Jan 302015
 January 30, 2015

dianne feinstein marijuana californiaFor a very long time politicians either didn’t publicly support marijuana reform, or outright opposed it publicly. It was very, very rare to hear a politician, especially a federal politician, express support for marijuana legalization. Those days are rapidly drawing to a close, as more and more politicians at every level are getting on the right side of history. One of those politicians that are clinging to the past with everything they have is California Senator Dianne Feinstein. Per the Los Angeles Times:

Feinstein and fellow Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) recently sent letters to top Obama administration officials decrying what they view as the White House’s leniency on pot. “The administration should account for remarks and policies that send a message of tolerance for illegal drugs,” Grassley said in a separate statement.

“Feinstein declined to discuss the letters, which reflect a sentiment that is going out of style back home,” notes Evan Halper of The Times.

Note to politicians: Expressing opinions wildly divergent from those of your constituents is not the typical path to follow. According to the polls, up to 60% of Californians favor outright legalization, not merely decriminalization.

I don’t understand why Senator Feinstein is still in office. How is she getting re-elected when she is clearly so far out of touch with her constituents? California voters deserve to have a Senator that represents them and their will, not someone that clings to failed policies of the past. If you live in California, please, for the sake of sanity and logic, do not re-elect Senator Feinstein.

Comments

comments

About Johnny Green

Dissenting opinions are welcome, insults and personal attacks are discouraged and hate speech will not be tolerated. Spammers and people trying to buy or sell cannabis or any drugs will be banned. Read our comment policy and FAQ for more information

  39 Responses to “Senator Feinstein’s Opposition To Marijuana Highlights Her Need To Go”

  1.  

    We r given 2 choices, this old bag (82 yrs old) or a bible thumpin repub who want to go back to the 1800’s. Thats democracy in America. But in the mean time my garden is rockin

    •  

      I wish we would go back to the 1800’s with regard to marijuana policy.

      •  

        I’d settle for 1936.

        •  

          But then you’ll only get one year! You could try convincing the folks of 1936 you come from the future, and that the path they’re going down will eventually swell our prison population to 2.3 million people via a futile “drug war” that will cost us over a trillion tax dollars. But I doubt they’d believe we could, as a nation, be collectively THAT stupid and self-destructive.

          You’d have to travel back a little farther to ensure you get the jump on the massive propaganda campaign, of course. Reefer Madness was completed in 1936. Newspapers were running “warning” ads about marijuana in 1935. I’ve read that Harry Anslinger started paying attention to cannabis as early as 1934.

      •  

        Exactly. The 1800’s were very kind to cannabis and hemp.

  2.  

    I agree, she has got to go, and preferably not be replaced by a reefer-mad republican.

    •  

      You seemed to have overlooked the point here–she’s a Democrat, and that further demonstrates that not all of them support any form of legalization.
      Given this fact, it seems the only viable way to help level the playing field is Term Limits!

      •  

        The problem with term limits is they affect our allies as much as they affect our opponents. Why should someone be forced out if the voters want them in? It should be up to the voters.

  3.  

    How does she get re-elected? Because the other party nominates someone like Carly Fiorina.

  4.  

    Diane Feinstein: the opportunist who rode the corpses of George Moscone and Harvey Milk into power.

  5.  

    I’ve wondered why they keep electing her also. She should have been turned out to pasture 20 years ago.

  6.  

    To folks like Ms Feinstein I always ask, “Exactly which part of the old way of thinking about Marijuana did you like?”

  7.  

    Like Nancy Grace, she is ‘ignorant of the facts’ and refuses to believe any different. You are correct, she is long past her relevance and needs to go. I’ll bet if her and her hubby could make money off of legalized MJ, she would change her tune. Yet these folks continue to support alcohol, which has a high association with crime and tobacco which has no medical benefit.

  8.  

    Feinstein has already said this is her last term. She has been on the right side of history on many issues, but is sadly out of touch on this. Like Jerry Brown, so progressive in many ways, but he is still the ex-seminarian beholden to the big LE unions in California. This is his last term, too..

  9.  

    Term limits would rid us of lobby corrupted Congressmen and women while simultaneously providing us with fresh-perspective progressive candidates. Those on the cutting edge would be in to do the people’s bidding and then be gone: Like the civil servants Congress was meant to be.

    •  

      But to get term limits, the people would need the politicians to actually pass this and we all know there is no way a politician will vote against their own self-intertest.

      What’s even funnier is that politics was never meant to be a career ever by our founding fathers. This great men were farmers and businessmen and understood that it was an honor to serve their country. And after they were done, they went back to their farms and businesses. But somehow politics and civil servants devolved into a career that is an every day “job” and that they have to keep passing new laws to keep up the appearance they are working and earning their pay. When you stop to realize that originally Congress was to meet at least once a year to handle business before going back to their farms, it’s easy to see why the average American cannot keep track of the new laws passed each year. The same laws that many of us probably break without knowing but unfortunately for us, ignorance of the law is not a defense in a court of law.

      It was definitely a much simpler and kinder time back then (outside of slavery).

  10.  

    She stayed in office because she has been on the side of the majority of her constituents on most all the issues they care deeply about, except this one, proving the idiom…you can’t win ’em all.

  11.  

    She is still in office because she supports multiple social issues and many voters still vote for her unfortunately. We must remember that all of the politicians have stances on multiple issues and there is a good chance they differ from us on one or more issues. While I am certainly no fan of hers or many Democrats on that matter , if I am being fair here, I can’t disqualify a candidate because we differ on one issue. Having said that, if the issue we differ on is something I consider the most important to me, then I can’t vote for them. What I am trying to say is that the people that vote for her care more deeply about other things than they do her stance on weed.

    Personally, I think all politicians should care about liberty and freedom of choice. Sadly, both parties contain a bunch of assholes that care little for either.

    And for those that think she is ignorant of the facts, think again. All politicians know the true benefit of cannabis. It’s just many of them are making their share of the money off the prison and prohibition complex so they aren’t willing to shit where many of them eat.

    •  

      Do you know that she is profiting from prohibition? If so, please provide details because we need to be calling her out on it, not just making unsupported references to political self interest.

      There must be a reason why she is still spewing the “gateway theory” lunacy, which she used to justify her letter. If you know the reason, please share.

      •  

        Look into who funds her campaigns
        Pharma , prison union
        Not sure but id bet on it!

        •  

          I looked it up and she gets some money from Pharma (mostly Pfizer) and alcohol, but not as much as you would think. Pharmaceuticals was the 10th biggest industry source of funding for her last campaign, and alcohol was 18th. She didn’t get any big contributions from cops or prisons.

          I think she truly believes the dumb stuff she says about marijuana. I don’t know if this is worse or better than being controlled by interest groups. If she doesn’t change her stance, hopefully she is gone by 2019.

      •  

        While I do not have direct evidence, she is a member of Congress who has passed and upheld unjust laws that ban a substance that grows naturally and she and her government profit from the incarceration, fines, and confiscations that occur as a result of it. Feinstein shares much of the same mentality of the many decades of prohibitionists. Despite facts and truths we know now, she sticks her fingers in her ears and plays the “la-la-la” game .

        If we haven’t learned anything about our government, let us learn one thing that is not exclusive to either political party. Each and every law is about implementing control over a population it governs regardless of how well intentioned a law may be. Laws are designed by the very nature to restrict to regulate what the government finds to be acceptable behavior. The people are not trusted to define their own freedom and happiness for it must first be confirmed and permitted by elected leaders who aren’t even held to the same standard of law used to rule the people.

  12.  

    Not being one of her constituents, I cannot say I’ve given her an extraordinary amount of thought. Honestly, only a few things about Feinstein have ever stood out to me. She spearheaded the assault weapons ban in the 1990s. She was quick to label Edward Snowden a traitor. I believe she voted to continue some of those morally questionable NSA surveillance tactics. Recently, she’s been embroiled by the release of the “Torture Report” which has been one of the favorite political hockey pucks of this winter’s news cycle.

    I’ve never had to consider my vote in any election in which she was a candidate, but my cursory impression is that she’s been a part of government in one capacity or another for so long that a bullet-point analysis of her policy positions might make your head explode. How can a woman who insists we take moral responsibility for our use of torture — that we, as a nation, own our gross human rights violations — advocate for *continuing* prohibition? Try chewing on that one without getting a nosebleed.

  13.  

    I was born in California and lived outside SF for many years. This *unt should have been out long ago. After she help to enact a no handgun policy, she made a press announcement in which her OWN handgun was seen.
    She has always been a do as I say not as I do. How to stop this? GET OFF YOUR ASS AND VOTE!!

  14.  

    Most politicians think its still 1988. As if any pro drug stance equals defeat in the next election.

  15.  

    If only there was a real groundswell backlash over her stance on Cannabis. This would send a message to all the other dinosaurs still in office. Alas, that doesn’t mean they’d listen, but I have an excellent suggestion of a remedy for the depression caused by losing an election.
    Cannabis never should have been banned.

  16.  

    FEINSTEIN IS ONE JEWISH DECENT THAT NEEDS TO REMEMBER THE HOLICAUST , ANS BE REMINDED OF WHAT SUPPRESSION OF CIVIL RIGHTS DOES TO PEOPLE ! DON’T BE BLINDED BY ALL THOSE FREEDOMS YOU HAVE ENJOYED HERE SINCE YOUR PEOPLE HAS RELOCATED

  17.  

    They better be careful they just might get defeated at the polls if they run their mouths too much.

  18.  

    Thats the big question. If no one agrees with Feinstein, or Harry Reid or nancy Polosi how do they keep getting re elected. We have a Claire Mcaskil in Missouri who was a Prosecutor and is against ANY legalization. I haevnt found one person that voted for her. ARE THE VOTE COUNTERS RIGGED????? Wouldnt be the first time… Tammany.

    •  

      ask George W. Who’s Tammany? Is that Tyranny’s twin sister?

      •  

        Tamany Hall politicians in old New York bought votes then saved by just buying the inaccurate counting of votes. Yup could be happening here ever since diebold made their software secret and not available to the government for inspection. Amazing anyone agreed to this and almost no one knows about it!.

    •  

      Yes, elections are rigged. And that isn’t new … anywhere.

      A few years back, while visiting the Bay area and meeting with the local medicinal & complete legalization activists, I posed to them that very question, “Why do y’all keep electing “her” (Feinstein, Boxer, Pelosi) when they support prohibitionist positions on cannabis?”

      From those who had a rational answer, it was usually along the lines of the elected official being “right” on another pet issue of that particular voter.

  19.  

    I have placed this comment on Face Book as a food for thought!!! Most of the lawmakers that are fervently against cannabis legalization are ferociously anti-EPA. Why, the EPA could easily prove the secondary fact of GMO plant life. Deadly herbicide/pesticide drift!!! They (the EPA) wanted to simply check the dust on gravel roads, here in Iowa, to see if they could discover high levels of Pesticide/Herbicide drift. The dust raised on a gravel road in the summer can be seen for miles and would put you in mind of a strong contrail that follows most jets. When Grassley discovered this was the agenda of the EPA, he had congressional friends from Ag states join him in killing their project. Basically the EPA was told to leave and not come back. Iowa began talks of making cannabis medical, and allowing experts to grow the Charlotte’s Web strain in the state (the only legal form to date, but it must be smuggled in like heroin by suffering families). Grassley had to quickly remind the governor that all of these medical strains require stringent testing, enough testing to show just how deadly polluted we are as over-spraying with chemicals like I have never seen before has no limit placed on them, in reality. On paper there are restrictions, but in practice I have seen them all but take a flamethrower to “invasive weeds” which were here long before we were. A strain of hemp that grew on our farm and had worked its way up from the railroad (it was seeded there and harvested since WWII through the Korean war, then Du Pont’s synthetics made it unneeded) was fought by everything from 2, 4, D to Roundup, and this strain laughed in the face of sprays. Sort of like Paraquat in the 1970s, the landrace Columbian snubbed it’s mighty nose at this “deadly to annual dicot’s” spray. Something different has been unleashed on Ag states using GMOs as I can find no sign of the mighty forests of a breed so hardy that no flood nor prairie fire could erase this breed I kept unsprayed and traded seed to Cali growers for many of its unique characteristics. There is a reason no one wants Iowa plant life tested, and those working with Monsanto have a lot to do with this. I wonder what they would find in Iowa hemp, if I can find any that exists? If I find some I will send in for testing. Wanna’ bet what I’ll find besides the DEA at my door???

  20.  

    Just another fossil that will disgust and amaze future generations. The clock draws down….the dark shadows enfold…the ignorant and malicious pass….then a new day dawns….yay.

  21.  

    A “green tsunami” needs to bury these dinosaurs the next time they seek reelection.

    In addition to accumulating signatures for the next initiative, CA activists need to further infiltrate the two big parties and promote candidates who support an end to prohibition.

    Dismantling the prohibitionist culture from within, as well as externally, will expedite our success !

 Leave a Reply