Arguments shouldn't be disqualified based on their source alone, but at the same time they shouldn't be accepted just because they appear academically rigorous, have charts, etc. This comes from Reason which is a right-wing think tank funded by the Koch brothers and Exxon Mobil, among others. So, definitely some close examination is needed before accepting any of their conclusions.

Have any of us taken a close look at the arguments contained within? I noticed that on page 44 where it finally gets into the meat of the argument in environmental impacts, it actually noted that given the projections of San Francisco's office of the comptroller, the ban actually has positive effects. Then it constructs its own "scenario 2" under which is would have negative effects. And then as far as I can see it never argues which scenario is valid! It just jumps to a conclusion later on (p56) that things are "uncertain" so a ban is therefore "irrational".

That just smacks of propaganda draped in the clothes of academia. For some counter arguments see: http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/10/08/californias-plas...