Safety and Legal Issues

--- spider_boris wrote:
>
> Um, guess what...EVERYBODY eventually dies. If there was a product
> that would ensure that>99% of the people using it would _never_ die,
> then such a product would have an immedieate market of around six
> billion, no?

Yes, but we should try to delay the death.

Also nano-technology looks promising when it comes to curing death (mostly).

> This sort of argument really pisses me off, particularly when used
> by the anti-smoking, anti-drinking, anti-nanotech, anti-anything-not-
> approved-of-by-the-author busybodies (whom are apparently in firm
> control of just about every governmental institution in Canada, and
> probably the USA too).

Anti-smoking and anti-drinking arguments tend to be very good. Anti-nano-tech
arguments not so good as the points bought up against nano-tech can be
rectified.

> Jeez Louise, people, nothing is 100% safe... and yet, western
> society has allowed slick lawyers (who btw do not PRODUCE anything
> of REAL value) to grow fat and wealthy from spurious lawsuits.

No, but that doesn't mean it should be allowed to kill people because proper
safety tests weren't done or were done but defects not corrected. Lawyers
sometimes do serve a useful purpose.

> You pay your money, you takes your chances, right? And if you don't
> do your homework, then whose fault is it?

We already tried that. It didn't work.

As for not doing your homework how could you do enough for all the purchases
you make? Afterall it's not just buying a ticket on a spacecraft and getting a
car, you also have to buy food, a house and a lot of other things. With all
those the amount of homework that would need to be done to find out if any will
kill you would be far too much.

Now would you like to have to buy a whole heap of food then run it through a
very large series of tests to make sure it's safe to eat? Would you like to
have to it everyday?

If the answer is no then you'll want there to be consumer protection.

> I have been a cigarette smoker for about 14 years, and it will
> probably give me lung cancer or emphysema (sp?) or some other nasty
> ailment, which will be the end of me. But, it is MY CHOICE to fill
> my lungs with poison, nobody is FORCING me to smoke. Nobody is
> forcing those fools who end their lives attempting Everest, either
> (something like six fatalities per year, on average). And nobody is
> forcing people to put their hard-earned money into the Russian space
> program, $20M to visit the ISS for a week at a time.

No one is forcing you to smoke but if you're in a public place then your smoke
is affecting them. As such you're forcing other people to be smokers everytime
you light up in a room that has other people in it. Passive smoking despite
what the cigarette company front groups may claim does kill people and is a
serious problem.

> caveat emptor

Was abandoned because it didn't work.