Kellogg boycott?

On Feb 10, 8:30 pm, wrote:

you prefer, smoking pot is, in and of itself, a "victimless crime")

We'll have to disagree there.

Kellogg as a commercial enterprise, entered into a
contract with another commercial enterprise, Phelps is a spokesperson, and then,
those in charge of that aspect of Kellogg's business made a choice based upon,
whether solely or partially, hypocrisy.

AFAICT, you think it is hypocritical because executives are "martini-
lunching" (as in your first post). Whether or not that is true (you
immediately wanted me to fax over evidence that he broke the contract,
I suppose I could ask the same for the martini lunches), it is not
hypocrisy. Every job has different requirements, and the requirements
of "spokesman" are high because the reward is high for very little
work. Essentially the work (besides a few ads) is "your public life
needs to look like what we want a spokesman's life to look like". Them
enforcing that requirement is no different than south carolina
enforcing their laws. And no hypocrisy there.

Hypocrisy is a word thrown around too much, usually when somebody just
means "I don't like what they did". We're all free to not like various
things that we or others do, but that doesn't immediately make it
hypocrisy.

I will also presume that what you attempted to show is that the drug trade is
not, in practice, a "victimless crime." I agree.

Yep. This was a side point, mostly made for all the young people I'm
sure are reading out there. Regular roffians seem fairly united in
thinking marijuana should be legalized and that Phelp's toking ought
to be accepted as no big deal; that's their right, but it certainly is
not indicative of the general population, and I'm just offering
another voice to all the young readers out there. Some people I care
very deeply about have had very serious repercussions in their lives
from drug use, and they all started with marijuana. I don't think we
as a society should make that easier. Others are free to feel
differently, and to work to change the laws; I'm free to support the
laws. Our society cannot, nor should not, try to legislate all
behavior. But making some choices about what to legislate is not
hypocrisy. Nor is companies choosing to enforce their contract.

Just my $0.01999,

Jon.

On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 07:12:09 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Feb 10, 8:30 pm, wrote:

you prefer, smoking pot is, in and of itself, a "victimless crime")

We'll have to disagree there.

No problem. Feel free to be as wrong as you wish. I'd guess that you are
confusing the distribution of pot (the "drug trade") with the smoking of the
plant itself, but...

Kellogg as a commercial enterprise, entered into a
contract with another commercial enterprise, Phelps is a spokesperson, and then,
those in charge of that aspect of Kellogg's business made a choice based upon,
whether solely or partially, hypocrisy.

AFAICT, you think it is hypocritical because executives are "martini-
lunching" (as in your first post). Whether or not that is true (you
immediately wanted me to fax over evidence that he broke the contract,
I suppose I could ask the same for the martini lunches), it is not
hypocrisy.

Um, well, for starters, David Mackay is also on the Board of Directors of
Fortune Brands. I'd offer that it isn't a leap to say that he is in favor of
alcohol consumption.

Every job has different requirements, and the requirements
of "spokesman" are high because the reward is high for very little
work.

"Very little work," huh? Then you'll have no problems besting Phelps in
swimming tomorrow morning, Tiger Woods at golf in the afternoon - hey, you've
got the rest of the day to do "very little work" in preparation...

Essentially the work (besides a few ads) is "your public life
needs to look like what we want a spokesman's life to look like".

Are you suggesting that they really don't care if Phelps smokes stolen pot,
shoots up smack, and kicks puppies, just as long as no one takes his picture
doing it?

Them
enforcing that requirement is no different than south carolina
enforcing their laws.

Yes, it is. Certainly in theory, and it should be, and apparently is, in
practice as well.

And no hypocrisy there.

Hypocrisy is a word thrown around too much, usually when somebody just
means "I don't like what they did". We're all free to not like various
things that we or others do, but that doesn't immediately make it
hypocrisy.

I will also presume that what you attempted to show is that the drug trade is
not, in practice, a "victimless crime." I agree.

Yep. This was a side point, mostly made for all the young people I'm
sure are reading out there. Regular roffians seem fairly united in
thinking marijuana should be legalized and that Phelp's toking ought
to be accepted as no big deal; that's their right,

And it is the right of Kellogg to no longer contract with Phelps. And its my
right to think them a bunch of hypocritical pussies because of their admitted
reason for making their choice.

but it certainly is
not indicative of the general population, and I'm just offering
another voice to all the young readers out there. Some people I care
very deeply about have had very serious repercussions in their lives
from drug use, and they all started with marijuana. I don't think we
as a society should make that easier. Others are free to feel
differently, and to work to change the laws; I'm free to support the
laws. Our society cannot, nor should not, try to legislate all
behavior. But making some choices about what to legislate is not
hypocrisy. Nor is companies choosing to enforce their contract.

All non sequitur. It seems you are confusing the various players roles in this.
Kellogg has nothing to do with the "criminal" aspect of this, the CJS has
nothing to do with whom Kellogg contracts, Kellogg is not Phelps' guardian,
etc., etc.,

But IAC and AFAIK, there is no indication that Phelps has any sort of "drug
problem," be it addiction, is committing crimes to pay for drugs, etc. Thus
far, it seems he is a 23 or 24 year-old guy who, at worst, takes a toke and/or
has a beer/drink now and then. Given his physical condition and conditioning
regimen, I'd offer that he cannot "abuse" pot or alcohol. Moreover, while I'd
agree that oft-times, those who begin their drug use with pot often move to
"stronger" drugs, crime to support their habit, etc., it is not the pot that
causes that move. I know people who only smoke pot - they don't drink, smoke
tobacco, do any other drug(s) - and are productive members of society. And yes,
I have known people who have started with pot and wound up dead because of
"harder" drugs, but again, it wasn't that "pot made them do it."

HTH,
R

Just my $0.01999,

Jon.