Esther: It is time once again for the BusinessMakers Overtime Show heard here and online at thebusinessmakers.com. We are your lovely hosts Esther...

Katie: And Katie Laird.

Esther: And today's show we are going to focus on keeping you and your company safe. Our guest is Chris Portillo, the senior marketing communications specialist at Safety Vision, a business that provides video technology for mass transit in both the public and kind of in the private sector, slightly; mostly in the public sector. We'll hear from Chris in Segment Two, the BusinessMakers Breakdown.

Katie: Then in Segment Three, our special features, we'll tell you how you can closely monitor what's going on in your business to reduce risk and promote transparency. In Segment One, the Business Week in Review, you'll get a weekly dose of business news and this week we're getting a little bit provocative. Maybe a little controversial, but it's all business to us. So here we go.

Esther: I hope you can handle it.

Katie: Yeah; that's right.

Esther: So something happened with the American Medical Association. Ya' know they're the largest medical trade group in the world. They've got like 250,000 doctors that are members of this group.

Katie: Highly respected.

Esther: Highly, highly respected; many, many members and this group, they urged the federal government to reconsider their classification of marijuana.

Katie: That's right.

Esther: They don't want it to be a dangerous drug anymore. They'd like to change it to a different –

Katie: To a different status really.

Esther: Right.

Katie: What's interesting to note about that is that they're not saying yay, let's start selling it in Quickie Mart. Like marijuana's wonderful, but what this means and it's funny 'cause the American Medical Association most recently, but last year in 2008, the American College of Physicians requested the same thing. That they would be able to be given the opportunity to conduct clinical research to potentially develop cannabis based medicines to treat a variety – the list is enormous –

Esther: That's right.

Katie: -- of the --

Esther: Right.

Katie: -- potential treatments.

Esther: Well they're just saying it's not heroine. The way they classify drugs there's five schedules.

Katie: Yeah.

Esther: So right now marijuana is classified as this Schedule One, completely illegal, no use for it at all, highly addictive. It's in the same class as LSD and heroine.

Katie: It is.

Esther: So what they're saying is maybe move it to a different schedule so that it's not necessarily looked at as this terrible thing and they can start doing experiments 'cause there's very little research that's been done on the effectiveness of it because it is so highly illegal.

Katie: Exactly. They just aren't given the opportunity and it's interesting to note that on the state level 13 states allow the usage of medical marijuana, California probably being the most infamous of them. Now during the Bush administration the federal and state forces were clashing like absolute craziness. So even though there were these dispensaries and there were these growers that were licensed for medical marijuana users, they still had the feds coming in bustin' on their –

Esther: Exactly.

Katie: Takin' their crops and putting them in jail, even though they were in perfect compliance with local law.

Esther: Of course.

Katie: But talk about major C-change, Obama gets into office and now he made it an official degree that federal narcotics agents could not arrest medical marijuana users and providers who were within the limits of state law.

Esther: Right.

Katie: I mean this is big.

Esther: And what does it really mean for business? I mean let's look at it from a business perspective because right now because it's still illegal federally, states wouldn't be able to collect taxes on it. So until it's legal for these reasons federally, it's not like they can collect taxes, but what if it was? Do you know that the state of California estimated that if they could collect taxes on legal marijuana it would be a $1.3 billion industry?

Katie: Oh my gosh.

Esther: For them, they would take in –

Katie: In one state.

Esther: Mhmm.

Katie: That is ex –

Esther: $1.3 billion in revenue.

Katie: That's a lot of money.

Esther: Unbelievable.

Katie: And you remember when we were talking about Arnold Schwarzenegger –

Esther: That would –

Katie: -- selling cash for clunkers.

Esther: He was signing cars.

Katie: Yes.

Esther: And auctioning them on eBay. Probably wouldn't have to do any more of that.

Katie: He could sell dime bags and be fine. Now I mean looking at it from a business perspective though, like currently the way and you were discussing this, the way that our political structure is set up is that all of the dispensaries that are legal, so for instance, the few states that actually allow storefront dispensaries, they're all structured as these non-profit cooperatives rather than for-profit entities.

Esther: Right.

Katie: Now I would imagine that the government would try to keep it that way so that yes, they would have this absolute – I don't know if monopoly is the right word, but when –

Esther: I think Merck would like a piece of this pie –

Katie: -- it was a for-profit business – yes.

Esther: -- if they –

Katie: It would be a very lucrative business –

Esther: If this is a legally proven drug I think we'll have some giant corporations –

Katie: Oh, absolutely.

Esther: Eyeing the possibilities. Although I'll tell you an industry that really will be hurt – criminal defense attorneys.

Katie: But the fast food industry will really flourish.

Esther: Yeah.

Katie: Yeah; Frosties and french fries for everyone. Like this is majorly exciting.

Esther: We've never had that before. I don't know what you're talking about. I don't have a clue.

Katie: So, moving onto our next story.

Esther: So I don't think that any of these people that are engaged in our next piece are doing a lot of weed smoking because there's a lot of hostility in the marketplace right now.

Katie: There really is and specifically with really, really large companies that are looking at this crappy economical time and deciding hey, we're going to completely acquire these mergers and acquisitions. It's getting a little dirty.

Esther: It's extremely dirty. What has happened is Kraft is dying to buy Cadbury.

Katie: Dying.

Esther: I mean who doesn't. I mean the chocolate's amazing –

Katie: Honestly. Hello. Cadbury Eggs.

Esther: Who wouldn't want to own Cadbury. Ugh –

Katie: I would totally be aggressive –

Esther: Oh God, don't get me started –

Katie: -- in trying to acquire this company –

Esther: I hoard them. They're so good. But basically Kraft came in and said, 'We want to buy you.' Back in September. The board of directors said, 'No, no, no, get away from us. We don't want anything to do with you giant food corporation.'

Katie: Right.

Esther: And now Kraft has gone straight to the shareholders and said, 'We want to buy you. Screw you board of directors.'

Katie: Yeah.

Esther: 'We want to buy you. Hostile takeover. Here we come.' Doesn't hostile takeover remind you of Pretty Woman with the ships?

Katie: Yes.

Esther: And then they kick out Jason Alexander and they go in the room and they come out and they're one big happy family and they're like, 'We're gonna build great big ships together.' It's like that never happens.

Katie: No.

Esther: That is so not how it works.

Katie: It really doesn't. So what I'm envisioning here 'cause I'm a very visual person is the board of directors at Cadbury, like throwing these eggs at Kraft as they run away.

Esther: Definitely the Easter egg kind that have the frosting in the middle.

Katie: The gooey centers, yes, completely. Oh, that is just amazing.

Esther: We got this article from Business Week. One of the quotes from the article said, 'Companies have gotten used to buyers factoring future earnings into the offer price.' So basically I think Cadbury felt like they were being low-balled. Ya' know, 'We're worth way more than that.' When really they're not.

Katie: Yeah.

Esther: That's the thing. We don't know what's gonna happen to Cadbury and they think they're worth all this money and maybe at one point they were, but right now they're not.

Katie: Yeah.

Esther: So I think that they have some reevaluating to do and if they don't want to sell, then well it might be too bad. I don't know.

Katie: But I keep in mind, Kraft offered $16.7 billion.

Esther: Right.

Katie: I mean like holy cow.

Esther: Absolu – I tell ya' it's a lot of money, but –

Katie: That's a lot, but not –

Esther: If you don't want to sell, you don't want to sell –

Katie: -- enough. Exactly. Exactly. So yeah, I mean the price just wasn't met so.

Esther: That's right. They might buy them anyway.

Katie: Yeah; so watch out this Easter. Who knows what will end up in your Easter –

Esther: Yeah.

Katie: -- basket goody.

Esther: And another company that is just totally price crazy –

Katie: Uh. Verizon –

Esther: Luckily neither of us are Verizon members, but people are up in arms.

Katie: Yes.

Esther: With Verizon currently.

Katie: Verizon customer service I would say must be at an all time low right now. Customer satisfaction has got to be in the negative area.

Esther: It's almost like they're anti-customer.

Katie: I think they are and specifically we're talking about a piece that we saw in the New York Times that goes through a few scenarios where Verizon customers have actually written in to David Pogue just explaining these situations that are happening. For instance, Verizon has doubled the early termination fee for SmartPhones. So of course, Droid, very hot. Blackberry, still incredibly popular –

Esther: You can't even get it because your contract is ten years long.

Katie: Exactly. But now they're trying to hook you in so if you decide to switch and actually it's not even if you try to leave, but if you decide to switch phones you have to pay a $350.00 penalty.

Esther: That's insane.

Katie: That is absolutely insane.

Esther: That phone is made for ten cents.

Katie: Yeah; exactly. Well, and I mean what's so obnoxious is that now Verizon is looking at some of these fees as a major profit center. It's kind of repulsive. Another example that this article made in the Times was they're actually talking about a way that Verizon has created its phones and apparently it's been confirmed that like this is true –

Esther: An employee confirmed this –

Katie: Yes.

Esther: -- in the article.

Katie: There is a button that if you hit accidentally and it's around the okay button, which if you have a SmartPhone or really any cell phone, you hit okay at least 40 times a day, if you hit the button next to it, so those round buttons that you probably hit a million times, it tries to connect you to the web and then the Verizon, whenever you get your bill, they charge you a $1.99 for I mean basically internet download time, even if it's just an accident. Now here's the thing. It doesn't matter how long it takes you, if it's 2 seconds, .5 seconds to hit end, $1.99 for .02 kilobytes of data, but of course, being the wonderful customer service people they are, they do allow you to disable that feature. How nice. You don't have to worry about it. Wrong. If you accidentally hit that it gives you an error message saying, 'You don't have this service' and it still charges you anyway because I had to connect the web to get the error message –

Esther: To tell you the error message –

Katie: So just to tell you you don't have something 'cause your fingernail accidentally hit a button, you get charged $2.00. Hopefully if enough attention, like in the New York Times is throwing this out there, maybe this is going to signify a new era for Verizon –

Esther: No, probably not –

Katie: -- I don't even know, but I hope their PR folks are really listening and really pushing their bosses to make a change –

Esther: Seriously. Unbelievable.

Katie: Boo; hiss.

Esther: So our last story in our Business Week in Review is something kind of leads into our interview about how these little cameras that take pictures of you at red lights, which we've all seen at least if you live in Houston I know you've seen or if you live in L.A.

Katie: Yeah.

Esther: It takes a little picture of you as you're driving through the red light. Actually they increase the number of accidents. Not reduce.

Katie: They do and it's funny because this is the first time and of course, this story, we found off of CBS, this is the first time I've ever heard information like this. You always hear, everyone's towin' the safety line. They make major investments in this technology and of course they have to upgrade, they have to maintain and it's incredibly expensive for taxpayers, but these cameras aren't helping at all. There's a group in Los Angeles that decided enough was enough. They didn't believe the facts and figures that were coming out of the LAPD. So they had to jump through hoops. They had to pay I think about $500.00 to get information for a public records request and in the end they came up with the final figure of 20 out of the 32 intersections in L.A. had significantly increased accidents because people would see the flash of the camera and they'll slam on their brakes and then they'll get rear ended.

Esther: And who wouldn't do that?

Katie: It's kind of unnerving. I mean a giant flash in the face –

Esther: I know I've been quite put off by several of those. I mean when you drive through, especially at a busy intersection. You're trying to focus.

Katie: Yeah; scary.

Esther: And then that thing, like it's like someone taking a picture of you.

Katie: Exactly.

Esther: A flash going off in your eyes. You're totally shaken by it. It's very confusing.

Katie: Absolutely.

Esther: In the article, this ticket attorney and part-time judge named Sherman Ellison, he's quoted in the article as saying, 'There is no question. This is purely a revenue generating device.'' I mean, even law enforcement is saying that.

Katie: Yeah.

Esther: And I don't think any law enforcement has even come out and officially said, 'Absolutely, this is for safety. There's no question. There's no way this is just to make money. We only want to be safe.' There's no way because they're totally unsafe.

Katie: Yeah. And you also have to factor in like the human element here. So if people know that there's a red light camera. Say they drive through an intersection every day, a lot of people get really nervous and won't go through the intersection during a yellow light. So then they're gonna slam on their brakes even before it's red and the people that are behind them are like, 'Let's go, let's go, let's go.' Then there ya' go. A three car pile up right there.

Esther: Exactly.

Katie: So I mean it's just causing a lot of problems.

Esther: Actually we have someone in Segment Two who is very, very concerned about safety and very on top of the game, the camera game.

Katie: But the good kind of cameras.

Esther: Yes. The kind that actually do keep you safe and we're gonna hear from her in Segment Two.

Katie: Love it.

Esther: You're listening to the BusinessMakers Overtime Show heard here and online at thebusinessmakers.com. I'm Esther Steinfeld.

Katie: And I'm Katie Laird.

Esther: And we'll be back in Segment Two, the BusinessMakers Breakdown with Chris Portillo of Safety Vision.