A "Firing Offense" for Obama

[_cinepro]

Even though I live in Southern California and see the marijuana shops all over, I wasn't familiar with the whole situation. But Scott Adams (the Dilbert guy) makes this observation regarding the federal response to California's situation:

Let's say a CEO does a great job for stockholders; he increases profits five-fold, treats the employees well, and causes the stock price to skyrocket. He's a superstar. One day the public learns that the CEO killed a guy to get ahead in his career, but the CEO doesn't get convicted because his clever attorney gets him off on a technicality. Assume in this hypothetical situation that the public correctly believes the CEO killed a guy to advance his career. Should the board of directors allow the superstar CEO to keep his job? Or is killing a guy to advance your career always a firing offense?

Okay, keep your answer in mind.

The next question is for supporters of President Obama. Let's say your political views map closely to the President's positions. He's your guy. But suppose you found out he once killed an American citizen in the United States to help his reelection. And assume, as with the CEO example, that the facts of the killing are undisputed and the President found a legal means to avoid prosecution. In that hypothetical case, would you still vote for President Obama? Or would you say it is a firing offense for a President to kill a citizen to advance his career?

I predict that every one of you favored firing the hypothetical CEO for killing a guy to get ahead. My second prediction is that every Republican reader of this blog favored firing President Obama in the hypothetical and imaginary case of him murdering a citizen to get elected. My third prediction is that supporters of President Obama will quibble with the hypothetical example, or my comparison to the CEO, or say President Obama is still a better option than Romney. In other words, for most supporters of President Obama, I don't think there is such a thing as a "firing offense."

For the record, President Obama did not technically kill anyone to get elected. That was just a hypothetical example. But he is putting an American citizen in jail for 10 years to life for operating medical marijuana dispensaries in California where it is legal under state law. And I assume the President - who has a well-documented history of extensive marijuana use in his youth - is clamping down on California dispensaries for political reasons, i.e. to get reelected. What other reason could there be?

One could argue that the President is just doing his job and enforcing existing Federal laws. That's the opposite of what he said he would do before he was elected, but lying is obviously not a firing offense for politicians.

Personally, I'd prefer death to spending the final decades of my life in prison. So while President Obama didn't technically kill a citizen, he is certainly ruining this fellow's life, and his family's lives, and the lives of countless other minor drug offenders. And he is doing it to advance his career. If that's not a firing offense, what the hell is?

Romney is likely to continue the same drug policies as the Obama administration. But he's enough of a chameleon and a pragmatist that one can't be sure. And I'm fairly certain he'd want a second term. He might find it "economical" to use federal resources in other ways than attacking California voters. And he is vocal about promoting states' rights, so he's got political cover for ignoring dispensaries in states where medical marijuana is legal.

So while I don't agree with Romney's positions on most topics, I'm endorsing him for president starting today. I think we need to set a minimum standard for presidential behavior, and jailing American citizens for political gain simply has to be a firing offense no matter how awesome you might be in other ways.

http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/firing_offense/

It's an interesting blog, but I'm not sure I buy it because I haven't heard marijuana come up a single time in this entire campaign. It's just a non-issue. So I don't think Obama was facing any political fallout for his lack of action against California.

[_Bret Ripley]

Aside: this has no bearing on the election, but here in Washington State there is an initiative (I-502) on the November ballot that will legalize (for non-medicinal use) and tax the sale of marijuana. I've only seen one poll on I-502, and it shows that 57% of respondents support this initiative:

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollRep ... 31d5e&c=16

[_EAllusion]

Obama promised on the campaign trail in '08 to deprioritize federal prosecutions of medical marijuana in states where it is legal. In reality, he waged an unprecedented federal crackdown on medical marijuana dispensaries. It's one of his major failures to match his promise as a candidate with his reality as a president. He's probably doing it to avoid seeming "soft" on criminal justice issues, which is an area of particular vulnerability for him because it can act as a dog whistle for racism.

This isn't getting a lot of attention because partisans on the left won't bring up sustained, serious criticisms of Obama, and the Republican establishment favors his action. Libertarian conservatives, who are absolutely enraged by this, are relatively marginalized when it comes to having surrogates in the media, so they near silent in the public discourse.

The consequence is that even though marijuana legalization has a huge backing in the public and medical marijuana even more so, the president receives no challenge on this subject. When questions penetrate up to him, he flat deflects them with no challenge. The drug war is one of the most most far-reaching, significant issues facing the country and he just avoids serious questions on the subject, including those that involve his broken promises. He usually just laughs them off. And there's no media surrogates to care to challenge him for this. The plurality of the public on this subject have no voice.

e.g.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ak7HBA5f-Y8

[_EAllusion]

Whenever Obama does gimmick "take questions from the interwebs" stuff, invariably drug war questions rise to the top. Anti-drug war folks own the tubes. Here's a more recent example of Obama dodging that stuff:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/20 ... eddit-ama/

[_bcspace]

How many heat lamps do you own cinepro? Or are you given to long furtive walks in the forest?

There are much better reasons to support Romney, and none at all for supporting Obama, but we'll still take Adams.

[_Analytics]

It's an interesting blog, but I'm not sure I buy it because I haven't heard marijuana come up a single time in this entire campaign. It's just a non-issue. So I don't think Obama was facing any political fallout for his lack of action against California.

It isn't a winning issue. I bet if we could have a sincere, off-the-record conversation, both candidates would admit that the "war on drugs" is a disaster. Even if Romney wouldn't legalize marijuana on libertarian grounds, I would hope he would admit that it isn’t worth it to borrow from China in order to finance the prosecution and punishment of Americans for engaging in free-market activities of a substance that is more benign than alcohol and tobacco.

But the fact of the matter is that both candidates know that legalizing drugs isn’t a winning political position. It isn’t about taking positions that are based on true free-market libertarian principles—it’s about taking positions that will win.

[_krose]

Good lord. What an idiot.

This genius is going for the Lying Sack of Mitt based on his history of taking every position on every issue, so there's a chance he might relax drug enforcement? Really?

He doesn't appear to understand that the reason Romney has had so many positions is for votes. There aren't enough voters to pander to on this issue, so that's not going to happen. It is probably 100 times more likely that Obama will change his position in a second term, when he can't run again, and won't be worried about being painted by the right as soft on drugs.

I'm all for legalizing drugs, but we have to look at the big picture. Put down your bong and get a clue, Dilbert.

[_EAllusion]

The drug war isn't just incredibly expensive. It doesn't just put millions of people in jail in ways that disproportionately devastate poor and minority communities. It doesn't just drive a wave of black market crime.

It has more subtle effects. The gradual erosion of civil liberties and parallel militarization of domestic police is driven by drug war justifications. It's why there are SWAT raids, with dogs being shot as a matter of SOP, on blatantly non dangerous targets. It's why police forces use hostile seizures of property without criminally charging anyone as a source of revenue. The US has engaged in otherwise harmful foreign policy, such as propping up the pre 9/11 Taliban, on anti-drug grounds. There's a huge shadow market that goes unregulated and untaxed, which leads to revenue losses and more dangerous products. And so on.

The people who portray anti-prohibition folks as stoners who just want to toke-up are missing the importance of the issue to an offensive degree.

[_EAllusion]

Good lord. What an idiot.

This genius is going for the Lying Sack of Mitt based on his history of taking every position on every issue, so there's a chance he might relax drug enforcement? Really?

He doesn't appear to understand that the reason Romney has had so many positions is for votes. There aren't enough voters to pander to on this issue, so that's not going to happen. It is probably 100 times more likely that Obama will change his position in a second term, when he can't run again, and won't be worried about being painted by the right as soft on drugs.

I'm all for legalizing drugs, but we have to look at the big picture. Put down your bong and get a clue, Dilbert.

If you are willing to vote for a person who will flagrantly violate his promises and triangulate your views away in an effort to capture more centrist votes, you are sending a message that it is a great idea to do that and only inviting future examples of such behavior from your political party. Republicans get this far better than Democrats do. Conservative groups will actually make politicians pay for not towing the ideological line.

[_beastie]

by the way, Bill Maher regularly criticizes Obama on this issue. Quite vehemently, in fact.