Kucinich on Pot

Kucinich knows he wont win, hes trying to court the far left for a lower level position in some progressive part of the country. Once in office he will probably be as bad as a Jerry Brown or Gavin Newsom.

Stop hoping that a new Democrat will come along that is different. Support for ANY Democrat is support for the Party and the Party has now shown in the San Francisco election that it is willing to screw over Progressives at all costs. Once Kucinich gets a position in the House, Senate or as a mayor of some large city, he will moderate his views. When someone like Jesse Jackson found party loyalty more important than the wellfare of poor San Franciscans you know the Democratic Party is over.

Stop supporting the Democrats.
A Left Leaning Democrat is Still A Democrat.

"Once Kucinich gets a position in the House, Senate or as a mayor of some large city, he will moderate his views."

He was mayor of Cleveland at age 31 where he was elected on a promise NOT TO SELL the city run electric company. He ran as a Democrat, He defeated an incumbent Republican in a largely Republican district, He won, He keep his word. The banks and corporations fried him for blocking their planned privitazation of Clevelands Electricity. The electric company involved was the parent company of First Electric (who was found at fault in the recent NE blackout). The city was forced into default on a loan from a bank that was "invested" in the Private Electric Company. For several years everyone blamed Dennis for the default, even though he'd kept his election promise. Eventually it came out that his detemination to keep his word and stop the privatization had SAVED THE PEOPLE OF CLEVELAND several million dollars on their electric bills.

That's when they drafted him to run for Congress.
Kucinich is a 4 term Congressman from Ohio.

He took the seat from an incumbent Republican.

He is Chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

He has consistantly fought for the rights of The People.

He marched in the Seattle WTO protests, NYC F15 War Protest, etc etc etc etc....

You've got a lot of learning to do.

http://Kucinich.US

http://KucinichWatch.com
audio-video archive

and the other link down there goes to a page that chronicles the laundry list of deeds and actions he has taken in Congress on our behave.

What was his stand on the SF election? Did he back the Democraric Party line and support Gavin W Newsom, did he support Matt or did he duck the whole thing and take the safe way out by not taking a stand.

If hes such a great candidate why wasnt he out here counteracting his leadership (Gore, Clinton and Jackson).

Kucinich knows he wont win the nomination. What exactly is the point in spending any energy supporting him. He makes some good statements about ending the war in Iraq during debates but if he causes people to tune in they will mainly just hear Dean and Co. telling Americans that we need to send more troops to kill and die for the US oil supply.

So you support Kucinich during the primary. You know he will lose but then you got Dean (or someone to the right of Dean) as the nominee next year. Kucinich will back Dean almost surely so all the energy that went into Kucinich will then go into electing a proWar candidate who supports the death penalty.

If you can guarantee that Kucinich will take a principled stand and oppose any Democratic nominee that supports keeping troops in Iraq I could see some point in liking Kucinich. But do you really think he will do that?

The problem with Democrats is they tend to line up behind other Democrats. Kucinich will back Dean for the same reason he would have backed Gavin Newsom if he was asked. Democrats are spineless. Is Kucinich more principled than Jesse Jackson?

To make real change in the world you have to think globally and act locally. When the Democratic Party is so intent on screwing us over locally (with people like Gavin Newsom and Jerry Brown) and so willing to use the national party structure to prevent positive local change, why should we trust another Democrat? Didn't Jerry Brown play the Kucinich role several elections ago and run as the far left candidate who couldnt win? I have to now live in a city ruled by this asshole and I'm not going to be fooled again!!!

A vote for Kucinich is a vote for Newsom in 2007. If Kucinich were to leave the party than maybe we could trust him. The problem isnt just the candidates, its the Party Machine and in the Bay Area we should be doing everything we can to weaken it so it cant do to us again what it did last Tuesday.

The Democratic party offers a diverse array of entries for the 2004 political season. If you want a pro-war pro-Israel hardliner who is to the right of Bush on many issues, you can order a Liberman. If you want a middle of the road frat boy who supported Bush but now questions the war in Iraq you can order a Gephardt. If you want to order the new hot item (thats really just a Gephardt with special sauce) you can order a Howard Dean. And if you like something a little different you can order a Dennis Kucinich (who now comes with a free online copy of the dating game thrown in as part of your happy meal http://liberalhearts.com/contest/firstlady.htm); the Kucinich claims to be low fat and healthy but is rally just a slight variation on the standard compressed meat product.

No matter what you buy your adding to the Democratic Party's bottom line, your increasing its power and your getting cheap preprocessed food packaged to look a lot better than it really is. If Kucinich didnt exist the Democrats would find an identical candidate to fill his place (they always do in every election). The Kucinich isn't intended to win, its intended to pull the wool over the public's eyes so it doesnt realize that its supporting a corporate entity that cares about money and power and little else. When the Left stops falling for the Kucinich (or Brown or Jackson) it may start to find real alternatives, but until then its falling for a marketing ploy designed to produce short term feelings of hope with the same predictable outcome.

Dean will be the nominee, get Kucinich's backing, some of the radical left will support Dean as the lesser of two evils, and Dean will lose to Bush and Bush will then be able to claim a more solid mandate. Issues related to ending the war in Iraq will come up in some of the Democrats first debates making some of the Left feel recognized but Dean will mainly argue about sending more troops swinging the debate to one which defines both Left and RIght in the US as prowar and splitting portions of the antiwar movement.

The ghoulish moles are running amock again. These moles are especially dangerous for they can actually write. Why is Evil Karl Rove Sauron afraid of Dennis Kucinich? Evil Karl Rove Sauron knows his days are limited. He will be destroyed together along with the Ring.

Its funny how we are given that choice. Criticize the people who put Newsom in power and we are supporting Bush.

The talk next year will be "critize Howard Dean and you are supporting Bush". Well Howard Dean IS BUSH. Howard Dean is for the death penalty. Hwoard Dean has siad over and over again that he wants to send more troops to Iraq. Howard Dean has come out against affirmative action. But I guess we have to support the war in Iraq since somehow Dean's call to send more troops is the lesser of two evils. Saying "if you oppose Dean you are supporting Bush" makes about as much sense as saying if you oppose Bush your are supporting Saddam. Just because two people are evil doesnt mean you have to support the actions of one of them.

The Democratic Party knows that progressives wont ever take a real stand. They can send Jesse Jackson, Bill Clinton and Al Gore to stump for Newsom one week and then ask the very people they just screwed for support the next.

What do you bet Kucinich's visit is actually timed to come a week after the Newsom election? L:ike an abusive spouse who gives you a black eye one day and then offers you flowers the next they figure that having an antiwar spokesperson for the Democrats come out here and whip up support will work. Lets hope it doesnt. The Democratic Party doesnt give a shit about you. It will abuse you again so why are you being fooled so easily and just days after it gave you a black eye?

I order you, Evil Karl Rove Sauron, to take back all your ugly moles and keep them all under your bed. Kucinich has the Ring in his possession. You're doomed. Sayonara! And get rid of your ugly pet, GWB, before you're burned to hell along w/ the Ring.

"... saying if you oppose Bush your are supporting Saddam. Just because two people are evil ..."

Are you seriously implying that Bush is as "evil" as Saddam?

Six of one, half a dozen of the other. But Bush is more dangerous because he's better armed.

damn, 'close enough', you're an ignorant fool.

no wonder this guy keeps tripping, has anyone told him the sixties are over?

You didnt answer the question "Frodo", are you part of the Democratic Party's "cleanup after Newsom" PR campaign? The timing of this visit pretty much speaks for itself.

(I like what Kucinich says on most issues but its just too much to stomach seeing Gonzalez supporters falling for something the Democratic Party was forced to do to contain the Newsom campaign's possible negative effect on the Party)

With the enactment of the Volstead Act in 1919, America embarked on a social experiment known as Prohibition. Prohibitionists rejected the idea that people could be trusted to drink in moderation, arguing that alcohol use inevitably led to moral corruption and undesirable behavior. Accepting these premises led Congress to conclude that a federal ban on the production and sale of alcohol would go a long way toward reducing crime, and addressing a variety of other social problems. Within a decade, however, Americans discovered that the criminally-enforced prohibition of alcohol produced harmful side effects. The rise of black markets empowered organized crime to an unprecedented degree. In some of America’s largest cities, local governments had been heavily corrupted by the influence of organized crime. The black market provided minors with easy access to bootlegged alcohol, which was frequently of poor quality and unsafe to drink. Faced with the disastrous consequences of Prohibition, Congress decided in 1933 to repeal the Volstead Act. Since that time, the government has implemented the much more successful policy of focusing law-enforcement efforts on irresponsible alcohol users who endanger the rights of others.

Unfortunately, current drug policy fails to take into account the lessons of Prohibition. The law regards all users as abusers, and the result has been the creation of an unnecessary class of lawbreakers. According to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report, more than 734,000 individuals were arrested on marijuana charges in 2000. This number far exceeds the total number of arrestees for all violent crimes combined, including murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Eighty-eight percent of those arrested were charged with possession only. Convicted marijuana offenders are denied federal financial student aid, welfare, and food stamps, and may be removed from public housing. In many cases, those convicted are automatically stripped of their driving privileges, even if the offense is not driving related. In several states, marijuana offenders may receive maximum sentences of life in prison. The cost to the taxpayer of enforcing marijuana prohibition is staggering—over $10 billion annually.

The harsh nature of punishments for marijuana offenses is even more disturbing if one considers the racial bias of the war on drugs. According to data collected by the National Household Survey, on an annual basis the overall difference between drug use by blacks and whites is quite narrow. However, a recent national study found that African-Americans are arrested for marijuana offenses at higher rates than whites in 90% of 700 U.S. counties investigated. In 64% of these counties, the African-American arrest rate for marijuana violations was more than twice the arrest rate for whites. Questions of racial bias affect the integrity of investigations, arrests, and prosecutorial discretion. If we truly aspire to the ideal of “Justice for All,” then these unjust racial disparities are unacceptable outcomes for the American justice system.

The rationale for continuing this draconian policy of marijuana prohibition is unclear. Statistical evidence shows that marijuana use follows a pattern very similar to that of alcohol. Most marijuana users do so responsibly, in a safe, recreational context. These people lead normal, productive lives—pursuing careers, raising families, and participating in civic life. In addition, marijuana has proven benefits in the treatment of numerous diseases, such as providing a valuable means of pain management for terminally ill patients. In either of these contexts, there is no rational justification for criminally enforced prohibitions. These unnecessary arrests and incarcerations serve only to crowd prisons, backlog the judicial system, and distract law enforcement officials from pursuing terrorists and other violent criminals.

New Mexico’s 2001 state-commissioned Drug Policy Advisory Group determined that marijuana decriminalization “will result in greater availability of resources to respond to more serious crimes without any increased risks to public safety.” This finding is backed by the successful implementation of such policies in twelve states. The state governments of Alaska, California, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, and Oregon approved these measures after the National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse recommended that Congress adopt a national policy of marijuana decriminalization. A recent CNN/Time magazine poll indicates overwhelming public support for this approach, with 72% of Americans favoring fines as a maximum penalty for minor marijuana offenses, and 80% approving of marijuana used for medical purposes.

A Kucinich administration would work to implement a drug policy that removes responsible recreational users and medical users of marijuana from the criminal justice system, in order to redirect resources toward the following goals:

Enforce penalties for those who provide marijuana to minors.

Enforce penalties for those who endanger the rights of others through irresponsible use, such as driving under the influence.

Develop drug treatment programs focused on rehabilitation, rather than incarceration.

Support the efforts of state governments in developing innovative approaches to drug policy.

Improve drug education by emphasizing science over scare tactics.

Implement a Department of Justice program that would review the records of, and consider for sentence reduction or release, inmates convicted for non-violent marijuana offenses.

Kucinich says the right thing on a lot of issues.
On pot he does agree with both Arnold and Newsom so one wonders if this really should be such a litmus test issue for anyone. But assuming hes progressive on everything progressives want to hear, there is still the big problem that he is promoting the Democratic Party.

The Democratic Party isnt stupid. After they allienate progresives by sending their bigshots out to SF to endorse Newsom they know they have to do something to rewin votes. Kucinich is the prefect tool for them. He says waht we want to hear but calls himself a Democrat. Progressives who fall for Kucinich will support him up to the nomination and when he loses some will go with him when the endorses Dean. Does it even matter where Kucinich stand on issues? We know he will lose so supporting him (especially a week after the Democrats screwed over SF) pretty much gives the green light to the Democratic Party to keep walking all over us. The message that is given by any support in SF for Kucinich is that the Democrats will have nothing to lose by using their entire machine (and the local state and national level) to demonize anyone threatening them from the Left.

So far everyone who has responded to me has responded with either "if you oppose the Democrats you support Bush" (which is basically what Newsom said to get extra votes too) or they have listed positive things about Kucinich. I would be interested to hear why people think its ok to support a Democrat a week after the Party screwed SF in such a big way (have you ever seen the national Pary pay that much attention to a mayoral race?)

Because he was running for President and saying all the right things before the Newsom Election. I'm sure he can't be everywhere he would like to be. I don't know what he thought of this election...

I do know that kucinich Represents me on 98% of the issues and I'm sure many more will feel tht way once they take a serious look at the guy. Like it or not, unless something spectacular happens, in 2005 our President will be Bush or a Democrat. I think everyone would make their voice heard a little louder by registering as a Democrat (just for the primary) so then you can pick from a field of 10 instead of a field of 2... and in the field of 10 , guess what? There IS someone to vote FOR for the first time in my adult life and he's shown up when we need him the most.

I'm no party liner, infact When Bush stole the white house and Al Gore LET HIM STEAL THE WHITE HOUSE... It pretty much cinched it for me about The Party "System" .. but since then it has become much more important for everyone's "personal interests" to to put the best person in white house next time.

I share your concerns about what happens IF Kucinich doesn't get the nomination. BUT, if he does get the nomination those concerns are no longer valid. In order for him to get the nomination he will probably have to win massive landslides in the primaries (if it's neck & neck... he'll/we'll get screwed by the evil DNC/DLC combo - I agree). I just can't sit by saying "there's never anyone to vote FOR" any more, because there is this time. It's still up to U.S. even though the media thinks otherwise.

"BUT, if he does get the nomination those concerns are no longer valid."

I might agree with you on that but the polls speak so strongly against that possibility....

If you really think he can win, great, but he doesnt seem to think so himeself. This whole thing with him using the campaign as a dating service thing is cute but pretty much speaks to his just doing this for the publicity. Jesse Jackson and Jerry Brown also ran for the publicity in a similar fashion in past elections.

Maybe the publicity isnt bad if it raises the issues, but it would be much better to spend money on an ad opposing the war than money on an ad supporting a candidate who will lose but opposes the war.

I know Kucinich didnt back Newsom. But he didnt come out here and work for Matt and the Chronicle is now trying to do Democratic Party spin control on Dean by distancing him from Newsom (since the Chronicle supported Newsom its obviously just spin control for the party)
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/12/12/state1114EST0040.DTL
A Kucinich rally in SF next week likewise sends a message to the Democratic Party that there will never be guilt by association with the party and therefore the Party itself can do whatever it wants. The support Newsom got wasnt just from individuals so if we are to send a message back to the Party that such behavior was unacceptable. We have to take a principled stand against all Democrats. If we were able to do that, I bet you they would listen. We never stand up for ourselves and its about time we did.

I'm a Democrat. I support Kucinich and Matt. I DO NOT support Newsom. I DO NOT donate money to the Democratic Party. If Dean wins the nomination, I WILL NOT VOTE for him. He's no better than GWB. End of discussion about Matt/Newsom and the Democratic Party.

URGENT:
Did you hear Democracy Now this morning? ABC's actions in the past few days and Dennis' response on last Tuesday's debate, are beginning to underscore the issues of the media's attempts to call the election
before even a single vote has been cast. All of the embedded ABC reporters from the Kucinich, CMB and Sharpton campaings were immediately pulled the
morning after the debate. (Concidence?)

Today at 3pm, we are voicing our opinions with our feet, in front of ABC offices at 900 Front Street in San Francisco (corner of Vallejo and Front, in close proximity to the Embarcadero and Pier 15). Parking is
available in various lots and garages at the same intersection as ABC. Mapquest:
http://tinyurl.com/yw7j

Rain or shine, please come and please telephone as many supporters as you can to get them to show up today. We have a videographer who will immediately send the footage to the National campaign where it will be placed on the website today. We'll assemble in the parking lot at Vallejo and Front at 3pm sharp.

Create signs if you have time. Otherwise, we'll try to bring a few from the office.

STUDENTS, if you are done with finals, or want to take a break, come join us!

Please call your media contacts too! Maybe ABC's "7 on your Side" should be called upon to go to bat for the consumers on this one.

For those of you not near The City, please consider organizing demonstrations at ABC affiliate offices in your own areas.

Incidentally, the ABC office in SF is across the street from NBC! Protest KRON4, KPIX and the rest News-Entertainment corporations !!!

If you consider yourself a progressive and believe in the Kucinich supporting Newsom craps, DON'T. The Democratic party has long trying to silent Kucinich through out the campaign.

Moles from the dark sides are bad news. Go to the Rockridge Institute site to learn more if you haven't heard of it:
http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/