Today is the Primary in CT, but I'll stay off politics for one day.

A question, which I would be happy to hear thoughts on. I bought several stocks today for our portfolio and as I was buying McDonald's, it occurred to me that I will not buy tobacco companies, but that I own Exxon-Mobil; Pepsi; Coke; a coal mining stock;  a natural gas producer involved in "fracking"; CCJ, a company whose sole business in in uranium ore; Mead Westvaco owner of the patent of the "flip top" cigarette package.  And, in various indexes, I am sure I already a variety of tobacco companies.  

I would love to buy MO (Altria aka Phillip Morris), great company (well, other than the cigarettes it sells), great growth, fat dividend and healthy (sorry for the poor metaphor) prospects for the future.

So, where is the line between what just should not be supported and what is the rationally excusable investment in a legal business? Is tobacco unique in that it is the only product sold that cannot be safely used? Are the consequences of eating McDonald's and drinking sugar filled sodas any less objectionable? Do we rule out every company that runs factories in Third World countries and pays less than a living wage? Should all energy companies be boycotted because of the pollution they cause? 

 As a rule "Socially Responsible Investing" avoids all companies involved in tobacco, alcohol, weapons, nuclear technology, gambling or that are not environmentally friendly. But, one could find a social grievance against every company traded on every stock market.

After writing this, I think I have resolved my personal choices in investing, and have a clearer understanding of what I will or will not buy but would still like to hear the thoughts of others.