On Election Day, voters in Arizona, California, Maine, Massachusetts and Nevada will consider proposals to allow recreational use. In California, which approved medical use in 1996, polls show that the measure is likely to win. In Massachusetts, a recent poll showed 55 percent of likely voters supporting legalization. In Arkansas, Florida, Montana and North Dakota, residents will vote on medical marijuana. If Florida voters say yes, other Southern states that have been resistant to liberalizing drug laws could reconsider their prohibitions, too.

Passage of these proposals should increase pressure on the federal government to change how it treats marijuana. The Obama administration has chosen not to enforce federal antimarijuana laws in states like Colorado and Washington. But this bizarre situation can’t last — even as more states legalize the drug, state-licensed marijuana businesses remain criminal operations under federal law. Even if they are not prosecuted by the federal government, this conflict in their legal status creates immense problems.

Hillary Clinton has promised to move marijuana from Schedule 1 of the Controlled Substances Act (for drugs like heroin and LSD that have no accepted medical use) to Schedule 2, which includes opioid drugs that are medically useful but have a “high potential for abuse.” While that change would be an improvement, that classification would not eliminate contradictions between federal and state laws when it comes to recreational use of marijuana. Donald Trump has said he supports the medical use of marijuana, but has opposed full legalization.

States are driving the change in marijuana policy because they see the damage created by draconian drug laws on communities, families and state budgets. It’s time the federal government acknowledged these costs and got out of the way of states adopting more rational laws.