CA> CA>> While the majority of persons are being protected from
CA> CA>> some of these mistakes there are people who continue to
CA> CA>> grind zinc molds and breath the dust and others who weld
CA> CA>> the zinc and breathe those fumes in the prototype plastic
CA> CA>> injection mold tooling industry. Wood patternmakers and
CA> CA>> model makers now using fake wood made from a type of
CA> CA>> foaming plastic are experiencing six times the rate of
CA> CA>> rectal cancers compared to the rest of the population and
CA> CA>> I can only imagine how many others are exposed to
CA> CA>> carcinogens in an effort to sustain themselves and their
CA> CA>> families.

CA> CA>> I find it difficult to impose a slow and painful death on
CA> CA>> others so that I can just keep everything as it was and
CA> CA>> not have to sacrifice by doing without.

CA> RS> While I agree with this sentiment, I don't agree that we
CA> RS> should force people to NOT do things that we think are bad
CA> RS> for them "for their own good" so to speak.

CA> RS> I should have the choice to breathe in zinc or asbestos or
CA> RS> any other poison that I so choose. I have the right to be
CA> RS> wrong.

CA> Those who drink and drive (or take drugs and drive) feel the
CA> same way. Truth is we share this planet and your risk taking
CA> can involve others in risks they do not chose to share with you.

 But, they should be punished for what happens, not
what we fear might happen. If they're weaving all
over the road, punish them for that and add an
additional stiff penalty for the substance as it is
a contributor, but don't just pull someone over at
random and find them under the influence when their
driving gave no indication of such.

 Rule due to fear is wrong and unjust.

 (In case anyone cares, we do not smoke, drink,
nor do drugs.)

CA> RS> The idea that it costs us money through insurance or
CA> RS> charity is only an excuse. If it's really true, and it's
CA> RS> really an issue, change the insurance or charity.

CA> I would be more than willing to assist in arranging for a 'risk
CA> takers' clause in our laws to make self-imposed suicide less
CA> costly for those not involved. I doubt this will ever happen
CA> but I'm in favor of it.

CA> RS> Don't try to take rights away that are not yours to take.
CA> RS> Don't try to take away the consequences of my behavior.
CA> RS> Don't try to take away my right to be wrong.

CA> If I am allowed to put mortar shells into vehicles manned by
CA> drunks who are swerving at 90 mph in front of me, shoot violent
CA> people in public places who are threatening me (or anyone else)
CA> in an attempt to intimidate me, and am allowed to remove
CA> children from the homes of suicidal parents then I am more than
CA> willing to allow your right to be wrong.

CA> Meanwhile the 'rights' you refer to infringe on my right to not
CA> be involved in your consequences.

 I see your points.

 I would also like to avoid consequences of others'
actions, but I don't think that the world can (nor
should) work that way.

 TTYL.

 Robert

 * SLMR 2.1a * My last cow just died, so I won't need your bull anymore.
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5