California's senior senator, Dianne Feinstein, has had a change of heart, it seems. It was reported late yesterday that Feinstein announced in an interview that she no longer opposes legal marijuana. No doubt that the fact that she's up for re-election this year in a state that already legalized recreational adult use of marijuana and the fact that she's drawn a progressive primary challenger both have a lot to do with her sudden epiphany. Feinstein has been, to date, one of the most strident anti-weed voices around, though, so this is big news no matter what her reasons truly are.

However, Feinstein's War On Weed record cannot be erased, no matter what her current position may be. Eight years ago, California had a ballot initiative that would have legalized recreational marijuana. But Proposition 19 failed to pass. Partly, this was due to the fact that the "No On 19" side was better organized and aired better television commercials. Dianne Feinstein chaired the "No On 19" effort. Six years later, Proposition 64 did pass, and once again Dianne Feinstein was chair of the "No" group. She took a very hands-on approach, in other words, while plenty of other Democrats were content to sit on the sidelines and see what the voters wanted to do. Some Democrats actually showed leadership on the issue -- the "Yes on 64" effort was led by Gavin Newsom, who could be California's next governor. But Feinstein's attitudes towards marijuana had been set in stone way back in the 1960s and -- until yesterday -- have not changed one iota. She's not just been against marijuana legal reform in the abstract, she's taken a very hands-on and active part in demonizing the idea.

Two years ago, before Proposition 64 had even made it onto the ballot, Feinstein joined with Republican Chuck Grassley to put on a star chamber session on marijuana. It's hard to find any other term that's more appropriate, really. A spokesman for the Drug Policy Alliance said of the exercise, at the time: "These hearings are a one-sided sham with the deck stacked with witnesses who have a track record of vehemently opposing marijuana legalization." Here's a more in-depth report of what took place:

Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), co-chairs of the Caucus on International Narcotics Control, called the hearing to evaluate a Department of Justice 2013 decision to not enforce federal drug laws in states that have legalized recreational marijuana use. Feinstein and Grassley, two of the Senate's most strident anti-drug crusaders, cited a recent Government Accountability Office report that criticized DOJ for inadequately monitoring the effects of state marijuana policies.

The four witnesses who testified at the hearing showed little diversity in their viewpoints: GAO's director for Homeland Security and Justice Jennifer Grover, who coauthored a report criticizing DOJ; California prosecutor Benjamin B. Wagner, who led raids on pot farms in California; Nebraska Attorney General Doug Peterson, who sued Colorado over its marijuana law; and Denver-based pediatrician Kathryn Wells, who sits on the board of Smart Approaches to Marijuana, a group opposed to legalization.

No one at the hearing spoke in favor of reforming marijuana laws. Pro-legalization groups chided Grassley for not holding hearings on Senate legislation that would legalize marijuana for medical use and re-schedule the substance as a less dangerous drug.

So you'll have to forgive me now for being just a teensy bit skeptical of Feinstein's new support for marijuana legalization. Her track record on the subject is not just bad, it is downright awful. Maybe she could atone by holding a hearing now which featured only pro-legalization speakers? That might go a long way towards her rehabilitation, but I'm not exactly holding my breath waiting for it to happen.

Feinstein shifting her stance looks like nothing more than crass opportunism, which is a nice way of saying she is probably scared of what the voters think about her previous stance. She may actually have to run against her progressive challenger twice this year, once in the primary election and once in the general election (due to California's wacky "top-two primary" rules). So she's obviously trying to head off any effort to make her marijuana stance a major issue in the election. Meanwhile, California's voters will be voting on the same ballot for Gavin Newsom -- although not in the same race (because Newsom decided to run for governor, not senator).

Feinstein doesn't deserve to be let off easily on her newfound legalization support. In fact, no politician really should be able to get away with vague statements of support on the issue, from either side of the aisle. Back when Feinstein held that hearing, I devoted that week's Friday Talking Points to a series of marijuana questions I wanted answered by anyone running for president (Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, in particular). I went back and re-read this list of questions, and found that it's a perfect list of questions to put to Dianne Feinstein at some point during her 2018 campaign. Well, almost perfect, I should say. I had to make a few changes to the list. The first was to drop the first question I asked, because it directly addressed: "What would you do as president?" -- which obviously doesn't apply in Dianne Feinstein's case. Also, minor text changes were needed here and there as well, to remove phrases such as: "...would you, as president...." And I found that the last question needed minor updating as well, to add an issue that I hadn't even considered two years ago (wiping clean the records of anyone convicted of a marijuana crime which was no longer a crime). Still, the list continues to be a valid one to ask of any politician who says he or she supports marijuana legalization. Because the issue is far from being just a "yes/no" type of question.

So here are my six specific questions for Dianne Feinstein, now that she says she has seen the light on what the citizens of her state approved two years ago. I'd love to see these come up in a debate or an interview with Feinstein at some point in the next few months. The voters deserve to know exactly what Feinstein means when she says she now supports legalization, after all, before they make up their minds at the polls.

Reschedule?

Currently, marijuana is listed as a Schedule I controlled substance. This classification means the federal government believes that marijuana is more dangerous than cocaine, PCP, crystal meth, and opium. Richard Nixon's administration made this classification, and it has never changed since. Since the D.E.A. refuses to reschedule marijuana, would you sponsor legislation in the Senate to do so? Which schedule would you move it to? Schedule II? Schedule III? Or even lower?

Or deschedule?

There is already a federal bureau which has the responsibility of overseeing alcohol and tobacco. Wouldn't it make more sense to completely deschedule marijuana and hand off oversight of marijuana issues to the A.T.F.? Especially considering that the number of states where recreational marijuana is fully legal can only be expected to grow, over time?

Freedom to travel

When Prohibition ended, some states and counties refused to condone the sale of alcohol. There are still many of these "dry" counties left, in fact. But a key point is that while it may be illegal to buy alcohol in any given county, it cannot be illegal there to possess or even consume alcohol (in the privacy of one's own home). A person can legally drive through a "dry" county with a sixpack of beer in the car, and if they stopped at a hotel there they could legally drink that alcohol in their room. Would you support changing federal law so that no state can criminalize either simple possession or private use of marijuana, so that it would be treated the same way that alcohol is now treated under the law?

Free the doctors!

Currently, anyone applying to conduct marijuana research has to jump through all kinds of legal hoops that other medical researchers do not have to, which wastes an enormous amount of time and effort. Would you support removing all unreasonable barriers to medical marijuana research that still exist? Would you support changing the application process for doctors wanting to conduct research so that it is the same process as for any other drug undergoing study?

Free the accountants!

Marijuana businesses that are fully in compliance with their state's laws still cannot use banking services that any other business is able to. Bankers are afraid they'll be charged as accessories to drug trafficking, so they refuse to do business with marijuana companies. Would you support changing federal law so that it is clear that banks will not have to worry about criminal charges for conducting business with marijuana companies that follow state law? Also, would you support changing federal tax law so that marijuana businesses could deduct the common business expenses that every other business is allowed to write off on their taxes?

Free the prisoners!

President Obama pardoned or commuted long jail terms for people sentenced under the worst of the War On Drugs "lock them all up" laws. Would you support continuing these amnesty efforts, to give relief to prisoners who are serving sentences that they likely would not receive today? And would you encourage district attorneys and U.S. attorneys to wipe clean the legal records of anyone previously convicted of a marijuana offense in states that have legalized it, to reflect the fact that it is no longer illegal?

-- Chris Weigant

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant