Starbucks funding anti-marijuana lobbying.

[jd4083]

Are you done yet repeating yourself, and criticizing us?

Sure, why not. Are you done beating the war drum and continuing to proselytize a position that you have absolutely no factual basis for having while simultaneously removing anyone with an opposing viewpoint from a forum that is not yours? No offense intended to you at all Skip, but it may be time for you to take a break from the internet and step into the real world for a moment.

 

[Skip]

Now, you're spreading lies about me. Aren't your posts & Owls still here? I haven't removed those OPPOSING VIEW POINTS have I?

I will remove ppl who continue to insult the management of this website, however. And I've been very patient with you till now.

I've just posted 7 facts above, that support a continued boycott of starbucks until this matter is settled, yet you are even lying about that!

I'm giving you ONE MORE CHANCE. You are a new member and you've already shown yourself to be adverse to what this site is about. Why are you here?

 

[Hydrosun]

Sure, why not. Are you done beating the war drum and continuing to proselytize a position that you have absolutely no factual basis for having while simultaneously removing anyone with an opposing viewpoint from a forum that is not yours? No offense intended to you at all Skip, but it may be time for you to take a break from the internet and step into the real world for a moment.

A boycott of a large corporation is NOT a war drum. Your ridiculous view has not been removed. I wish I could erase the hate and lies I read but my brain retains the bad with the good. You sir need to step into the real world. How about showing us in this thread some of your production for the MJ community.


Peace,

 

[dongle69]

I hope that everyone who is boycotting Starbucks is boycotting the U.S. gov't as well, because they actually are anti-weed.
Don't use the postal service, don't use roads, don't pay taxes of any kind, etc, etc, etc....
Time to make your stand if you really mean it.

 

[Skip]

A boycott of a large corporation is NOT a war drum. Your ridiculous view has not been removed. I wish I could erase the hate and lies I read but my brain retains the bad with the good. You sir need to step into the real world. How about showing us in this thread some of your production for the MJ community.


Peace,

Sorry, but he's been a member here for 7 months yet hasn't posted a single pic yet. But he did start a thread entitled "Anybody here an "unofficial" caregiver?"

And he did respond sarcastically to a thread about "how to spot a LEO in your life"...

 

[fatigues]

Fact #1. We don't know it was just an urn of coffee. It could've been thousand of $$$.

Really. Unknowns are now the "facts" we should predicate a boycott on?

Let's consider: What is the most likely scenario?

#1 - A Starbuck's franchisee made a donation of a few urns of coffee in the ordinary course of its business to a police organization;

OR

#2 - A Starbuck's franchisee, selling an upscale product line during a recession, decides to donate THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS to a police organization for the specific purpose of changing the medical marijuana laws in Colorado?

As between the two, what is the most likely and probable of those two scenarios?

Even if scenario #2 is a possiblity, doesn't that have a LOT more to say about the politics of one American businessman -- and precious little at all to do with the politics of one of America's best known coffee retailers?

C'mon. Be honest Skip.

Fact #2. The Starbucks logo was at the top of the list of corporate sponsors. I know something about sponsorships, and top billing goes to those who pay the most, without fail.

If this was the Olympics, I might agree. But it's not. It's a website the got far more publicity out of this than it ever would have got had it continued to fly beneath the radar.

Doesn't the fact that Starbucks responded immediately with a cease and desist threat to block the use of its trademark without permission say a great deal about what Starbucks Corporation values? Instead of, say, the political beliefs of one lone Starbucks franchisee?

Fact #3. Starbucks did not deny that their franchisee may have made a donation more than just coffee, although they said that was what CORPORATE would normally donate.

And in so doing, without specific knowledge of facts that exploded onto their customer feedback lines in a few hours, Starbucks responded accurately and truthfully, admitting that while Scenario #2 was possible, in the ordinary course, Scenario #1 was vastly more probable and likely. This is a far more likely to be a case of a few urns of coffee and maybe some day old cookies donated to a bunch of local cops.

What we NOW KNOW FOR A FACT is that it isn't the master plan of some secret Anti-MMJ cabal based and controlled from Seatle, WA.

Fact #4. A new Cannabis Cafe has just opened on the same block as a very popular Starbucks. It HAS to have affected their business negatively.

No. There is nothing that "has" to happen here Skip. In fact, you're just out of your depth with this contention.

The REASON there are so many Starbucks locations within a block of one another in large cities? It's because, in the main, people visit Starbucks as a point of convenience, not as a point of destination. They go in because it is convenient, not because they travelled to go there for the specific purpose.

Whereas, a cannabis cafe is absolutely 100% a point of destination. People go there because they intended to go there, not incidentally. There is no "HAS TO" involved here at all Skip. Sorry - you're dead wrong on this point.

Fact #5. Starbucks does do Drug Testing, and likely it covers cannabis. I find that offensive in general and an invasion of privacy. If someone can't do their job, then fire them, no need for a drug test as an excuse.

There are a vast number of American coprorations who test their employees for drugs. I consider it to be an odious practice. But it is, regrettably, a practice that dominates the Fortune 500 in America.

If that's the standard for conducting a boycott, my guess is that each of the consumer products that are on your desk, in your fridge and filling your cupboards -- right now -- are likely to be manufactured by companies which have such policies. Singling out Starbucks for this reason is utterly unreasonable. That is especailly so where Gypsy Nirvana now specifically accepts credit cards from Visa and Mastercard. Both Visa and Mastercard are commercial umbrella organization that aggressively drug test their employees.

So ICM will donate transaction fees -- REAL MONEY -- to companies that are at the forefront of drug-testing, but will instead offer up the drug-testing policy of Starbucks as a reason to boycott them?

Sounds logical. *nods*

Fact #6. We don't know for sure that we have changed any behavior on the part of Starbucks or its franchisees. That is the goal of the boycott. For all we know the franchisee might even donate more to this organization as a response to our protests.

If your goal of a boycott is to change the unknown political views of a lone franchisee in the Starbucks system, then your goals are nutty. It certainly wasn't presented in that manner by WhyProhibition.CA when it sent out its alert on this issue initally.

Looks to me that having succeeded in the main in terms of the initial goals, now you want to change the goals and raison d'etre for the boycott, midstream.

Fact #7. If this group, with support from local Starbucks succeeds in shutting down Colorado's medical marijuana dispensaries (and the new cannabis cafe too), I think it will add to the "plight" of medical marijuana users in that state.

If a cops organization with the help of a few urns of coffee can rollback an amendment to the state Constitution, then that's a cop who has missed his calling. I have a number of politically minded clients - and a number of causes - who could use such brilliant political tacticians and will pay them handsomely for their troubles.

"Counter-revolutionaries" and reactionaries, generally, are to be expected in any political struggle. That doesn't justify calling for an international boycott of a mass-marketed consumer product because of the steps that MAY have been taken by an unmonitored businessman on his own. Assuming - without deciding - that he did anything past offer up some coffee and cookies to some cops.

If that's as good as you got? In my view, that ain't good enough.

 

[Skip]

I hope that everyone who is boycotting Starbucks is boycotting the U.S. gov't as well, because they actually are anti-weed.
Don't use the postal service, don't use roads, don't pay taxes of any kind, etc, etc, etc....
Time to make your stand if you really mean it.

Give us time, one step at a time. Roads are federal + State + County. Don't know about you but my state and county allows mmj. So I suggest when you make suggestions you think about it a little more instead of making snide comments about a successful movement.

 

[TheBudFather]

I bet the owners of these companies are all linked somehow.... I hope they all die from alcohol abuse... stupid tw*ts!

 

[Skip]

If that's the standard for conducting a boycott, my guess is that each of the consumer products that are on your desk, in your fridge and filling your cupboards -- right now -- are likely to be manufactured by companies which have such policies. Singling out Starbucks for this reason is utterly unreasonable. That is especailly so where Gypsy Nirvana now specifically accepts credit cards from Visa and Mastercard. Both Visa and Mastercard are commercial umbrella organization that aggressively drug test their employees.

So ICM will donate transaction fees -- REAL MONEY -- to companies that are at the forefront of drug-testing, but will instead offer up the drug-testing policy of Starbucks as a reason to boycott them?

May I ask you why you seem to be targeting ICMag, Gyspy and me?

ICMag is allowing me to speak my mind. You got something against that?

I am allowed to speak my mind, as are you. But getting personal and attacking this site is completely unnecessary and OFF-TOPIC.

I suggest EVERYONE read what is posted at the bottom of every page on this site.

"All postings are the responsibility of their authors."

And this site does not accept credit cards, and this is the website we are on, so why are you bringing up Gypsy, and ICMag, when neither has anything to do with the words I am posting? What transaction fees does ICMag process? More lies, I guess... I've never seen so many lies directed at me, and this website before. This thread must be pushing some buttons good!

You are not the first, you are following a pattern of criticizing not just the argument, but the poster, the website, and the owner. Not good.

your goals are nutty

So what Fatigues, is this some kinda tag-team match? Did Owl just push you into the ring or what? Not a word from you until now... Interesting.

 

[dongle69]

Give us time, one step at a time. Roads are federal + State + County. Don't know about you but my state and county allows mmj. So I suggest when you make suggestions you think about it a little more instead of making snide comments about a successful movement.

You support medical but not recreational use?
If you want to make a difference, start at the top with the feds.
Surely you are boycotting them, right?
They have done more harm to the marijuana movement (medical and recreational) than anyone.
Boycotts aren't supposed to be convenient.
Nothing snide about my comments.
Snide means derogatory in a malicious, superior way.
It seams the snide comments have been made towards Starbucks by others, not me.

 

[fatigues]

May I ask you why you seem to be targeting ICMag, Gyspy and me?

ICMag is allowing me to speak my mind. You got something against that?

No, I don't. But when you say "we" when posting in this thread, it seems to me the use of that pronoun suggests something more than a personal view. I admit that the use of the pronoun "we" does not mean ICM; there are plenty of other "we's" in the world that may have meant.

All of that said, the inconsistency re: drug testing policies as a bona fide reason for boycotting remains though. So yes, it does seem to me that the revenue generating elements that lie behind this website are valid objects of commentary in the context of reasons in support of an international boycott.

I am allowed to speak my mind, as are you. But getting personal and attacking this site is completely unnecessary and OFF-TOPIC.

I was not getting personal and I didn't attack you, specifically. If you mean to say "this is my view, not Gypsy's" then I hear you loud and clear.

You are not the first, you are following a pattern of criticizing not just the argument, but the poster, the website, and the owner. Not good.

No, I did not. I criticized the argument, only.

If your goal of a boycott is to change the unknown political views of a lone franchisee in the Starbucks system, then your goals are nutty.

I think that's a statement that is specifically directed towards the political goals under discussion, and not you.

The object of that satement, i.e., "your goals" is described in the pejorative. If I had wanted to say "you are nutty" I would have left out describing the specific goal in the preceding part of the sentence and I would have left it out by referencing it, again, later in the final clause of the sentence.

I was not making a personal attack; although it appears that perhaps I was making an effective one.

I will now leave the matter alone; I've said my piece and there seems little reason to repeat myself.

The initial call for the boycott was a good one Skip. It succeeded. Take solace and some pride in that. To go beyond that point at this stage? It's just not necessary, imo.

 

[Skip]

You support medical but not recreational use?
If you want to make a difference, start at the top with the feds.
Surely you are boycotting them, right?
They have done more harm to the marijuana movement (medical and recreational) than anyone.
Boycotts aren't supposed to be convenient.
Nothing snide about my comments.
Snide means derogatory in a malicious, superior way.
It seams the snide comments have been made towards Starbucks by others, not me.

So you were serious? If you are, some people suggest that cannabis users withhold their Federal Taxes since the Federal Gov't is at war with cannabis users, arresting and jailing 870,000 of us every year. If that's not a war on Americans, I don't know what is. So they say if you support the Federal Gov't by paying taxes you are supporting the War against Marijuana Users.

Guess you never heard about that boycott, eh?

 

[fatigues]

Did Owl just push you into the ring or what? Not a word from you until now... Interesting.

I have no idea what makes that guy tick and I want nothing to do with him or his agenda.

I hope it is possible to dissent on this subject on a rational basis without having one's integrity slighted -- or branded as someone who has an anti-ICM bias. I don't mean to question yours. If you felt that I have done so, then I sincerely apologize.

You certainly have not -- and will not -- see me posting anything negatively about ICM (or you) elsewhere, or here, frankly.

I expect that your comment here was made "quick and on the sudden" and your passions and ordinary humanity got the better of you here. No problem. Happens to all of us. That's what makes us human.

But kindly leave me out of the Owl cubbyhole please. That's not my agenda, at all.

 

[Miss Blunted]

Whoa...it got rowdy in here. I still hate Charbucks, so they can fuck off....They're guilty of something or another. Besides, we have local coffee chains around me that I would rather help keep open. Supporting local businesses should just be a habbit anyways.

 

[dongle69]

some people suggest that cannabis users withhold their Federal Taxes....if you support the Federal Gov't by paying taxes you are supporting the War against Marijuana Users.

That is exactly the kind of boycott I am talking about.
A boycott that actually means something against an entity that actually deserves it.
State and local taxes also go towards supporting the war on weed.
I hope you don't pay taxes.
Otherwise you could be viewed as a hypocrite.
I mean that in the most un-snide way.

 

[dongle69]

Supporting local businesses should just be a habbit anyways.

Better check their financial records first to see who/what they support!

 

[headband 707]

You got to love the way the lawyers break it down for ya lol I feel like I'm back in school getting shit from my English teacher lol lol..Aww the war of words proceed ..

 

[Skip]

No, I don't. But when you say "we" when posting in this thread, it seems to me the use of that pronoun suggests something more than a personal view. I admit that the use of the pronoun "we" does not mean ICM; there are plenty of other "we's" in the world that may have meant.

All of that said, the inconsistency re: drug testing policies as a bona fide reason for boycotting remains though. So yes, it does seem to me that the revenue generating elements that lie behind this website are valid objects of commentary in the context of reasons in support of an international boycott.

I was not getting personal and I didn't attack you, specifically. If you mean to say "this is my view, not Gypsy's" then I hear you loud and clear.

No, I did not. I criticized the argument, only.

I think that's a statement that is specifically directed towards the political goals under discussion, and not you.

The object of that satement, i.e., "your goals" is described in the pejorative. If I had wanted to say "you are nutty" I would have left out describing the specific goal in the preceding part of the sentence and I would have left it out by referencing it, again, later in the final clause of the sentence.

I was not making a personal attack; although it appears that perhaps I was making an effective one.

I will now leave the matter alone; I've said my piece and there seems little reason to repeat myself.

The initial call for the boycott was a good one Skip. It succeeded. Take solace and some pride in that. To go beyond that point at this stage? It's just not necessary, imo.

Fatigues, I respect your opinions despite not always agreeing with them.

I don't take "pride" in this boycott, as I didn't initiate it, and as far as I know, this kind of thread exists on most cannabis forum sites today, so it's success or failure isn't mine to claim. I declared it a success, but realized the TRUTH of the matter has yet to be revealed.

We don't know the type of contribution that was made.

We don't know who made it.

Until we do, and are assured it won't happen again, what have we really achieved? Yes, we helped unite and focus a protest on this site and others. We did get a response out of Starbucks corporate.

But has the situation changed for Colorado, who still has this group set to close down the dispensaries? No, not as far as I can see.

You ppl act like this is the only site on the web involved in this protest. I'm sure you're wrong on that. So you act like I'm personally responsible for continuing a boycott. I doubt that.

The world out there is much bigger than ICMAG and you all give us too much credit for what is going on with this boycott...

 

[Skip]

That is exactly the kind of boycott I am talking about.
A boycott that actually means something against an entity that actually deserves it.
State and local taxes also go towards supporting the war on weed.
I hope you don't pay taxes.
Otherwise you could be viewed as a hypocrite.
I mean that in the most un-snide way.

State and local taxes are built-in to the things we buy everyday (sales taxes).

I live in CA, and they allow mmj. This particular protest is against those opposing mmj. So why would I boycott state and local taxes when they are also being paid by all the dispensaries in my County? Doesn't make sense. Again it's the FEDS keeping MJ illegal on a national level, but that also gives local politicos a reason to ban dispensaries & mmj.

Ppl who live in other states & muncipalities might consider not paying those taxes, but that depends upon their situation locally.

 

[dongle69]

Again it's the FEDS keeping MJ illegal on a national level, but that also gives local politicos a reason to ban dispensaries & mmj.

So you don't pay federal taxes, right?