Why Would a Politician Position Their Self Against Legal Marijuana?

This is a real head scratcher. The majority of the United States favors legal marijuana.

Marijuana is safer than alcohol, tobacco,and any random pharmaceutical drug.

In states with legalized marijuana, teen use does not go up.

There is some form of legal marijuana in 28 states and D.C.

After the election this November, there will certainly be more with voters in 5 states deciding whether to fully legalize recreational use, while voters in 4 more will weigh in on whether to allow medical marijuana.

Over half, 52%, of all arrests in the United States are for marijuana possession, which is an staggering amount of wasted law enforcement energy, and utterly tragic for those who get arrested.

The cultural stigma is officially gone with at least 71% of adults under 34 supporting legal marijuana.

Science revealed that marijuana kills cancer cells.

Given such an unequivocal morally righteous issue, one might reasonably wonder why their elected official, or any really, would position themself against it. What could possibly cloud their clarity on an intellectually unambiguous issue with such an obvious correct side that cravenly enduring public ridicule is worth it?


In this presidential election tragedy, neither of the primary candidates are enthusiastic supporters of marijuana legalization. Not that supporting marijuana is the only thing that matters, far from it. But the lack of support for an issue with such clear moral righteousness indicates where these candidates would stand on issues with much more at stake, and that’s the problem with unlimited and unregulated amounts of money flowing through our electoral systems.

The first step towards change is demanding our elected officials enact legislation that repeals the Citizens United ruling allowing for unlimited money to flow through campaigns, essentially codifying bribery. Then, elected officials are beholden to the voters, not whoever financed the campaign.