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