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 : Roger's 1998 Short Picks -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Roger A. Babb who wrote (15118)	11/6/1998 3:11:00 PM
From: Jacques Chitte	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 18691

<OT from trading> If we follow the prescription idea I sketched earlier, we will soften this problem considerably by putting a hurdle in the way of those who would be outright deadbeats. As for medical costs - the death rate coming from ALL narcotics, stimulants, etc. being unlawfully used in this country is 1% of alcohol and tobacco related deaths. (I am not counting deaths by gunshot deriving from drug related money-driven disputes, e.g. among gangs.) I do see your point, and it is real. I do believe that it isn't a very big problem. Alcohol is imho a much harder intoxicant than any hallucinogen, and the percentage of alcohol users who drink themselves into frank unemployment is small. Making intoxicants available by prescription would not exclude the establishment of treatment/recovery programs for those who get into a tough spot. Granted, it'll cost society. But I think it'll cost a lot less than a War on Drugs. The welfare issue is thorny. A smart guy from long ago said "The poor will always be with you." There are two fundamental ways of dealing with the poor, the disabled, the unfortunates of society. At the "Attila" end a logical argument can be mounted to withdraw any and all artificial support - and let those who can work their way clear of their predicament do so. And Darwin take the rest. (Editorial note: while this is logical, it is distasteful to me.) On the other side, compassion taken to its logical conclusion gives us a welfare net for all the poor, with state-sponsored food, housing, medical care - the works. This strikes me as dangerous - because I believe Man has a big lazy streak, and the proportion of productive sorts who keep the whole thing going will have lost the very real incentive of avoiding serious hardship if they just plain don't get out of bed in the morning. :-) Somewhere in the middle there must be some sort of consensual optimim. But unless you vote the Attila ticket, it's gonna cost each&every one of us something out of our paychecks. Where that optimum lies is a subject worthy of the dispensing of large amounts of brewed malt beverage... Cheers Alex