Author: expatter

Cannabis, an answer to recession in China? [Copy link] 中文

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2009-3-8 19:37:44 |Display all floors
Originally posted by totothedog at 2009-3-8 18:44
After all, they're born mentally retarded and then have mad cow disease, so a little cannabis will do no harm.

Just look at the state-run BBC's Dick Hammond who used his skills as a failed DJ to ...


Man, that really sums up the Anglo mind!

I always wondered what was wrong with these people and now I know the answer.
the anglos are rsponsible for ...

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2009-3-8 20:45:16 |Display all floors

The World needs food to feed the starving

The World needs food to feed the starving and yet Western drug users want to have a bit of land to grow 'illegal drugs'.  It's as simple as that, there are more and more people starving every year, and more and more increases of populations in regions where there is more destruction bringing about more need for food.

The first thing the People say after the destruction of Gaza is "hunger and starvation" and send in the food.

Facts point out this is not the simple beginning of this use of "pot" but the use of this "illegal drug" has already gained such a financial stake in the World's economy in some countries that they have broken down into near war.

I will say on a lighter note it is Spring in the Western nations and all the attention the West gives to sex and drugs and rock'n roll the wealthy have a way of saying they would "like to have their own" and so the leak in the US market to buy grow and sell illegal drugs has it's own cycle which is only matched by it's increase in it's need for Law enforcement against the mix of "illegal drugs' and other criminal acts though they may be peaceful.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Medal Medal of honor Gold Medal July's Best Writer 2012 October's Best Writer 2012

Post time 2009-3-8 21:41:41 |Display all floors

#8 and #9

Is it possible that you could get someone to read the initial post to you and explain what it is about.

In essence it is about a plant that has been used by man for 12,500 years and 8,500 years in China.
It was the most important plant on the planet until it was banned in the 1950's by the yanks.

This plant can be grown without its drug content, but unfortunately you only have to mention its Latin name and that is the end of the conversation.

You two are particularly adept at pointing out the cynicism of American propaganda and politics and corporations.
Take the time to look at some of the links.

You might be surprised.

I wonder?

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Medal Medal of honor Gold Medal July's Best Writer 2012 October's Best Writer 2012

Post time 2009-3-8 21:54:34 |Display all floors

Broken_Heart

Thanks.

The cannabis plant is a very good source of food and oil and it grows in almost any place.

The banning of cannabis also created a situation where this is an illegal crop and we all know how popular and expensive things get when they are banned.

Look what happened in the prohibition of alcohol and the gang wars this created.  Look at Mexico.

Why is this plant legal in some countries and not others.  Why has the argument been shown to be false in places like Holland?

But anyway that was not the point.  This plant can be grown with little or no drug content.

This plant out performs many other plants in its yields.

Canada has just started to introduce this plant because of its benefits and other countries will follow suit.

This is not about drugs, but as you point out the maximum use of the worlds resources and their benefits for all mankind.

In addition, according to research cannabis is no more harmful than cigarettes and is not addictive in fact it has been found to clear assist with asthma and other aliments.

Theoretically, the world should ban the native South Americans from chewing cocoa leaves.

From these they derive the source of cocaine which is habit forming.  But then these were never a danger to corporate interests.

Cheers

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2009-3-8 23:18:28 |Display all floors

Reply #12 expatter's post

You are welcome expatter but just remember this if you are planning to become a super-star in your lifetime, you might be losing out on big money if you use "illegal drugs".


  MSNBC.com


When a celebrity endorsement goes bad
Bad-boy or bad-girl behavior can kill a deal — or score a big payday
By Bill Briggs
msnbc.com contributor
updated 10:19 a.m. ET, Tues., March. 3, 2009
When the stars fall, sometimes it’s not what they did that kills or saves their sponsorship deals, but who they are.

Sometimes it’s not what they did, but what they’re selling.

And sometimes, yes, it’s all about what they did.

Those are the murky, muddy, ever-morphing ethics of the celebrity endorsement game, where bad acts committed by bad actors cause stern-faced corporations to (a) issue a huffy condemnation of the indiscretion but stand by their man or woman; (b) decline public comment; (c) decline public comment but privately praise the edgier image; or (d) bounce their famous spokesperson faster than a cereal can snap, crack and pop.

Some examples:

As Kellogg’s opted out of a contract extension with Olympic swimmer Michael Phelps several weeks ago, the company simultaneously ripped Phelps’ bong-hit photo as being inconsistent with its image. The next day, Subway formally announced it would plow ahead with a new ad campaign featuring the 14-time gold medalist.

Three days later, in the wake of New York Yankees star Alex Rodriguez’s admission that he once used steroids, Nike issued a statement saying that steroids are bad but adding nothing more about its endorsement deal with the baseball star. In 2006, Nike dropped Olympic gold medalist Justin Gatlin from its sponsorship stable three weeks after the sprinter flunked a doping test.

When it comes to the slip-ups that cause some sponsors to bolt and others to stick, the behavior bar — and where it is set — seems about as crooked as A-Rod’s many years of steroid denials.

The inconsistencies, sponsorship experts say, lie in a brand’s self-identity, a company’s read of current consumer attitudes, the spokesperson’s bank of goodwill and, in some cases, what other celebrity sins are making news that week. All those combine to twist the ethical lines.

A bad-boy or bad-girl image
“Kellogg is a family brand. How does Mom, who does the family shopping, feel about Phelps?” said David Reeder, vice president of GreenLight, a brand and entertainment consulting firm.

Subway would make a slightly different calculation, based on its target market of young adults, Reeder said.  “Additionally, Subway may have so much invested in (Phelps) that they have little choice but to ride it out and hope the whole thing ends up in the rearview mirror.”

Nike, meanwhile, seems to be applying an artful if not calculating touch to the A-Rod mess. “There is much more mileage to be gotten out of Rodriguez after all this blows over, and Nike wants to be in a position to take advantage when the rehabilitation begins,” Reeder said.


Nike used the same blueprint to perfection six years ago when Kobe Bryant faced rape allegations in Colorado. The company shelved its active promotion of the NBA all-star until he was commercially viable again after the charges were dismissed.

Not that bad press is always a bad thing. Some brands purposely pick spokespeople with slightly tainted résumés to attract consumers who like a little rebellion. Entertainer Sean "Diddy" Combs, twice accused of assault and once indicted on weapons charges (later cleared), has endorsed products for Burger King and Ciroc Vodka.


“Companies do extensive research on image sales and some foster bad-boy or bad-girl campaigns. Those campaigns sell product,” said Mina Sirkin, a Los Angeles attorney who served as a frequent TV legal expert on the death of Anna Nicole Smith and the conservatorship of Britney Spears.

“The wholesome image is not selling as well these days,” Sirkin said. “The talent know this and know that bad acts sell products and, therefore, get better sponsorships, so there is an open invitation to bad acts.”

The bigger question, said Sirkin, is this: Which nasty deeds are real and which are manufactured by a celebrity’s publicity team and then “leaked” to the media?

Consider IndyCar driver Danica Patrick — feisty, even a fighter, on the track and not afraid to don skimpy swimwear to boost her racy persona. Patrick’s sponsors include GoDaddy.com and Motorola. But is she really all that edgy? Thousands of fans and consumers are buying it.

“There’s a sense of something waiting to happen, a bit crafty,” said Bonnie Russell, a Patrick fan and founder of an attorney-locator service in Del Mar, Calif. “I just totally see Danica profiting after being bad. I really do think Danica could get away with a lot.”

Some celebs earn second chances
The same holds true for law-breaching celebrities who have otherwise shined with virtue like Phelps, who also weathered a 2004 DUI case. The 14 gold medals he has earned for Team USA have bought him a pool-full of public tolerance, as well as second and third chances as a celebrity endorser, branding experts said.

“Goodwill is what drove the general public’s response to his mistake,” said Courtney Leddy, vice president of Ketchum Sports Network, which helps clients like Kodak and FedEx with sports sponsorships. “People didn’t agree with his choice, but they balanced that with their positive feelings.”

Of course, there are some limits to the lapses — and to what sponsors and companies will agree to swallow.

Some crimes or social blunders will bring a swift, permanent end to a celeb’s endorsement career. It is generally accepted in the industry that racist remarks, certain religious commentary and violent crime convictions, including domestic violence, will earn a sponsorship death penalty. Even public apologies don’t help. Which is why most branding experts don’t see singer Chris Brown emerging commercially from his alleged assault on girlfriend and fellow entertainer Rihanna. Wrigley’s gum dropped Brown after the incident.

Animal cruelty, like the case that brought down ex-NFL quarterback Michael Vick, may be another unforgivable offense among sponsors and shoppers. Some branding experts see no resurrection of Vick as a pitchman.


Again, though, the ethical line is blurry, even on this point.

“The memory tends to fade as the crisis fades,” said Melissa St. James, assistant professor of marketing at California State University Dominguez Hills. She wrote her doctoral dissertation on celebrity endorsements and has published several research papers on the impact negative publicity can have on celebrity spokespeople.

“What Michael Vick did was horrible,” St. James said, “but I think even that will fade with time.”


© 2009 msnbc.com.  Reprints
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29433200?GT1=43001



MSN Privacy . Legal
© 2009 MSNBC.com

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2009-3-9 01:19:54 |Display all floors

Reply #12 expatter's post

I was talking about eating grasshopper leave the grass to regenerate the Oxygen in our air.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2009-3-9 09:50:05 |Display all floors

Reply #15 totothedog's post

Macca Row Knee or MRK is who?

Use magic tools Report

You can't reply post until you log in Log in | register

BACK TO THE TOP
Contact us:Tel: (86)010-84883548, Email: blog@chinadaily.com.cn
Blog announcement:| We reserve the right, and you authorize us, to use content, including words, photos and videos, which you provide to our blog
platform, for non-profit purposes on China Daily media, comprising newspaper, website, iPad and other social media accounts.