🚀 go-pugleaf

Ivan Satori <satori@cgocable.net> wrote in message
news:k5es6.4563$A6.1305715@news4.rdc1.on.home.com...
>
> Scott Willing <NOTwilling2BSPAMMED@mts.net> wrote in message
> news:8W5s6.5186$tn1.67410@news1.mts.net...
> >
> > Doug Craigen <dcc@escape.ca> wrote in message
> > news:3AABEA44.9E54AA46@escape.ca...
> > > No objection to much of the list, but two items stand out:
> >
> > [snipped to one item for a personal rant]
> >
> > IMHO you should be able to smoke, ingest or inject anything you like,
but
> > only if
>
> A bit of a problem how to keep track and effectively enforce ...

No argument.

> > (a) you sign a waiver releasing taxpayers from financial responsibility
> for
> > negative affects on your health,
> > (b) your supplier provides you with the most accurate and current
> > information available concerning known risks, and
> > (c) your supplier is required to put a portion of the product cost into
a
> > health and liability insurance fund, as well as research into mitigating
> the
> > negative effects of the product.
>
> I've heard about some stats published in B.C. which concluded that smokers
> cost the system and taxpayers noticeably less than non-smokers. - Some of
> the factors: lower life expectancy (not drawing pensions that long),

ooooo....

> much
> faster mortality in age related health complications (shorter stay on life
> supporting equipment) ,

ooowww...

 ... - wasn't able to get my hands on the article or
> publication myself, so it's just a hearsay.

Interesting angle.

> > BTW, I heard the other day that legal prescription drugs kill 10 times
> more
> > people every year than illegal street drugs. 10 frickin' times. Ain't
that
> > charming?
> >
> > Sounds to me like the "war on drugs" would be a lot more beneficial if
it
> > was aimed at reckless pharmaceutical companies and physicians instead of
> pot
> > farmers. And 'mericans wouldn't even have to travel outside their
borders
> to
> > wage war. But what fun would that be? Bwwwaaa haaa... yeah, I'm dreamin'
> of
> > course. There's waaaay too much money in the legal drug trade, so
> hipocracy
> > reigns. Keep on rockin' in the free world.
> >
> > Anyone besides me suspect that Aspirin would be illegal if it grew on a
> > house plant? (I guess I'd better not mention anything about wolf
willow.)
> >
> > OK, I'm gettin' carried away. This Fair Trade coffee really packs a
> > wallop...
> >
> > -smw
>
> Not as much carried away, as maybe barking at the wrong tree.
>
> The problem might not be as much the capitalists, as the big government
> (i.e. a maze, where all kinds of cover ups can be safely sheltered from
the
> daylight) that legislates a monopoly in favour of selected group of
> capitalists against anybody else. I think it's called racketeering or
> something like that - you don't pay up, we put you out of business. You do
> pay - we help you to keep the competition (those who can't afford to pay
as
> much as you) out.
>
> Is about as capitalist as WWF is sports competition.
>
> Capitalists don't make laws. Governments do. The bigger the government,
the
> easier to get with things away.

Actually we agree on the problem, but perhaps disagree on the mechanism.

I don't have a problem with the *ideal* of good, clean capitalist
competition, but by hook or by crook, it seems it never stays clean. As soon
as the opportunity presents itself, competition is disadvantaged or
eliminated by some manipulation or other, whether institutionalized by the
government, or just corporate dirty tricks.

The "better product at a better price" idea of free competition is a quaint
falsehood.

Cheers,
-s