01-11-2014, 04:36 PM
(This post was last modified: 01-11-2014, 04:52 PM by hendi_alex.)
rnsmth: "I do not get upset at people who make a different choice."
I'm not upset, I just find the choice to be totally unacceptable. Just like I find the 'choice' of my friends and family to continue smoking as unacceptable. Of course, given the nature of cigarette addiction, the choice for many has been taken away from them, at least for practical purposes it has. I do find the constant promotion of cigarette companies to be offensive. For the most part I ignore such, but lately it has become such a recurring theme. After this thread I'll just go back to ignore, as much as is possible. But to me it is sad, that some individuals seem to think that a profit is a profit. They give ethical considerations to all kinds of things, but where money is concerned, ethics don't apply. I'm not saying that such applies to anyone on this board, but just casual observation gives plenty of examples of the trait.
*****************
reply to fiveoh:
Those just sound like rationalizations to me. Cigarettes, though not as poisonous as alcohol are far more addictive. Further, there is almost no such thing as a casual user or moderate user of cigarettes. In fact there may be no such thing as moderate use wrt cigarettes. Most individuals that drink alcohol do so moderately and in moderation, alcohol particularly in the form of red wine, is beneficial. McDonald's may mostly cater junk food, but it is certainly not physically addictive, and definitely does have some amount of benefit. My standard, which I'll stand by, [a business whose end product has zero social benefit] applies only to the cigarette business, at least as far as I can determine. If someone points out a business that is similarly flawed, I'll add it to my list to avoid. At this point, the list is very short, including only cigarette companies.
Sure most any business has some negative aspect. Miners and oil companies are very destructive to the environment, but they also contribute great benefit. We have all seen how corrupt and destructive banks can be, but modern society can run without them. WalMart exploits their workers and sells many items which themselves or their companies don't represent socially friendly or environmentally friendly alternatives, yet WalMart contributes greatly to fill social needs.
Investing in cigarette companies is a totally different animal. I don't think that you can find a comparable example.
"PM is not forcing anyone to smoke. If they didn't offer cigs someone else would." Only cigarette manufacturers would, and its it my position that no one who believes strongly in the matter should support the industry in any way, including the investing arena. The cigarette company motto is to addict them when they are young, and to addict them for life. When I was teaching, probably 20%-50% of the students were smoking. Ten to twenty per cent of those will be unable to quit and will become lifetime smokers. I don't know how any person can see the first hand effects that smoking has to immediate family, friends, and neighbors, yet remain casual about the issue. No the cigarette companies don't force any to smoke. They just make an appealing, highly addictive product, introduce it to the young, and then sit back and let the addiction do their marketing for them.
I'm not upset, I just find the choice to be totally unacceptable. Just like I find the 'choice' of my friends and family to continue smoking as unacceptable. Of course, given the nature of cigarette addiction, the choice for many has been taken away from them, at least for practical purposes it has. I do find the constant promotion of cigarette companies to be offensive. For the most part I ignore such, but lately it has become such a recurring theme. After this thread I'll just go back to ignore, as much as is possible. But to me it is sad, that some individuals seem to think that a profit is a profit. They give ethical considerations to all kinds of things, but where money is concerned, ethics don't apply. I'm not saying that such applies to anyone on this board, but just casual observation gives plenty of examples of the trait.
*****************
reply to fiveoh:
Those just sound like rationalizations to me. Cigarettes, though not as poisonous as alcohol are far more addictive. Further, there is almost no such thing as a casual user or moderate user of cigarettes. In fact there may be no such thing as moderate use wrt cigarettes. Most individuals that drink alcohol do so moderately and in moderation, alcohol particularly in the form of red wine, is beneficial. McDonald's may mostly cater junk food, but it is certainly not physically addictive, and definitely does have some amount of benefit. My standard, which I'll stand by, [a business whose end product has zero social benefit] applies only to the cigarette business, at least as far as I can determine. If someone points out a business that is similarly flawed, I'll add it to my list to avoid. At this point, the list is very short, including only cigarette companies.
Sure most any business has some negative aspect. Miners and oil companies are very destructive to the environment, but they also contribute great benefit. We have all seen how corrupt and destructive banks can be, but modern society can run without them. WalMart exploits their workers and sells many items which themselves or their companies don't represent socially friendly or environmentally friendly alternatives, yet WalMart contributes greatly to fill social needs.
Investing in cigarette companies is a totally different animal. I don't think that you can find a comparable example.
"PM is not forcing anyone to smoke. If they didn't offer cigs someone else would." Only cigarette manufacturers would, and its it my position that no one who believes strongly in the matter should support the industry in any way, including the investing arena. The cigarette company motto is to addict them when they are young, and to addict them for life. When I was teaching, probably 20%-50% of the students were smoking. Ten to twenty per cent of those will be unable to quit and will become lifetime smokers. I don't know how any person can see the first hand effects that smoking has to immediate family, friends, and neighbors, yet remain casual about the issue. No the cigarette companies don't force any to smoke. They just make an appealing, highly addictive product, introduce it to the young, and then sit back and let the addiction do their marketing for them.
Alex