BOYCOTT STARBUCKS

Tagged:  

Says it all. You can vote with your wallet and buy a cup of joe anywhere without the tired, old, boring antagonism.

No votes yet

I dunno about that. I'd love to talk to the baristas about makers and takers, and the horrible effects of welfare upon certain populations, and victimization economics, etc. Of course, since I'd run into quite a few Liberals that way, the mentioning of any economics topics would make their eyes glaze over. I guess even that would be worth it.

NP

The public could be better served by boycotting bars that serve too many drinks resulting in drunk drivers hurting and killing people.

I agree.

I also believe drunk drivers should automatically lose their license for one year, no exceptions.

MikeyA

I have lost good friends to accidents caused by drunk drivers.
I would add automatic jail time as well. Many people drive without a license. The offender could serve on weekends and keep his/her job. About one out of every three deaths in auto accidents is caused by drunk driving. It's an epidemic in America.

Drunk driving has three days mandatory in Ohio, and most other states, I believe.

30 days, first offense.
6 months, second offense (not served on weekends).
1 year, third offense.
Progress from there.
No exceptions. No "community service." They can go to rehab while incarcerated.

We lose too many innocent people because others insist upon driving while drunk. Ever notice that the drunk ones hardly ever seem to die in the crashes, either?
And, we have to increase the mandatory minimums for those who kill someone else while driving drunk. If I walk out my front door drunk, and randomly fire a gun, what punishment would I get if I killed someone? It should be the same for drunk drivers. The people they kill are just as dead as those who are shot to death!

Driving is a privilege not a right.

Those who cannot be trusted with that privilege should have it forfeited without exception until such time that they can be trusted with the privilege.

I additionally think that after one loses their license from a DUI they should have to pay $2500 to the state to apply for a new license.

I don't drink and drive. One is because I have kids and would hate to put the children of another in jeopardy. Two is because I would lose my job. The more we make the penalties truly punitive is the only way it will be deterred. With apps like Uber and Lyft on top of using a DD there is no reason for a DUI.

MikeyA

In those countries where significant penalties are enforced, with no exceptions, there is no serious problem with drunk drivers. Penalties don't always work to deter all crimes, but they definitely work in this area. It is just so well known in those countries that the punishments for drunk driving are severe and nonnegotiable, that everyone is aware of this, and few drunk people are allowed by their servers and/or their friends to drive drunk. Severe penalties save innocent lives!

Wait until they legalize pot, and add that to the mix!

First of all, there is a common misconception that Prohibition (of alcohol, back in the 1920s) was ineffective. That is not true. Prohibition worked. And there is evidence to support that statement.
In the years following the re-legalization of alcohol, fatal and other severe auto accidents increased dramatically. Police calls for domestic violence increased dramatically. Not long after, doctors and hospitals saw a spike in the number of patients suffering from diseases of the liver and kidneys. As a society, we felt that accepting these health and violence issues were better than the problems of enforcing the Prohibition laws. Because of these facts about alcohol abuse, I have no doubt that if marijuana is legalized for recreational use, more will die on the roads because of more people driving impaired because of marijuana use. And there will be other, negative health-related consequences.

Stating this, I believe that marijuana should be treated like any other prescription drug. There is a lot of evidence that the use of marijuana helps those who must take chemotherapy for cancer and other diseases. It also is useful for such diseases as glaucoma. So, doctors should be able to prescribe marijuana, just as they can prescribe any other useful drug to those who will benefit from its use.

"Prohibition worked."

No, it was a fundamental legal and cultural failure since regardless of statistical effect, it did two things:

1. It denied natural law. You have every right to imbibe alcohol, brew alcohol, and pass alcohol to fellows. You have that same right with respect to tobacco, marijuana, heroin, crack cocaine, sugar, caffeine, Dungeons & Dragons, Sudoku, arguing on the Internet with idiots like Dale Pertcheck, etc. etc. etc.

2. It cultivated a widespread contempt for the law. As a famous example, at the height of Prohibition, there were FOURTEEN THOUSAND speakeasies in New York City alone.

Since you're a militant Liberal, Dale, you will never understand what a "bad law" is. Government and the people should not be passing laws that men are inclined not to obey. You should also not illegalize common practices, personal behavior, and things done in private or among consenting company.

Dale, you may now bark provably stupid Liberal objections back at me, but you've already lost the argument, and what remains is the decoration on the coffin of your reputation.

LMFAO!!!!!!!

"There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.” ― George Orwell.

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

Prohibition saved lives. Period. Legalizing drugs means more drug abuse. It's just that simple.
I know that my evidence goes against what is accepted as common knowledge, but it is accurate.
Now, if you feel that massive legalization of all drugs is worth the cost in human life, and who cares about the statistics you disdain, so be it.

In fact, prohibition was ended, not by "conservatives," but by FDR's Administration and Congress. It was ended primarily to be an economic stimulus.
BTW -- I had a grandfather who benefited directly from this, since he opened a bar and pool hall after liquor was legalized in the 1930s.

My simple prediction is that, as marijuana is legalized for recreational use around the nation, more people will die. And if we legalize all drugs, there will be even more deaths, beatings, and diseases. I guess that's OK with you, Mr. Empty Glass. You think that there's turmoil on the streets now? Just legalize all of those drugs you listed!

I have to totally disagree with you that it saved lives. The ammount of DUIs that were recorded before prohibition were minimal and even today the number of DUI's have not surpassed the year after it was repealled even with todays strict limitations. Prohibition unnaturally inflated alcohol abuse.

I also don't agree with those who feel anything and everything needs to be legalized. I see little upside in the recreational use of heroine and cocaine.

I am for decriminalization of marijuana as I don't see distributing it or using it worthy of 5+ years in prison. I'm willing to discuss it's legalization but I do believe the line needs to be drawn somewhere.

Outright prohibition of something that is widely used by the people causes racketeering and loss of government resources in general.

MikeyA

THERE WERE HARDLY ANY CARS ON THE ROAD BEFORE PROHIBITION! That's why I referred to the years AFTER prohibition! Duh! (You are a little young, Mikey.)
It's simple math. Legalizing marijuana FOR RECREATIONAL USE nationwide will have the result of more people dying. America may well choose to do this. America may decide that these deaths are tolerable, "collateral damage."
It's a free country. We have the right to pass laws which give us the freedom to have more people die.
Now, if you and I have our way, Mikey, stronger laws against driving while impaired will slash the number of innocent deaths even with the legalization of marijuana. But the statistical evidence is clear.
Alcohol is a drug. Drug abuse is a scourge in this country. Our society re-legalized alcohol in the 1930s. Innocent people died. Whether we legalize other drugs for recreational use or not, we must, at least, make the ABUSE of drugs leading to impaired driving so punitive, that drunks, and those who enable them, will use alternatives instead of letting impaired people drive themselves.

Dale there were cars before 1925. The Ford Model T came out over 20 years before that. Also there were traffic laws prior to vehicles. Ulysses S. Grant is the only president ever cited for a traffic violation... he road his horse too fast down Pennsylvania Ave.

I am definitely in favor of decriminalizing marijuana. There is no logical reason why someone smoking, dealing, or possessing marijuana should get anything more than 5 years solely on that. Now full legalization, I'm not explicitly in favor of nor against. It's a debate I'm willing to have.

I believe both driving and imbibing substances are a privilege. Individuals must realize that. I'm against prohibition of alcohol. Likewise I believe the legal drinking age should be 18. We do a poor job of introducing young adults to substances. I have no issue with parents being allowed to give 16 year olds alcohol in their presence. As long as the parents understand they are responsible for the behavior of the 16 yr old. It promotes engaged parenting and introduces responsibility. But again, if an 16 or 18 yr old breaks the privilege the punishment should be swift and substantial.

MikeyA

here. According to my source, to which I will provide a link, the total number of cars in America soared from 6.7 million in 1919 (the year that the Volstead Act was passed, with the Republican majority overriding a veto by the Democratic POTUS, BTW) to 27 million by 1929, four years BEFORE Prohibition ended in 1933! And I think those cars in 1933 may have been capable of driving just a little faster than those in 1919, too. Here's the link: http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=2&psid=3396

I am also against the prohibition of alcohol. It's just impractical. And I realize that the majority of Americans will most likely accept the full legalization of marijuana. That's why I take a stand agreeing with your premise about driving being a privilege, not an absolute right. And I want to see tougher laws against driving while impaired, which includes old people like me (and others with treatable ailments) driving under the influence of properly obtained prescription drugs which clearly warn not to operate motor vehicles or heavy machinery while taking the drug(s). It's a safety issue. It's an issue of life and death. I want less people killed on the roads. I've lost too many people about whom I care to impaired drivers. Without stiffer laws, and with the full legalization of marijuana, (not to mention all of the drugs others here would have us legalize), more innocent people will die. Haven't you ever noticed how often a drunk initiates a fatal crash and walks away with little or no major injuries? And haven't you noticed how often such fatal crashes are initiated by a drunk driver who has had many citations for driving drunk in his/her past? This has GOT to stop!

disregard

MikeyA

It's not about lives. It's about a fundamental legal and cultural failure. Just like I established.

Freedom is dangerous. And we all know you Liberals are against freedom, because the dangers always outweigh everything good about freedom... at least in your sick little minds.

As for turmoil in the streets, that's what the right to keep and bear arms is for. Oh wait, you Liberals hate that too.

The sad truth of it all is that when cultures treat drug addiction as a medical problem and not a legal problem, then it's sensibly handled. I never claimed that substance abuse should be "not handled". That's the Liberal assumption about liberties, which lends to the eternal irony of Liberal ideology. Liberals aren't about liberty; they're about slavery to the state. Liberals should be called Slaverals, really.

I don't drink Starbucks. I already will literally go to any other coffee shop I can because Starbucks is watered down, that's why they don't pack espresso shots themselves and instead rely on a machine.

MikeyA

I went into Starbucks and noticed they had a drink called "Flat White." I then noted that there wasn't a "Flat Black" or "Flat Bi-racial" drink and I stormed out in disgust. Racists.

I think that I heard a comedian on TV say that his kids used to call Starbucks "Fourbucks," because every time he went through the drive-through window, the employee said, "Four bucks." But, since the price is going up, his kids now call Starbucks, "Fivebucks!"

Personally, neither my wife nor I ever developed a taste for coffee of any kind, so I seldom buy anything at Starbucks. On occasion, I have bought a hot chocolate there. I have also heard that Starbucks is one of the best chain restaurants to work for. They pay a wage well above the national minimum. They give benefits and other perks to all who work more than 20 hours per week. And, they will contribute to employees' 401(k) retirement plans.
Now, if you want to boycott Starbucks, you are perfectly within your rights. Just remember, you're boycotting one of the best employers around when you do so. My local son-in-law prefers Biggby's coffee. My San Francisco son-in-law LOVES Starbucks!

It’s true that Starbucks is one of the top employers among food and beverage chains and people have much more job security there than anywhere (for example, you can be sure that it won’t happen to you to be the top manager today and get out of the building with a box tomorrow, just because the chain is closing). And adding to 401(k) plan helps a lot, even though it’s not suitable to solve all the issues, it’s a good start for those, who still don’t know what to do with their retirement plans (and as we know, the employees of Starbucks are young and still have choices to make). Another point is the way the employment inside the chain is developing. One of the tops in the company, Michael Conway, pushes it into the right direction, teaching employees, investing into development by implementing educational programs and trying to build novel working environment tailored to the needs of modern society. So what’s to ban here?

I drink home brew exclusively. Then, I pass the savings on to ME, not to some rich people wanting to get richer.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.