Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Value Investing -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Madharry who wrote (9829)	2/1/2000 7:57:00 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 78464

Armin, Alcohol and sugar, not the best comparisons. Alcohol in moderation actually has a beneficial effect wrt health, i.e., lowering of cholestoral. Sugar exists naturally in nearly all the foods we eat, fruits, vegtables, etc. and in an of itself is not harmful to health to the general populace. The quality of "natural" is irrelevant. Arsenic and hemlock are natural but no reasonable person would accept them as additives for food products. Lead, another natural ingredient has been banned from paints and water pipes and there is no rise of objection from any sector of society that I know of. Tobacco use on the other hand is harmful to health, period. Whether it's use is in "moderation"; it's been shown to be harmful to the health of secondary users, i.e., non-smoking bystanders that inhale the airborne smoke over a period of time. I'll offer a different question...Does society [governement] have the authority to ban the use of poisons for human consumption? poison: noun 1. A substance that causes injury, illness, or death, especially by chemical means. Excerpted from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. jttmab

To: Madharry who wrote (9829)	2/1/2000 6:49:00 PM
From: Archie Meeties	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 78464

OT "It seems to me that tobacco is a natural product and unless they did something to it to make it more harmful..." Well, that's exactly what they did. Then they said under oath to congress that "Nicotine is not an addictive drug". I agree that big tabacco is everybody's favorite whipping boy, and we're getting an indirect tax break through the addictions of our fellow human beings. But If you told me I'm passing up the value investment of the century, I'm still walking away and not looking back. I think a lot of investors believe similarly. These companies are not letting current problems stop them from expanding their presence in foreign countries - and do you think they're mentioning impotence, cancer, or vascular disease there if they don't have to? BTW, Sugar, although not necessarily sucrose, is an absolutely necessary part of the diet. Glucose is the substrate of choice for the brain. Without it, I'd have a few minutes to live. Contrast this with a cigarette.

To: Madharry who wrote (9829)	2/1/2000 10:14:00 PM
From: Smacs	Respond to of 78464

Perhaps we're getting off of the investment topic and onto the moral issues of self-destruction and ones right to it, however, since it tends to affect the investment, I suppose there's some merit to its discussion... Alcohol, which I'll agree whole-heartedly, is addictive and detrimental to one's health when consumed irresponsibly, can have positive effects such as decreasing one's risks of heart disease and cancer. The big problem with tobacco, and therefore Philip Morris and the industry at large, is the fact that they chemically altered their product to INCREASE its addictive properties knowing full well that the product was harmful at ANY dose to both primary and secondary users. All ethical consideration aside, the legal liability that such action involves is extremely dangerous to the company's profitability, general existence, and ultimately to shareholders. My point in all this, is that I don't view MO as much of a value play. At the very most I would call it a speculative gamble. If you're up for a gamble and have no problem with the ethics of the industry, I suppose it offers some possibility for capital appreciation. I, however, would rather put my speculative investment capital into a pioneering tech or biotech company with the potential not only to grow profits exponentially, but to also BENEFIT society. My $0.02, -sm-