Well gee whiz, what an unbelievable coincidence: just a day or two after Bernie Sanders said we ought to legalize pot, Hillary Clinton changed her stance and said it should still be illegal, but reclassified.

Pot is currently "schedule 1," the same classification as heroin and LSD. Hillary now says it should be "schedule 2," the same as Adderall, which would make it slightly easier to study it for medical purposes. You could still be arrested for selling/having/using it though, so thanks, Hillary!

"The problem with medical marijuana is there is a lot of anecdotal evidence about how well it works for certain conditions, but we haven't done any research," Clinton said at a campaign event Saturday. "Why? Because it is considered what is called a Schedule 1 drug and you can't even do research in it."

That's not fully true. There has been some research, just not in this country. We know that pot can be an effective treatment for nausea, for anorexia, for pain, for multiple sclerosis. Studies are underway all over the world right now, and have been for decades.

And while this classification shift that she's proposing should be done, yes—the federal government officially believes meth is less dangerous than marijuana—all the medical research in the world won't stop the DEA from harassing people. We'd have to remove the federal prohibitions on marijuana and give it the same classification as alcohol or tobacco. Those substances are less regulated because, technically speaking, they are as classified as "industries that give a fuck ton of money to politicians."

Bernie didn't waste any time needling Hillary on her mini-evolution:

"If we are serious about criminal justice reform and preventing many thousands of lives from being impacted because of criminal convictions for marijuana possession," he said, "we must remove marijuana from the federal Controlled Substances Act and allow states the right to go forward, if they choose, to legalize marijuana without federal legal impediments."

But Hillary still wants a take-it-slow approach, saying she wants to "see how it works" in Colorado and Washington.

To be fair, though, Hillary's proposal probably has a better shot at actually happening than Bernie's. A similar pot-legalization bill went nowhere in 2011, whereas it's comparatively easier to reclassify a substance. So even though it's a super-unsatisfying position, it's probably a lot more achievable.

And this comes down to the fundamental difference between the candidates, doesn't it? The awesome long shot versus the boring safe choice. Are you willing to take a risk and aim high, knowing that there's a good chance it won't work out?