 1.7%Colorado Public Radio: 2.0%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Arlo Pérez Esquivel: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Arlo Pérez Esquivel: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 4.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Arlo Pérez Esquivel: 5.0%Colorado Public Radio: 3.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Arlo Pérez Esquivel: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Arlo Pérez Esquivel: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 1.7%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Arlo Pérez Esquivel: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 0.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Arlo Pérez Esquivel: 4.1%Colorado Public Radio: 3.9%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Arlo Pérez Esquivel: 14.8%Colorado Public Radio: 11.3%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Arlo Pérez Esquivel: 8.5%Colorado Public Radio: 13.0%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Arlo Pérez Esquivel: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 0.5%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Arlo Pérez Esquivel: 1.5%Colorado Public Radio: 1.9%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Arlo Pérez Esquivel: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 1.8%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Arlo Pérez Esquivel: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Arlo Pérez Esquivel: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Arlo Pérez Esquivel: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Arlo Pérez Esquivel: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 1.9%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Arlo Pérez Esquivel: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 0.1%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Arlo Pérez Esquivel: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 1.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Arlo Pérez Esquivel: 8.5%Colorado Public Radio: 3.5%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Arlo Pérez Esquivel: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Arlo Pérez Esquivel: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Arlo Pérez Esquivel: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Arlo Pérez Esquivel: 5.0%Colorado Public Radio: 3.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Arlo Pérez Esquivel: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Arlo Pérez Esquivel: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 2.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Arlo Pérez Esquivel: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 0.6%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Arlo Pérez Esquivel: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Arlo Pérez Esquivel: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%

153 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.