The Weed Battle Between Conservatives & Liberals in Canada

Canada legalised cannabis federally in October 2018. The United States — despite being the world's largest economy and the origin of much of modern cannabis culture, still hadn't managed it by the time two aging politicians squared off for the 2020 presidency. That contrast tells you almost everything you need to know about where American cannabis policy stood heading into one of the most consequential elections in recent memory.

As Canadians who grow, consume, and purchase cannabis within a fully legal framework under the Cannabis Act, we have the rare luxury of watching this debate from the outside. And watching it is genuinely instructive — because what happens south of the border shapes trade relationships, cross-border seed genetics, and the broader cultural conversation about cannabis that inevitably bleeds north. So let's be clear about what each candidate actually stood for, what they said when pressed, and what it all means for the plant we love.

Federal Legalisation in the U.S.: Why 2020 Was Always Going to Fall Short

Bernie Sanders wanted full federal legalisation. Elizabeth Warren co-sponsored the Marijuana Freedom and Opportunity Act. Both dropped out before the final stretch.

What remained heading into the general election were two candidates — one Democrat, one Republican, neither of whom had cannabis reform anywhere near the top of his agenda. That wasn't a surprise to anyone paying attention to U.S. drug policy. Federal legalisation in the States requires dismantling Schedule I classification under the Controlled Substances Act, a legislative task that demands genuine political will and coalition-building that neither Donald Trump nor Joe Biden was prepared to invest in. For context, Canada's path to the Cannabis Act required years of task-force work, Senate deliberation, and the unwavering commitment of a government that made it a campaign centrepiece. The 2020 U.S. race had none of that energy at the top of the ticket.

For Canadians curious about where each man ultimately landed, our breakdown of each candidate's final stance on marijuana goes deeper into the policy specifics. The short version: incremental at best, regressive at worst.

Wavering Stances on Both Sides

Politicians and consistency rarely share a bed — and on cannabis, both Trump and Biden proved that rule emphatically.

Biden's most memorable moment of confusion came in a March 2020 interview when he accidentally said he would "legalise" marijuana before correcting himself mid-sentence. What he actually meant — and what his platform reflected, was decriminalisation of possession up to a certain amount, not full legalisation. He added: "There is evidence that we have to do some more study on the impact on mental acuity. I would decriminalise and I would provide for the ability of the researchers to get in and make sure we got it right this time." Cautious. Measured. Politically safe. Not exactly the bold reform the cannabis community had hoped for.

Trump's record was, if anything, more contradictory. Prior to his presidency, he had expressed openness to medical cannabis and repeatedly stated that legalisation should be left to individual states — a position that sounds reasonable until you examine how his administration actually behaved. Rather than stepping back from federal enforcement to let states experiment, the Trump administration actively perpetuated the War on Drugs framework that has incarcerated hundreds of thousands of Americans on marijuana-related charges. Words pointed one direction; policy pointed the other.

This is precisely why, when you're trying to navigate the political landscape of cannabis, you have to watch actions rather than talking points. Politicians bend the truth — that's an occupational hazard of the profession, regardless of party. What matters is the legislative record, the enforcement posture, and the appointments made to agencies like the DEA and DOJ.

The One Thing Trump and Biden Actually Agreed On

Here's the counter-intuitive part: the two men shared more common ground on cannabis than their rhetorical differences suggested.

Both candidates expressed support for further research before committing to broader legalisation. Both leaned on outdated talking points that cannabis scientists have largely debunked. And both used the language of caution as a political shield — a way of signalling awareness of the issue without making any commitment that could cost votes in swing states.

Trump's specific concern? IQ. "In Colorado, they have more accidents. It does cause an IQ problem," he told reporters — a claim unsupported by any peer-reviewed literature of note. Biden, meanwhile, held firm on the gateway drug theory well into the 2020 campaign. In a 2010 ABC News interview, he said: "I still believe it's a gateway drug. I've spent a lot of my life as chairman of the Judiciary Committee dealing with this. I think it would be a mistake to legalise."

To be fair, by 2020 Biden had softened somewhat on that framing — but the underlying scepticism never fully disappeared from his public statements. Compare those positions:

• Trump on legalisation: Leave it to the states; no federal action; War on Drugs enforcement continues.
• Biden on legalisation: Decriminalise possession; expunge prior convictions; more research needed before federal legalisation.
• Trump on medical cannabis: Historically supportive in rhetoric, but no substantive federal policy change enacted.
• Biden on medical cannabis: Supportive, and more willing to discuss rescheduling than outright legalisation.
• Both on full federal legalisation: Not happening on their watch — at least not in a first term.

What Each Candidate Would Have Meant for Cannabis Policy

If Trump Had Been Re-Elected

The four years of Trump's first term produced no federal progress on cannabis reform. The trajectory was clear. A second term would almost have meant continued federal prohibition, continued reliance on state-by-state patchwork legalisation, and an enforcement posture that kept cannabis businesses banking in cash and operating in legal grey zones. For cultivators and consumers in states like Colorado, California, or Washington, the day-to-day reality might not have changed much. But for federal employees, military personnel, and anyone crossing state lines with product, the risks would have remained severe.

The upside — and it's a thin one, is that Trump's "leave it to the states" stance at least wouldn't have actively rolled back existing state programmes. That's a low bar, but in the context of federal cannabis policy, it mattered.

What Biden Promised

Biden's most meaningful commitment was on criminal justice: "Any conviction at all for marijuana — now or in the future or in the past, your record should be wiped clean. It's not something that is going to send anybody to jail." For the millions of Americans with marijuana convictions on their records, disproportionately Black and Latino Canadians, frankly, watch this demographic harm play out in real time, that promise represented genuine, material progress even without full legalisation.

His platform also called for reclassifying cannabis from Schedule I (no accepted medical use, high potential for abuse) to Schedule II, which would open the door for more robust federally funded research. That's not nothing. Schedule I classification is one of the primary reasons American scientists have faced decades of bureaucratic obstruction when trying to study cannabis therapeutics. Rescheduling would change that research landscape meaningfully — though it stops well short of making your dispensary federally legal.

1. Decriminalise possession at the federal level — no more federal jail time for simple possession.
2. Expunge prior convictions — clean records for those previously charged under federal marijuana law.
3. Reschedule cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule II to facilitate medical research.
4. Leave full legalisation decisions to individual states for the time being.
5. Increase research funding to study health effects, with a particular focus on mental health impact data.

COVID-19's Impact on Cannabis Policy — and What It Taught Us

Any honest accounting of the 2020 cannabis policy debate has to grapple with the elephant — or rather, the pandemic, in the room.

Due to the COVID-19 outbreak, both governments had far more pressing priorities than cannabis reform. Healthcare system capacity, economic stimulus packages, unemployment surges, vaccine development timelines — all of it crowded out what would have been an already modest political appetite for drug policy reform. It wasn't just that Trump and Biden chose to deprioritise cannabis; it's that any rational government would have. The pandemic reshuffled every policy deck, and cannabis happened to be near the bottom of the pile.

What was instructive, though, was how different the two countries responded to cannabis within that pandemic context. In Canada, cannabis retailers were deemed essential services in most provinces. Dispensaries stayed open under health protocols. Online ordering expanded. The legal market absorbed a portion of illicit market demand because the infrastructure was already there. In the U.S., the patchwork of state-by-state legalisation produced wildly inconsistent outcomes — some dispensaries open, some shuttered, some pivoting to curbside delivery with no clear federal guidance. The contrast underscored exactly why a coherent federal framework matters: not just philosophically, but practically, in a crisis.

Why This Still Matters to Canadian Growers and Buyers

You might reasonably ask: why should we care what American politicians think about weed when we've already sorted it out up here?

The honest answer is that U.S. cannabis policy affects Canada in several tangible ways. Cross-border travel remains heavily restricted for cannabis users and industry workers — a Canadian with a legal cannabis conviction (or even admissions of use) can still be denied entry to the United States, because federal prohibition means American border agents apply federal rules. Cannabis genetics and seed stock, while increasingly developed domestically, still have deep roots in American breeding programmes. And U.S. regulatory posture shapes the broader North American cannabis investment climate, which in turn affects Canadian licensed producers, craft growers, and the retail ecosystem that serves home cultivators.

The policy conversation happening south of the border is, in short, our conversation too — even when we're watching it from the comfortable vantage point of a country that already got it right. For a broader view of how legalisation continues to evolve both here and internationally, our Legalisation blog section tracks the developments that matter most to Canadian cannabis enthusiasts.

And while you're keeping an eye on policy, remember that the most meaningful act of cannabis advocacy available to any Canadian right now is simply to grow well, consume knowledgeably, and support the legal market that generations of activists fought to build. Whether you're cultivating the White, the legendary resin-heavy feminized classic, or exploring newer genetics, every gram grown and purchased legally is a vote for the framework we have — and a signal to our neighbours that it works.

U.S. cannabis policy will keep moving, however slowly. When it finally catches up to where Canada stood in 2018, it will be because enough people — on both sides of that border, refused to stop talking about it.