Journalist’s and reader’s expectation.

Everyone has a passion for something. We prefer some arguments to others. We like some movie categories, some music genres, some literary tendency, and so on. Sometimes we change even our interests.
That’s why a reader chooses an article rather than another one.
And that’s why I chose to read this article: “How does Colorado's marijuana market work?”. This doesn’t mean that I am a drug addict. Never fear! I am not even a habitual consumer. Simply I think cannabis isn’t a danger and I am sure that its legalization is someone positive for many reason. First of all, it would be a profit for the coffers of the state through taxes. Legalization represents a cheap shot for the criminal organizations that manage its trade, too. Furthermore many biases would erased. Not to mention the curative properties of the plant. Ok, I realized I’m going off topic.
I hope the article I’m going to read will explain me something else: the section it belongs to is called “The Economist explains”.
While I’m reading the first paragraph, I make conjectures about the manner the topic will be handled. In particular, I note that aren’t discussed moral themes or problems and doubts raised up by the legalization of cannabis. On the contrary, there are numeric data about the voters who join it and about new shops in the consenting states.
Only in the third paragraph, the journalist hints at a little problem of weed’s legalization: the price!
“Too low and you encourage excessive consumption and out-of-state exports; too high and you leave room for illicit dealers.”
The following lines deal with other numeric data about tax and the conditions of use.
The last part of the article makes believe that probably many states will follow the example of Colorado, “but if it all goes wrong, as it may, the whole thing could go up in smoke” Concludes the journalist with a play of words.
I think the language used is an across-the-board one: it is simple but there are many numeric references, in order to inform an “involved” or simply a curious audience.