The ion technologies we have are nowhere near powerful enough, though. We can't get enough delta-V out of them per unit time to make them useful for human spaceflight. The biggest benefit of an ion engine is that you can use a tiny amount of fuel to get yourself to a high velocity, as long as you have lots of time, and lots of electricity. This doesn't match the needs or abilities of humans in space - humans don't have lots of time, and we don't really need to get them to incredible velocities very efficiently - once they are in orbit of any sort, the hard part is done, and the efficiency of an ion engine isn't buying you much. It's like driving an RV across the country and then walking the last 20 miles to save gas.
Don't believe me? Play some Kerbal Space Program. Sure, it's a game, but they've got realistic ion engines, nuclear engines, and standard chemical fare, and as it turns out, for most things where you're traveling from the surface of one body to another, chemical rockets are often the simplest way to make it work. If you have a satellite that needs to be very tiny, or quickly get to deep space, then ion engines are great. If you need a vessel that can travel efficiently between different planetary orbits, nuclear engines are ideal. If you need something that will get you into orbit, or get you down to a planet's surface, chemical rockets are basically the option.
The point being, once you try to actually solve some of the specific problems (get X amount of stuff to location Y), you'll see that the requirements lend themselves better to some technologies than others. It is easy to look at an engine and say "runs off electricity? incredibly efficient? use it everywhere!" but until you crunch some numbers and see what the true implications are for human-sized payloads in terms of accelerations and hence mission times, you won't be seeing the full picture that drives the aerospace industry to make the decisions it does.