The cannabis industry is plagued by two key perceptions in the general public. The first, a commonly-understood sentiment, is the traditional stigma many still have towards cannabis in general, in large part fuelled by nearly a century of prohibition.

The second, common even among many who are otherwise sympathetic to the industry—or at least to the plant itself—is the perception that the cannabis industry is full of faceless millionaire CEOs in fancy suits.

Both of these views add up to a significant amount of headwind when it comes to advocating for regulatory change through the political process. Elected officials and policymakers might take meetings, but their willingness to prioritize the kinds of issues facing the industry—namely a heavy amount of regulation on every aspect of the business from licensing to production to sales and marketing—is directly tied to how important they think those issues are for their voters.

The reality is, those voters are not focused on these concerns. Support for legalization in general is one thing: polling has shown a majority of Canadians have supported that for a long time now. But when it comes to casting a vote based on the kind of regulatory nuance the industry is calling for, or even something as simple as excise reform, voters have a lot more pressing matters on their minds.

Before politicians will listen, the voters have to be educated. Op-eds in business magazines or posts on social media are great for preaching to the choir. But does the general public really care? It would appear not.

A coordinated marketing campaign that helps explain these issues in simple terms that resonate with voters, with a multi-year game plan, could have the opportunity to create this kind of understanding in the general voting public. Clearly, other approaches industry has taken in the last six years have not worked to lower excise or increase edibles limits: among the most commonly-championed asks since legalization began.

Take a recent poll, for example, funded by a cannabis producer. It showed that many Canadians would be open to the next federal government finding ways to support the cannabis industry.

Externally, this is great news in the context of many politicians’ continued reticence to do much more than pay lip service to the industry, if even that.

However, internally, it’s still important for the industry not to overhype itself regarding what this actually means in real life. Reefer madness and stigma are still very real barriers in this space, which is supported by these very same poll results.

For example, when pollsters asked about an unnamed industry that contributes to the Canadian economy, respondents were overwhelmingly supportive. Nearly three-quarters said it would be a good idea for the next federal government to support such an industry. Only 2% said it was a bad idea.

When pollsters asked the same question again, though, noting the industry in question was cannabis, support dropped to just under half (48%), while opposition increased to 20%.

Now, having 48% of respondents want to see the next federal government provide better assistance for Canada’s cannabis industry is still a significant achievement. But losing 26 percentage points as soon as they heard it was cannabis highlights the image problem this industry continues to face.

And this problem trickles up to elected officials, who see similar results in their own constituencies. If half of your electorate does not support the cannabis industry, are you, as an elected official, really going to stick your neck out to support it? Probably not. Politicians rarely lead. They usually follow where the votes are.

As some localized examples of this, we can look at two recent votes to expand cannabis regulations in two western Canadian cities—Calgary, AB, and Surrey, BC.

Calgary City Council’s Executive Committee recently voted to move forward with a plan to allow cannabis sales at age-gated events in the city. Despite this being a simple approval of a bylaw that aligns the city with existing provincial rules, and despite this rule doing nothing more than aligning cannabis with the same rules that have long already applied to alcohol, nearly half of the councillors voted against it.

These aren’t all old “boomer” politicians. These are politicians reflecting what they see as the opinions of those in their districts. If we look at a recent Tweet about the issue from one of the councillors who voted against the measure, Dan McLean, we see numerous negative comments in replies rejecting the idea of allowing cannabis sales at age-gated events in the city.

While social media posts aren’t exactly the most accurate reflection of public will, they’re a useful example of the kind of resistance many in the voting public still have against cannabis in general. This breaks down across partisan lines, for the most part, with opposition to cannabis and cannabis regulations often framed in terms of social conservative concerns about “the children” or “walking through a cloud of pot” or even seeing it as a handout to industry (it’s not).

A recent vote in Surrey, BC, to move forward with nearly a dozen new cannabis stores—the first to be approved in BC’s second-largest city, more than six years following legalization—showed similar resistance to a fairly benign step forward. The council voted 5-4 on each of the nine applications, barely passing. Many of the concerns raised by those three councillors and the mayor in past discussions on the issue were similar concerns about children, or based on the overall negative perception of cannabis in general.

This is six years into legalization, where, by all objective evidence, the sky has not fallen. Cannabis stores are as normal and boring as a Tim Horton’s or a beer store. Yet we still have elected officials voting against something as simple as allowing legal, regulated cannabis to be sold at an adults-only event, or against the idea of allowing cannabis stores in a city at all.

These elected officials are not operating in some anachronistic bubble. They are reflecting the will of their constituents as they see it. Convincing politicians to support the industry is a novel effort, but it will have to occur in concert with efforts to change the minds of their voters, or it will fall flat.

Going back to the national poll that showed support for the cannabis industry, it’s also important to note that residents were not asked about any specific action items. “Support” for a vague idea is one thing, but asking for provincial governments to give up tax revenue, or to relax interprovincial trade barriers for cannabis that would undercut provincial markups, is a whole other issue.

As you engage with your municipal, provincial, and federal representatives—something everyone in the industry should do on a regular basis—it will continue to be crucial to keep these broader issues in mind. It’s not a matter of appealing to emotion or even common sense. It’s about making a compelling argument based on addressing their very real concerns, based on what their electorate is telling them.

If the electorate still sees the industry as bad because they hate cannabis, or because they see cannabis as a “liberal” issue, or because they see the industry as swimming in cash because that was the narrative in the media for many years, then the industry’s efforts to lobby for major regulatory changes will continue to fall short.

Focus on changing voters’ minds, and the politicians will follow.