Come On, Rob: Legalizing Marijuana in Iowa Takes More Than a Governor, a Campaign Email, and Three Talking Points

By JT Santana

I support Rob Sand. I have said that before, and I am saying it again at the beginning of this article so nobody has to spend the next several thousand words trying to determine whether I have secretly joined the opposition. Supporting a candidate does not require surrendering the right to question him, challenge his claims, demand evidence from his campaign, or tell him when I think he is getting something wrong.

In fact, I expect more from candidates I support. If Sand wants to run as the guy who audits government, follows the evidence, rejects partisan nonsense, and tells Iowans to stop playing politics with serious issues, then those standards apply to his campaign too. He does not get an exemption from his own political philosophy simply because I would rather see him elected than his opponent.

That brings me back to marijuana.

Sand recently sent a campaign email arguing that Iowa should legalize adult-use marijuana soon. He offered three major reasons: Iowa is supposedly missing tens of millions of dollars in tax revenue that neighboring states are using for public safety, education, and better government services; legalization is estimated to create around 7,000 Iowa jobs; and legalization is, in his words, “morally the right thing to do.”

Those are three wonderfully compact campaign talking points. They fit nicely into an email, they are easy to remember, and each contains enough truth to sound persuasive without requiring the reader to spend several hours asking irritating questions about tax policy, employment economics, criminal law, constitutional government, public health, local control, or the difference between allocating money to a government program and proving that the expenditure improved anything.

Unfortunately for Sand, I enjoy irritating questions.

I have been examining his marijuana position for some time, and I remain sympathetic to substantial reform of Iowa cannabis law. Iowa’s existing approach carries real criminal-justice costs. Thousands of marijuana arrests continue to occur. Our neighboring states have created legal markets, Iowa residents can cross state lines to purchase products that remain illegal here, and a regulated market could produce legitimate economic activity and tax revenue.

None of that gives a governor unilateral authority to legalize marijuana.

None of it proves that 7,000 new jobs would materialize.

None of it tells us whether those jobs would pay enough for workers to live on.

None of it establishes that cannabis taxes have produced better educational outcomes, safer communities, or better infrastructure in neighboring states merely by showing that cannabis revenue was appropriated for those purposes.

And none of it gives Rob Sand ownership of Iowa’s collective morality.

Come on, Rob. You are running for governor, not elected king of Iowa. If you win, you will have considerable influence over public policy, but changing Iowa laws governing marijuana possession, manufacturing, distribution, taxation, licensing, and commercial sales requires legislation. That means dealing with the Iowa General Assembly, including legislators who may disagree with you.

Civics 101 should not be controversial.

A Governor Cannot Simply Legalize Marijuana in Iowa

Sand’s campaign marijuana plan is presented under the heading “Here’s what Rob would do,” followed by a substantial list of proposed changes. His plan calls for legal adult-use cannabis for people 21 and older, licenses for growers and retailers, THC limits, restrictions on advertising directed at minors, child-resistant packaging, testing requirements, agricultural opportunities, and regulation through an expanded state administrative system.

Those are policy proposals, and several deserve serious consideration. They are not actions a governor can simply impose through executive authority.

Iowa’s Constitution assigns legislative authority to the General Assembly. Bills must move through the legislative process, pass the Iowa House and Senate, and then be presented to the governor. Iowa’s marijuana prohibitions exist in statute, principally within Chapter 124 of the Iowa Code. A governor cannot erase those provisions with a press conference, executive order, campaign promise, or particularly enthusiastic television commercial.

Sand could make legalization one of the defining legislative priorities of his administration. He could submit proposed legislation, negotiate with lawmakers, campaign publicly for votes, invite stakeholders into the drafting process, pressure reluctant legislators, work with members of both parties, and sign a legalization bill once it reached his desk. Those are significant gubernatorial tools, and a skilled governor can exert tremendous influence over what a legislature eventually passes.

That is very different from telling voters what “Rob would do” without repeatedly acknowledging that Rob would need the legislature to do much of it with him.

The distinction becomes particularly significant given Sand’s broader campaign message. He routinely criticizes partisan insiders and presents himself as a practical alternative to conventional political warfare. If that is his governing philosophy, marijuana legalization presents an excellent opportunity to demonstrate it before Election Day.

Tell us what legislation a Sand administration would propose. Publish draft statutory language. Identify which provisions require legislative action, which can be accomplished administratively after enactment, how the regulatory agencies would operate, what local authority would remain, and where compromise might be necessary to secure passage.

That would show Iowans how Sand intends to govern rather than simply what Sand wants.

Yes, Legal Marijuana Produces Tax Revenue

Let us give Sand credit where the evidence supports him. Legal adult-use cannabis markets can produce substantial tax revenue, and Iowa is surrounded by states where cannabis purchases generate public revenue rather than criminal cases.

Illinois provides the clearest neighboring example. Adult-use cannabis sales have exceeded $1 billion annually for several years, and the state has collected hundreds of millions of dollars in cannabis-related revenue. Illinois distributes portions of that money across its general fund, local governments, community reinvestment programs, substance-use and mental-health initiatives, administrative expenses, law enforcement, research, and other purposes.

Missouri presents another strong revenue example. State records show tens of millions of dollars in adult-use marijuana revenue being transferred to programs benefiting veterans, the Missouri State Public Defender system, and health programs involving addiction treatment, overdose prevention, housing, counseling, and employment assistance.

That is real money financing real government activity. Sand is on solid ground when he argues that prohibition prevents Iowa from collecting revenue from transactions that Iowa residents may already be conducting legally across state lines.

The trouble begins when the political claim moves beyond revenue collected and becomes results achieved.

Sand’s campaign email says neighboring states are putting cannabis revenue into public safety, education, and improved government services. That sentence sounds stronger than the underlying evidence unless we distinguish funding decisions from measurable outcomes.

Putting $10 million into something proves that $10 million was spent or appropriated. It does not prove that the expenditure achieved its stated objective.

That distinction should be second nature to a state auditor.

Show Me the Lives Saved

Illinois law directs a portion of cannabis revenue to public-safety purposes, including local crime prevention, law-enforcement training, and efforts related to illegal cannabis markets and impaired driving. Illinois directs another significant share through its Restore, Reinvest, and Renew program, known as R3, which supports violence prevention, youth development, reentry services, economic development, and civil legal assistance in communities affected by incarceration and economic disinvestment.

Those programs may accomplish valuable work. Some almost certainly do.

Sand’s campaign, however, is making a public-policy argument in Iowa. If improved public safety is part of the argument, I want the next level of evidence.

How many violent crimes were prevented through cannabis-tax-funded programs? Have communities receiving substantial R3 investments experienced measurable changes in homicide, assault, victimization, recidivism, or emergency response? Has cannabis-funded impaired-driving enforcement reduced crashes, injuries, or fatalities? Have police departments added personnel or specialized training that produced measurable changes in enforcement effectiveness?

Those questions are not rhetorical traps. They are the questions policymakers should ask whenever a revenue source is credited with producing a social benefit.

There may be excellent answers buried in state evaluations, local grant reports, university research, or longitudinal data. If Sand’s campaign has those answers, publish them. If researchers cannot establish a causal connection yet, say that instead of allowing campaign language to imply that spending cannabis revenue on public safety proves that communities became safer.

The difference between funding public safety and improving public safety is enormous.

An auditor should know that better than most politicians.

Where Are the Educational Outcomes?

Education deserves the same scrutiny.

Campaign rhetoric loves education funding. Politicians can attach almost any new tax, lottery, gambling expansion, settlement, or revenue stream to schools and immediately make the proposal sound socially productive.

Iowa voters should ask a more demanding question: What happened to students?

If neighboring states are demonstrating that cannabis taxation improves education, show us where. Identify the schools, programs, appropriations, and outcomes. Did graduation rates improve? Did class sizes decrease? Were teacher vacancies filled? Were school buildings repaired? Did literacy or mathematics performance improve? Did districts add counselors, special-education staff, school nurses, or extracurricular programs? Did property-tax burdens decline as state funding increased?

If cannabis revenue merely entered a general education account, that fact can still support an argument for legalization. It simply supports a narrower argument: legal cannabis generated revenue that government chose to spend on education.

That is not the same thing as saying cannabis taxation improved education.

I am not demanding impossible scientific certainty from a gubernatorial campaign. I am demanding precision from a candidate whose political identity rests heavily on evidence, accountability, and government performance.

If the evidence demonstrates improved outcomes, Sand should put it front and center.

If the evidence demonstrates funding without established outcomes, he should say precisely that.

Missouri Shows Both the Promise and the Problem

Missouri gives Iowa a particularly useful case study precisely because its experience is neither completely positive nor completely negative.

Adult-use marijuana has generated significant public revenue there. Missouri’s constitutional framework directs cannabis funds to identifiable public purposes, including veterans’ services, indigent defense, and health programs. The Missouri Veterans Commission has received millions from adult-use marijuana revenue, creating a direct connection between legalization and funding for government services.

That is meaningful.

Yet Missouri’s own State Auditor reported a problem in 2026. The Missouri State Public Defender received approximately $11.7 million less in marijuana revenue during FY2025 than auditors determined the constitutional framework required. The auditor recommended corrections to the distribution process.

There is a lesson here for Iowa that goes far beyond cannabis.

Politicians love creating dedicated revenue streams. Future legislatures, administrators, budget pressures, statutory interpretations, and accounting decisions can alter what eventually happens to the money.

If Sand wants Iowa cannabis revenue dedicated to education, public safety, treatment, infrastructure, property-tax relief, or another purpose, put the allocation formula into the proposed legislation. Tell voters whether those allocations are fixed percentages, subject to annual appropriations, deposited into special funds, or available for transfer.

Do not simply tell us Iowa could collect tens of millions of dollars.

Tell us who gets every dollar.

Minnesota Is Not Yet Proof of Long-Term Success

Minnesota presents another caution against overselling neighboring-state comparisons.

Minnesota legalized adult-use cannabis in 2023, but its regulated commercial market took considerable time to develop. Its initial tax structure included cannabis gross-receipts taxes and provisions for local-government aid.

Minnesota later changed parts of that revenue framework. State documents show that lawmakers repealed the future dedication of a portion of cannabis tax revenue to local-government cannabis aid, shifting those revenues into broader state funding structures.

That does not mean Minnesota’s legalization program has failed. It means the system is young and evolving, making Minnesota a poor source for sweeping claims about established improvements in education, public safety, infrastructure, or government performance.

Iowa should absolutely study Minnesota.

We should study what Minnesota got right, what it got wrong, what took longer than expected, how licensing worked, how local governments responded, how revenue projections compared with actual collections, and how lawmakers changed the system after legalization.

That is how neighboring-state evidence becomes useful.

Using another state merely as a campaign prop teaches us very little.

Now Let Us Talk About Those 7,000 Jobs

Sand’s second argument may be the most vulnerable to legitimate scrutiny.

His published cannabis plan states that, using data from states with legal adult-use cannabis, legalization in Iowa is estimated to create around 7,000 jobs.

Seven thousand.

That sounds wonderfully precise.

The campaign does not publicly provide enough information to reproduce the calculation.

Which states were used in the comparison? Was the estimate adjusted for population? Was it adjusted for cannabis consumption rates? Does it assume Iowa develops cultivation, manufacturing, distribution, testing, and retail operations entirely within the state? Does it include indirect employment? Does it include temporary construction jobs? Does it count independent contractors?

Most important, what does the campaign mean by a “job”?

A person working ten hours per week can occupy a job. So can a laboratory scientist earning $70,000 annually. So can a dispensary employee earning $15 an hour without employer-sponsored health insurance.

Those three workers count equally if the campaign is merely counting positions.

They do not experience the economy equally.

Independent cannabis-industry employment estimates suggest that a legal Iowa market supporting several thousand jobs is plausible. Illinois and Missouri each support tens of thousands of positions in their mature legal cannabis sectors, according to industry estimates.

That makes 7,000 possible.

Possible and demonstrated remain different words.

If Sand wants voters to repeat 7,000 as a fact, his campaign should release the model that produced 7,000.

What Exactly Are These Jobs?

A legal cannabis industry needs workers across a surprisingly broad occupational range.

There are cultivation workers, horticultural specialists, facility managers, extraction technicians, laboratory personnel, manufacturing workers, packaging workers, warehouse employees, compliance officers, security personnel, retail managers, budtenders, accountants, attorneys, human-resources employees, marketers, software specialists, transportation workers, maintenance staff, construction workers, and regulators.

Some positions pay well.

Others do not.

Industry salary data show that frontline cannabis positions frequently pay wages similar to other retail, agricultural, production, and warehouse jobs. Budtender wages have commonly fallen somewhere in the mid-teens to low twenties per hour. Cultivation and production positions vary substantially depending on skill, responsibility, employer, and market.

Missouri provides a useful nearby comparison. Current employment data place average budtender compensation around the mid-$15-per-hour range.

Now put that against Iowa’s cost of living.

MIT’s Living Wage Calculator currently estimates that a single Iowa adult without children needs roughly $21 per hour working full time to cover basic expenses. The required wage rises dramatically for a single parent.

A $15.50-per-hour cannabis job may be better than unemployment.

It is still not necessarily a living-wage job.

That is why “7,000 jobs” tells voters much less than Sand appears to think it does.

Give Us Wages, Hours, and Benefits

If Sand intends to make job creation one of the central economic arguments for legalization, then his campaign should produce an occupational estimate rather than a headline number.

Tell us approximately how many cultivation jobs Iowa could expect. Estimate retail employment. Estimate manufacturing and processing positions. Estimate laboratory and compliance jobs. Separate direct employment from indirect and induced employment.

Then attach wages.

How many projected jobs would pay below $15 per hour? How many would pay $15 to $20? How many would clear Iowa’s estimated living wage for a single adult? How many would provide salaries above $50,000?

Benefits belong in the calculation too.

How many positions are expected to provide health insurance? Paid sick leave? Vacation? Retirement contributions? Stable schedules? Full-time hours?

Those questions become particularly significant when politicians present employment creation as a broad social benefit.

Creating 7,000 positions averaging $16 per hour without benefits is one economic outcome. Creating 7,000 positions averaging $24 per hour with health coverage and paid leave is a radically different economic outcome.

The campaign number tells us neither.

That is not good enough.

New Industries Can Create Jobs and Disrupt Existing Ones

There is another side of the employment equation that campaign emails rarely discuss.

New industries can create employment and displace employment at the same time.

Iowa already has a legal hemp industry, medical cannabis businesses, beverage manufacturers, retailers, agricultural operations, transportation companies, laboratories, treatment providers, and thousands of employers operating under drug-testing or drug-free-workplace policies.

Legalization would change the environment in which all of them operate.

Sand has criticized Iowa’s restrictions on consumable hemp products and has proposed changes that could benefit businesses hurt by those restrictions. That deserves discussion in any serious legalization proposal.

A recreational market could create new competitive pressures. Large multistate cannabis companies may have access to financing, technology, legal teams, purchasing arrangements, and economies of scale unavailable to small Iowa operators.

If Sand wants small and mid-sized Iowa farms to receive priority, Iowa needs to know how that priority survives five or ten years after legalization.

Does Iowa cap the number of licenses one company can control? Are licenses transferable? Can an Iowa farmer obtain a cultivation license and immediately sell it to a national corporation? Are residency requirements constitutional? Are there financing programs for smaller businesses? Will vertical integration be allowed?

A market can begin with dozens of local entrepreneurs and end with a few corporations controlling cultivation, processing, distribution, and retail.

Job creation numbers alone tell us nothing about ownership.

What About Workers Whose Jobs Remain Subject to Federal Rules?

Employment gets even more complicated when marijuana remains illegal under federal law.

Commercial drivers provide an obvious example. Federal transportation regulations can continue applying to workers regardless of state legalization. Other federally regulated or safety-sensitive jobs may retain testing requirements.

Health-care workers, law-enforcement officers, corrections employees, firefighters, heavy-equipment operators, federal contractors, and workers in other safety-sensitive positions can present different legal and workplace issues.

Iowa will need to decide how far employers can go in testing workers for cannabis when off-duty use becomes legal under state law.

Can an employer fire someone for a positive cannabis test when there is no evidence of workplace impairment? Can employers refuse to hire recreational cannabis users? Which occupations receive exemptions? What testing methodology establishes recent impairment rather than previous consumption?

Minnesota had to confront these questions when it legalized cannabis, creating rules that distinguish many ordinary workers from safety-sensitive and federally regulated occupations.

Iowa would have to do the same.

That legislation will affect jobs too.

If Sand wants to count jobs created by legalization, intellectual consistency requires discussing jobs affected by legalization.

Criminal Justice Is One of Sand’s Strongest Arguments

Sand is on firmer ground when discussing marijuana prohibition and incarceration.

Iowa continues to criminalize marijuana possession. A first possession offense can carry jail exposure, and penalties increase for subsequent offenses.

Thousands of marijuana arrests continue occurring in Iowa.

That means prohibition has direct consequences for real people: arrests, court appearances, attorney fees, fines, probation, jail exposure, criminal records, employment problems, housing barriers, and family disruption.

There is a serious argument that Iowa’s current approach imposes consequences disproportionate to the conduct involved, particularly for simple adult possession.

There is an equally serious historical discussion concerning racial disparities in American drug enforcement. Cannabis prohibition did not operate within a social vacuum, and decades of enforcement produced consequences distributed unevenly across communities.

Sand should make that argument carefully and forcefully.

He does not need to oversimplify it.

“Nobody Should Be Incarcerated for Smoking Weed” Sounds Better Than It Legislates

Sand’s statement that nobody should be incarcerated for smoking weed is rhetorically effective.

As statutory policy, it needs definitions.

Does he mean simple possession by adults? Public consumption? Possession above established limits? Unlicensed cultivation? Distribution outside the regulated market? Sales to minors? Repeated violations? Cannabis-impaired driving?

A legalization system does not eliminate cannabis crimes.

It changes which cannabis-related conduct remains criminal.

Every legal state continues regulating illegal sales, youth access, impaired driving, unlicensed manufacturing, tax evasion, diversion across state lines, and other conduct.

Sand’s full proposal recognizes several of these distinctions, which makes the simplified campaign language unnecessary.

The criminal-justice case for reform is strong enough to survive precision.

Use it.

Calling Legalization “Morally Right” Creates a Different Problem

Sand’s third argument is where I begin losing patience.

He says legalization is “morally the right thing to do.”

I understand what he means. He appears to be arguing that incarcerating people for personal marijuana use causes disproportionate harm and that past drug enforcement produced injustices that government has some responsibility to repair.

That is a legitimate moral argument.

It is not the only legitimate moral argument.

A parent concerned about adolescent drug exposure may approach legalization morally. An addiction specialist worried about cannabis-use disorder may do the same. Someone concerned about racially disparate enforcement may reach the opposite conclusion through equally serious moral reasoning.

A libertarian may regard criminalizing private adult cannabis use as an immoral intrusion by government. Another voter may support decriminalization but oppose creating a commercial cannabis industry built around maximizing consumption.

Whose morality wins?

That question exposes the weakness in Sand’s framing.

Public policy in a pluralistic democracy cannot simply consist of elected officials announcing which moral position everyone else should adopt.

We argue.

We listen.

We examine evidence.

We negotiate competing rights and interests.

Then legislators vote.

That is the adult conversation Sand says Iowa needs.

Rob, Your Morality Does Not Trump Everyone Else’s

I do not want Iowa public policy dictated by Kim Reynolds’ personal morality.

I do not want it dictated by Donald Trump’s personal morality.

I do not want it dictated by a religious organization, corporate lobbyist, political party, advocacy organization, or newspaper editorial board.

I do not want it dictated by Rob Sand’s personal morality either.

That does not mean morality has no place in policymaking. Questions involving incarceration, liberty, public health, racial justice, personal autonomy, addiction, children, and governmental coercion are inherently value-laden.

The difference lies in how political leaders approach those disagreements.

A leader interested in constructive government invites competing moral perspectives into the discussion and tries to produce a policy capable of surviving disagreement.

A campaign interested primarily in persuasion announces that its preferred position is morally right.

Sand has spent years telling Iowans that we need less partisan warfare and more communication.

Then communicate.

Invite legalization supporters, prohibition supporters, law enforcement, public-health researchers, addiction specialists, cannabis consumers, employers, farmers, medical cannabis patients, defense attorneys, prosecutors, parents, teachers, local officials, and people previously arrested for marijuana offenses into the same policy process.

That would tell me much more about a Sand governorship than another campaign email.

Stop Telling Iowa to Stop Playing Politics While Playing Politics

This is where my frustration with Sand extends beyond cannabis.

Sand has made “people over politics” and opposition to partisan insiders central components of his political identity. He presents himself as someone who approaches government differently from conventional politicians.

Fine.

Then the standard applies to him.

Sand is running a sophisticated, heavily financed gubernatorial campaign. Public campaign-finance records show enormous fundraising and spending. His campaign buys advertising, hires political professionals, sends fundraising emails, attacks opponents, develops messaging, creates contrasts, and responds strategically to opposing advertising.

There is nothing inherently improper about any of that.

It is politics.

When Sand complains about opponents spending huge amounts on advertising and responds by increasing his own advertising expenditures, that is politics.

When his campaign sends emails portraying partisan insiders as the obstacle to marijuana legalization, that is politics.

When a complex policy question becomes three emotionally attractive bullet points about money, jobs, and morality, that is politics too.

My objection is not that Rob Sand participates in politics.

He is running for governor.

My objection is pretending that everyone else is playing politics and Rob Sand somehow occupies a pristine space outside it.

Politics Is Not the Problem

I wish Sand would stop treating “politics” as synonymous with everything dysfunctional about government.

Politics is how representative democracy processes disagreement.

Legislators represent different constituencies. Interest groups advocate. Citizens organize. Candidates campaign. Journalists investigate. Lobbyists lobby. Parties develop platforms. Coalitions form and collapse.

That process can become corrupt, dishonest, cruel, cynical, tribal, or absurd.

Criticize those things by name.

Call out corruption.

Call out dishonesty.

Call out hypocrisy.

Call out extremism.

Call out legislators who refuse to negotiate.

Call out special interests that purchase access.

Call out officials who mislead voters.

But “stop playing politics” is itself political messaging.

Sand is not above politics.

Neither am I.

Neither is anyone participating seriously in public policy.

The goal should be better politics.

Sand Has Several Good Ideas Here

I do not want the criticism to obscure the parts of Sand’s proposal that deserve serious consideration.

A minimum age of 21 is defensible.

Child-resistant packaging makes sense.

Advertising restrictions aimed at minors deserve serious examination.

Product testing is preferable to an illegal market where consumers may have little reliable information about potency or contaminants.

THC limits deserve evidence-based debate.

Creating legitimate opportunities for Iowa farmers could provide economic benefits if the licensing structure prevents eventual corporate consolidation.

Reforming criminal penalties for simple adult possession deserves serious legislative attention.

Expungement or record-clearing deserves a place in that discussion too.

A legal market could generate substantial tax revenue.

Thousands of jobs could plausibly result.

Those are reasons to continue the conversation.

They are not reasons to stop asking questions.

Here Is What I Want From Rob Sand

I want the economic model behind the 7,000-job estimate.

I want to know which states were used, which assumptions were made, and which categories of employment were counted. I want direct, indirect, induced, temporary, part-time, and full-time positions separated wherever the underlying model permits it.

I want wage estimates.

I want benefit estimates.

I want to know how many projected jobs would pay an Iowa living wage.

I want an analysis of potential job displacement and workplace conflicts.

I want realistic tax-revenue projections with high, middle, and low scenarios.

I want proposed statutory language explaining where the tax revenue goes.

I want measurable evidence from neighboring states when those states are cited as proof of improved public safety, education, infrastructure, or government services.

I want the distinction between money appropriated and outcomes achieved stated clearly.

I want an expungement proposal.

I want local-control provisions.

I want employer and employee rules.

I want impaired-driving standards.

I want a plan for agricultural licensing and market concentration.

I want treatment and prevention funding addressed.

Most of all, I want Sand to tell Iowa how he intends to get legislation through the General Assembly.

That is the part a governor actually has to do.

You Are Running for Governor, Rob, Not King

American political rhetoric has become increasingly executive-centered.

Candidates tell voters what they personally will fix, ban, legalize, lower, raise, eliminate, build, or transform after taking office. The legislature often disappears from the sentence.

That is a dangerous habit regardless of political party.

Donald Trump has pushed executive-centered political rhetoric to extraordinary levels, routinely presenting presidential authority as personal authority. Iowa does not need a Democratic variation on the same conceptual mistake.

Sand does not need to imitate Trump’s approach to executive authority to sound decisive.

He can say something stronger and more constitutionally literate: If elected governor, I will send the General Assembly a comprehensive cannabis legalization bill, campaign publicly for its passage, negotiate with legislators from both parties, and sign it if lawmakers send it to my desk.

There.

That is leadership.

It recognizes the governor’s influence without pretending the legislature is an inconvenience standing between the candidate and his promises.

Support Does Not Require Silence

I support Rob Sand.

I am losing some patience with Rob Sand.

Those statements can coexist.

Political support should never become an agreement to stop thinking critically. If anything, supporting a candidate creates a stronger reason to demand that the candidate live up to the standards he asks voters to associate with his name.

Sand has built much of his public reputation around auditing claims, questioning government performance, demanding accountability, and following evidence.

Good.

I am applying that framework to him.

Show me how 7,000 jobs was calculated.

Show me what those jobs pay.

Show me how many come with benefits.

Show me the neighboring-state evidence demonstrating that cannabis-tax expenditures produced measurable improvements rather than merely funding programs with desirable names.

Show me how an Iowa legalization system protects small businesses and farmers.

Show me how workers are protected.

Show me how employers handle safety-sensitive jobs.

Show me how prior marijuana convictions are addressed.

Show me where the tax money goes.

Show me the bill.

Then show me how Governor Rob Sand intends to persuade enough legislators to pass it.

That is not hostility.

That is accountability.

Come On, Rob. Show Us the Receipts.

Iowa should have a serious conversation about marijuana legalization.

I believe Sand deserves credit for forcing part of that conversation into the gubernatorial campaign. He is willing to advocate a position that Iowa’s current political leadership has resisted, and several elements of his proposal deserve legitimate debate.

His campaign should now move beyond slogans.

“Tens of millions in revenue” requires an allocation plan and credible projections.

“Improved public safety” requires evidence of improved public safety.

“Education” requires more than attaching the word to a revenue stream.

“7,000 jobs” requires a reproducible economic model, occupational categories, wages, hours, and benefits.

“Morally right” requires enough humility to recognize that Iowa contains millions of people whose moral reasoning does not begin and end with Rob Sand.

And “stop playing politics” requires recognizing when your own campaign is doing exactly that.

Sand wants Iowa to believe he is different.

Then be different.

Do not give us three bullet points and expect applause.

Give us the evidence.

Give us the legislation.

Give us the competing evidence too.

Invite critics into the conversation instead of dismissing disagreement as partisan obstruction.

Explain what you can accomplish as governor and what requires the General Assembly.

Treat voters as adults capable of handling complicated policy.

That is the kind of politics Iowa could actually use.

I support you, Rob.

I want you to do better.

And if your campaign wants to build a marijuana legalization argument around revenue, employment, government performance, and measurable results, there is one request that should sound particularly familiar to Iowa’s state auditor:

Show us the receipts.

References

Illinois Cannabis Regulation Oversight Office. (2026). Learn how cannabis tax dollars are spent. State of Illinois.

Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority. (2026). Restore, Reinvest, and Renew grant program materials. State of Illinois.

Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation. (2026). Adult-use cannabis sales figures. State of Illinois.

Iowa General Assembly. (2026). Constitution of the State of Iowa, Article III.

Iowa General Assembly. (2026). Iowa Code Chapter 124: Controlled substances.

Iowa General Assembly. (2026). House File 2206 bill history.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (2026). Living Wage Calculator: Iowa.

Minnesota Department of Revenue. (2025). Local government cannabis aid summary.

Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services. (2026). Fiscal year transfers of medical and adult-use marijuana funds.

Missouri State Auditor. (2026). Marijuana Program: Management Advisory Report.

Missouri Veterans Commission. (2025). Annual report 2025.

Marijuana Policy Project. (2026). The state of enforcement: Progress and shortcomings in cannabis arrest rates.

Rob Sand for Iowa. (2026). Rob Sand’s plan to legalize, tax, and regulate adult-use cannabis.

Vangst. (2024). Cannabis Jobs Report 2024.

Vangst & Whitney Economics. (2026). U.S. Cannabis Jobs Report 2026.