The title is definitely implying a more direct connection than exists in reality, and the article doesn’t go into detail on when the bill is meant to go into effect. The author could be using it as an example of how much worse things could get once the bill goes into effect, especially with the references to the effects of past ordinances mandating water breaks.
But I agree, there’s definitely some intellectual dishonesty going on.
The title is definitely implying a more direct connection than exists in reality, and the article doesn’t go into detail on when the bill is meant to go into effect. The author could be using it as an example of how much worse things could get once the bill goes into effect, especially with the references to the effects of past ordinances mandating water breaks.
But I agree, there’s definitely some intellectual dishonesty going on.
Well, the article says the anti-water break part if the bill goes into effect September 1sr, so that is as much detail as I personally need.
Huh, I stopped reading after the little star symbol right above one of the ads, thinking that was the end of the article.