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.

Politics : Canadian Political Free-for-All -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Gulo who wrote (67)	10/29/2000 10:23:20 PM
From: Lino...	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 37421

I agree totally with your post. Let me run something by you.....I'd be interested to see what you think about it. Recent studies in California have shown pot to be up to three times deadlier than cigarette smoke. There have been Canadian studies to that effect as well. How can something that deadly be considered by health Canada as possibly being of benefit medically? It seems somewhat hypocritical (albeit politically correct) that governments are suing tobacco companies claiming their product is hazardous and a burden on the medical system, while at the same time considering legalizing a similar product that 3 times deadlier. What percentage of the tax dollars that go into the medical system now are used in treating the effects of illegal drug use? Does it seem right that medical services are rationed to most Canadians at the same time that "free" treatment is available to those that suffer the results of illegal substance abuse? Suppose pot is legalized...........how is it to be regulated? Will we have inspectors running around to make sure there are warning labels on the little baggies?

To: Gulo who wrote (67)	11/17/2000 9:29:55 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 37421

Is it fair that a smoker's health insurance costs are funded from the taxes of a non-smoker? This is misstatement of fact. Smokers 1n 1986 in Canada provided a net benefit of 4.3 billion dollars to the benefit of non smokers; This is net, after taking into account the health care costs used by the smoker. Add to this, the fact that smoking is concentrated in the population of low income earners, and you have an extremely unfair burden of taxation being placed on those least able to pay. The low income people are not only burdened with low income and poor health, but, as well, they are forced to subsidize the health care of richer and healthier folk. When I hear people on talk shows speaking smugly about how they are subsidizing the evil smoker, I just shake my head in disgust. And, no: I do not smoke.