Gov. Charlie Baker, the most popular governor in the country, opposes it. So do Attorney General Maura Healey, House Speaker Robert DeLeo and Boston Mayor Marty Walsh.

With few exceptions, Massachusetts’ civic leaders — from politicians and public health officials to district attorneys and police chiefs — have rallied in opposition to recreational marijuana. They bring with them the power of the bully pulpit and well-oiled political machines that will likely flood airwaves and mailboxes with anti-legalization messages in the weeks between now and Nov. 8, when the issue will appear before voters as Question 4 on their ballots.

But if history is any guide, the opposition emanating from respected offices of state and local government may actually be a boon to the pro-marijuana camp, said Rick Ridder, president of RBI Strategies & Research, a Denver-based political consulting firm. “People don’t like to be told by politicians why they should vote ‘No’ or why they should do things. Over the past 30 years, the power of endorsements by elected officials has declined dramatically.”

Ridder’s company was one of the chief strategists behind Colorado’s successful legalization campaign in 2012.

At one point during the campaign, Colorado’s popular governor, John Hickenlooper, appeared on a radio ad with several former governors to announce their bipartisan opposition to legalization.

After the ad aired, poll numbers in favor of recreational marijuana shot up.

“Voters take initiatives and referenda as an opportunity to tell elected officials to bug off,” Ridder said.

Opposition from the governing class has shown to be insufficient in other parts of the country as well.

Since 2010, six states have voted on ballot initiatives to legalize recreational marijuana. With the exception of Oregon, the governors and attorney generals in each of those states either opposed legalization or did not take a stance on it.

California voted down its marijuana ballot measure in 2010, followed by Oregon in 2012 and Ohio in 2015.

But Oregon revisited the issue in 2014 and became the fourth state — following Colorado, Washington and Alaska — to legalize recreational marijuana. Californians will vote again this November and are expected to pass the measure by a wide margin.

In Massachusetts, the sitting governor and attorney general either directly opposed or leaned against the previous two marijuana referenda: decriminalization in 2008 and medical marijuana in 2012.

Both those initiatives passed by nearly 2-to-1 margins, and marijuana-reform advocates say voters are used to seeing nothing happen after politicians tell them that the sky will fall if marijuana laws change.

“Based on the history of marijuana reform in Massachusetts, hearing these (anti-legalization politicians’) voices is disappointing, but it’s not a huge concern because I think the voters of Massachusetts can see through these tired arguments,” said Matthew Allen, who worked as a consultant on both of the previous referenda before joining the ACLU of Massachusetts in 2014 as its field director.

There have been few polls on Question 4 so far this election season, but the most recent, conducted by Gravis Marketing in July, showed 51 percent of respondents opposed to legalization and 41 percent in support, with the remainder undecided.

That is a significant change from May 2014, when MassINC Polling Group reported 49 percent in favor and 43 percent opposed. It’s also a better environment for politicians looking to wield influence.

While politicians may not sway voters by lending their faces and voices to the anti-legalization campaign — especially in an election year with strong anti-establishment undercurrents — their fundraising prowess is still a valuable asset, said Joshua Dyck, a political science professor at UMass Lowell who studies ballot questions.

“The research shows that money is more effective on the ‘No’ side of the campaign than on any ‘Yes’ side of a ballot campaign,” he said. “That’s because people are status quo-oriented. Voting ‘No’ usually doesn’t change anything.”

Campaign finance reports for the committees that will lead the debate on Question 4 were due to be filed Aug. 31, but they have not yet been made public. Their release will offer valuable insight into the strength of the anti-legalization effort.

The coming weeks will reveal how active a role high-profile public figures will play in the campaign, and whether their involvement works as they intended.

“If Charlie Baker starts appearing in radio and TV spots, it could get interesting,” Dyck said.

Follow Todd Feathers on Twitter and Tout @ToddFeathers.