Me>> Dear Senator Feinstein, I am highly disappointed to hear you have come out as a vocal opponent to Proposition 19. Proposition 19 is providing CA with the chance to bring a drug that is safer than alchohol out of the black market and remove a primary source of financing for the Mexican drug cartels. This proposition also brings the possibility of reducing the supply of marijuana to minors by bringing it into the fold of proper regulation like alcohol currently is regulated. Marijuana prohibition has been rife with misinformation and propaganda. It is time for leaders that can stand above propaganda and legislate based on facts and reason. I have been a generous financial supporter of democrats in the past, and I will unfortunately not be able to support your campaign as long as you hold this position on Prop 19. Sincerely, Reply >>>> Dear XXXX, Thank you for writing to express your support for Proposition 19, the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Initiative of 2010. I appreciate knowing your views on this matter, and I sincerely apologize for the delay in my response. Proposition 19 would have allowed adults 21 years and older to possess and cultivate marijuana for personal use. On November 2, 2010, Proposition 19 was defeated 54 to 46 percent by California voters. I believe drug abuse in the United States is a serious problem and passage of Proposition 19 would have made it worse. Proposition 19 was a poorly constructed initiative that would have had harmful, unintended consequences for California. I opposed this Proposition because it would have increased drug use among young people, wasted taxpayer dollars, created new regulatory burdens for local governments, and conflicted with federal law. A recent RAND Corporation study found that legalizing marijuana could increase marijuana consumption by up to 50 to 100 percent. Illegality is a top reason teenagers cite for abstaining from marijuana use, and therefore legalization would remove this deterrent. I am concerned that the passage of Proposition 19 would have sent a signal to teens and young adults that marijuana use is acceptable. This is especially problematic as marijuana is currently more powerful than ever. The chemical concentration of the drug's psychoactive ingredient, Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), has more than doubled since 1983. Proposition 19 would have created a confusing and expensive regulatory and enforcement framework by requiring California's 478 cities and 58 counties to establish their own procedures for regulating marijuana cultivation and sales. A State Board of Equalization study found that because there were too many unknowns of how Proposition 19 would have been implemented and regulated, it was impossible to estimate if its passage would have led to revenue gains for the state. In addition, Proposition 19 would have violated federal law. The U.S. Department of Justice strongly opposed Proposition 19. Attorney General Eric Holder indicated that, regardless of the result of this measure, the Department of Justice would continue to enforce the Controlled Substances Act in all states. I appreciate knowing of your support for this initiative, and I hope you will continue to keep in touch with me on issues of importance to you. While this is a subject about which we disagree, I am sure that we can find common ground on other issues. Again, thank you for writing. If you have any further questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact my Washington, D.C. office at (202) 224-3841. Sincerely yours, Dianne Feinstein United States Senator
I wrote her back in July about proposition 19. Took like 6 months for her to reply, but I wasn't really expecting reply anyways, so this pretty much exceeds those expectations. I am guessing she has a template she probably just sent out to everyone that was for Prop 19 and contacted her. The response is pretty easy to debunk. She didn't have anything new to say.
Maybe I might write an open letter or editorial. I am not going to try to change her mind. She is obviously willfully ignorant. I think they need to make a DSM entry for policitians for the mental state that allows people to be so cognitively dissonant.
That letter is wrong on so many letters but one point in particular stood out to me. When she brought up the issue of marijuana being illegal still on a federal level. Like she doesn't care what her constituents think at all, if the federal government says its bad, then that's the final authority. A big fuck you to the constituents.
Feinstein, other Democrats accept donations from architect of Arizona immigration law | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment She got at least some of her money from cca the same group that was financing politicians to make an immigrant prison in az. Really a shame
It is true that it was badly written. However, she does use one specious argument - even if they legalized weed, it would still be illegal for teens to possess and use it so there would be no real change. If prop 19 had been written more carefully it probably would have passed. The issue about adding too much regulatory and enforcement garbage to the current laws is another specious argument. If it is regulated at the state level, not the community level it works. It would be fairly easy to just boilerplate laws from alcohol and tobacco - age 18 or 19 or 21, purchased at specific vendors, burden of MMC/ID to prove age and MM qualification, tax rate of X%, no sales or possession by minors, perhaps a cap on amount able to possess/grow. As to the increase in strength of active chemicals, if they legalize it, then it can be run through a lab to determine standardization of potency and purity. If you know a dosage, you wont have problems. Though you really don't need to worry about potency, weed is sort of a self limiting drug. You do too much you tend to fall asleep. You should write back and point out all the medical benefits that studies have found, especially the cancer bit.
Yes, I did. I don't think you understand how politics work. Politicians have people in charge of writing these kinds of letters. In most cases, they have prepared statements already written where the majority of the letter simply states their stance on the issue you wrote them about. Senators are way to busy to spend time reading any letters they get sent to them. They have their "assistants" sort them and write up replies. So in short, your senator really doesn't give a shit.
I didn't say she wrote the template. Who sent it is kind of a moot point if she didn't even write the response.