Everyone loves Dilbert. I remember when first starting out in tech support, practically everyone would line their cube walls with their favorite Dilbert strips, myself included.

When I first saw the Politico article stating that Adams was supporting Romney because of Obama’s unnecessary and duplicitous increase in going after medicinal marijuana dispensaries, I was a bit baffled. Politico unfortunately misrepresented what he was saying to some degree. His blog post on this and the updates and rebuttals are a *must read* if you like rational and objective or at least attempts at being so. Plus, his jabs at Gawker, Daily Kos readers, Obama’s hypocrisy and Romney’s chameleon nature are very funny.

I particularly liked this edifying update:

Where’s your evidence that President Obama is enforcing drug laws in California for political reasons alone?

What other reason is there? And remember that your answer has to account for the fact that President Obama has never bothered to explain his unexpected change of policy. Nor has anyone in his administration explained it.

I think it is fair to say President Obama didn’t learn anything new about the dangers of medical marijuana in California that he didn’t know before he got elected. If he did receive new information, he could simply point it out to defend his change of policy.

Californians voted to legalize medical marijuana dispensaries after considering all factors from freedom to health and safety to economics. Our prior governor, Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger, signed a law decriminalizing possession of small quantities of marijuana with a classic summary: “No one cares if you smoke a joint.” (It’s funnier when you imagine it in Arnold’s accent.)

The medical marijuana dispensaries have now operated long enough that we can see their impact. So far, it seems that dispensaries raise tax revenues, reduce crime in their neighborhoods, and help a lot of patients find relief. Dispensaries also keep their customers away from shady dealers who might offer more harmful drugs. The dispensaries probably have no appreciable impact on supply. Illegal marijuana is easy to obtain just about anywhere.

The trend toward full legalization of medical marijuana is accelerating all over the country for the same reasons that swayed Californians. I see no reason the trend will reverse. Does it make sense to send someone to jail for a crime that will likely become a non-crime during the jail term? What kind of leader devotes resources to that?

Have you ever met someone who smoked a lot of marijuana, as President Obama did when living in Hawaii, while simultaneously holding the view that the people who sold it to him should go to jail? I don’t know the exact answer to my own question, but I’m guessing the number is near zero.

Now let me confuse the readers coming over from Daily Kos, Huffington Post, Gawker, Mediaite.com, and some of the other Low Information Voter sites. I’m going to display something called “objectivity.” It involves discussing the odds that I might be wrong. It does not mean I just changed my mind. It means I’m attempting to consider all sides. Here goes. . .

There is some chance – I think a very small one – that President Obama has a non-political reason for cracking down on California’s medical marijuana dispensaries, although I can’t even imagine what reason a liberal ex-stoner with a budget problem might offer. If he chooses to tell the public his reasons, I will happily reassess my opinion. But keep in mind that one of my neighbors down south is about to go to jail for ten years to life because of President Obama’s decision to devote limited Federal resources to prosecuting dispensaries. When a president doesn’t offer reasons for jailing Americans, you have to call that a firing offense. (Saying he is following the law isn’t a reason. Federal resources are limited and citizens expect their leaders to ignore low priorities.)

In summary, if President Obama is devoting limited federal resources to go after marijuana dispensaries for no reasons other than political gain, including, for example, attracting campaign funding, he should be fired. If he has a reason for jailing a small businessman, and he chooses not to share it, that too is a firing offense.

Why do you keep ignoring third-party candidates?

The best way to fire an incumbent president who is running for reelection is to vote for the only candidate with a realistic chance of beating him. If a voter switches from Obama to Romney it causes a two vote difference: one less vote to Obama and one more for Romney. Moving one vote from President Obama to a third party candidate is a one vote difference in the competition between President Obama and Romney.

And frankly it makes a stronger statement to endorse Romney since I disagree with most of his stated policies. It underlines the difference in importance between a true firing offense and policies you believe would be less desirable than the alternatives.

If my endorsement carried any weight whatsoever, I’d consider backing a third-party candidate. But no one will change opinions based on what I blog about. So I have the freedom to write whatever has the most entertainment value for me, with the hope you’ll enjoy the show too.

I don’t see why Adams thinks his endorsement doesn’t carry any weight whatsoever. I think it’s safe to say most of the upper echelons of the tech sector “grew up” with Dilbert and for that matter anyone in an office job involving a cubicle in the last 15 years. I really wish he would back a third party candidate because it’s something this country desperately needs until we get rid of political parties altogether or at least have them less polarized so people don’t get confused about the actual issues that affect their lives. I would of course prefer a Johnson/Gray endorsement since I am a libertarian and Johnson has by far the best chance of any third party candidate out there, if simply because he’s on the ballot in 48 states.

Kudos to Adams for getting (or at least trying to get) people to think outside of their political party’s propaganda and think for themselves. On local, state and federal levels, this year’s elections are going to be very pivotal and I daresay one of the most important times in US history.