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.

Technology Stocks : LSI Corporation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sea_biscuit who wrote (9599)	2/9/1998 4:02:00 AM
From: Franklin M. Humphreys	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25814

Dipy; <More Folderol> >>>The proposed settlement is as much an effort to compensate for whatever wrongs the companies did, as it is to ensure that non-smokers are not burdened with the costs of treating the smokers.<<< Would that it were true! It is not. The "settlement" is intended to give the appearance of reaching those ends. It succeeds to the degree that you and many others "buy" it. It makes many promises, i.e. to "balance" the Clinton budget, punish the evildoers, etc. Sadly, it holds out (false) hope to millions of nicotine addicts that at some later date good old uncle Sam will pony up to restore their flagging health utilizing the vast sums of money from Tobacco. That money will be long gone when today's batch of new smokers is making it to an intensive care unit. >>>To some extent at least, smoking was (and is) a conscious choice made by the smokers (something that the anti-smoking groups in Japan have discovered to their intense chagrin -- they are unable to mobilize the smokers against the tobacco companies because... SURPRISE! SURPRISE!!) the smokers hold themselves responsible for their actions!).<<< Again not true. Many are "smokers" not by choice but by circumstances in which they must breath the air polluted by the conscious "decision" of smokers exercising the right so passionately guarded and gleefully endorsed by Tobacco. Additionally, your assertion that smokers cannot be mobilized against Tobacco in Japan (or anywhere) because they hold themselves responsible for their actions is just plain bunk. You might just as well say that the railroad gang can't be incited to burn down the local whorehouse BECAUSE THEY HOLD THEMSELVES RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR OWN CARNAL DESIRES. HAH! The primary deterrent to mobilizing against Tobacco has come from the Federal Congress, the Supreme Court, the Oval office and yes, from a population so pumped on the notion of Freedom of everything that they mistakenly and perhaps, understandably, have fought to protect the assumption that smokers may violate the rights of everybody in exercising their right to use tobacco. It is not just that this patently ridiculous precept held sway in board rooms world wide for centuries but from the beginning has been endorsed and promoted; yes, even financed by our own government, because of the power of the money and influence that tobacco attracts. This brings me to the very point of my original post. I too, fiercely defend your right to use tobacco, to commit suicide, to drink yourself into a coma every night if you so desire. Equally fiercely I assert my right NOT to be burdened with the expense of caring for you or putting back your broken life or the lives of those you affect when at some point your folly catches up with you. Specifically I resent the government's action in facilitating your self-destruction at my expense and then pursuing your salvation, medical treatment, etc.,again, at my expense and against my will. (please note the words "you" and "your" are used editorially and do not mean you, personally) >>>Well, Mr. Miller obviously didn't realize how lucky he was that somebody loved horse-shit. Otherwise, he would have been compelled to fall in love with it! :-) :-)<<< Notwithstanding your two "smilies" I am struck by the fear that you missed the point in Mr. Miller's observation. The love that filled the street-cleaner's heart did not result from any need residing in the horse-shit but arose instead from the street-cleaner's desire to assign a respectability to the substance which it did not naturally possess. His reward followed in being able to cherish his lively hood as worthy of a person having the respectability to which he aspired. It was and is a laudable goal. That being established in no way imputes to tobacco the ability to be transformed into something respectable from what it is---a noxious foul smelling, poisonous weed. Ergo: there is likewise no way to impart anything remotely similar to respectability to those who deal in tobacco as a lively-hood. The argument that if not someone, then surely Mr Miller, must fall in love with the object of his daily toil is perhaps true but I doubt it. No matter if it be true, for it is counterfeit logic that draws any correlation to tobacco. Stated simply: "Tobacco has no need to be loved, none!" More ZZZZZZZZZs Frank