Marijuana has been used as a medicine for millennia by cultures that span the globe. Ever since 1937, however, the medical uses of marijuana have diminished in America due to political pressure; the cannabis plant remains illegal regardless of intended use. Since then, patients have continued demanding access to marijuana's therapeutic effects, thus prompting the pharmaceutical industry to find a legitimate means of meeting their needs without violating Federal law. This quest for "legal weed" resulted in the introduction of dronabinol (a synthetic drug commonly referred to by its trade name Marinol), into contemporary American pharmacopoeia; however, this "solution" to the medical marijuana question now poses a double standard; whereas, medical marijuana users still face severe penalties, including loss of property and mandatory incarceration, for therapeutically using an illegal substance, Marinol users enjoy the benefits of marijuana's active ingredient, tetrahydracannibidol (THC), without the criminal penalties or the social stigma associated with marijuana use. This paper examines the vastly different public perceptions of the two essentially similar substances, while framing this complex analysis within a broader historical and theoretical structure. This analysis focuses first on each of these two drugs individually, and then it illustrates the disparate public discourse in American pop culture surrounding natural and synthetic THC, respectively. Without taking a position in the debate, this analysis shows how politics influence science, how marijuana has garnered such a distinctively negative reputation, and how Marinol has successfully appeased the anti-marijuana American public.