Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!wivax!decvax!yale-com!leichter From: leichter@yale-com.UUCP Newsgroups: net.flame Subject: Re: Re: safe drivers and annual tests - (nf) Message-ID: <1702@yale-com.UUCP> Date: Sat, 2-Jul-83 09:37:29 EDT Article-I.D.: yale-com.1702 Posted: Sat Jul 2 09:37:29 1983 Date-Received: Sun, 3-Jul-83 01:09:05 EDT References: uiucdcs.2342 Lines: 15 While this issue has now been driven into the ground, I'd like to make a sort of philosophical reply to Scott Preece, since he mentioned me by name. I have nothing AGAINST airbags; I have something AGAINST being REQUIRED to buy something I don't need because someone else needs it. Just because something is good does not mean it should be required. You could save a lot of lives by banning smoking - not just in public places, but banning it outright. For that matter, (enforced) prohibition of alchohol would save many physical and "spiritual" - in a broad sense - lives. Do you support these measures? I would PROBABLY support a law requiring that airbags be available as an option for those who want them, at a fair cost - NOT a cost subsidized by those who don't buy them, or tax money. (I say "probably" because it would depend on the exact law.) -- Jerry decvax!yale-comix!leichter leichter@yale