At 11:49 03.05.98 -0400, you wrote:
>I have stayed out of this discussion till today because it is a tough
>subject and very personal to some people. I do have an opinion which many
>here have a problem with. I'm concerned that we have a clash of "rights".

good point..

>Also, even the most innocuous and ubiquitous substances like plastic cause a
>reaction in some people. My concern is this: where do you draw the line?
>What if someone is allergic to maple trees? In my neighbourhood ( Canadian
>spelling!), we have dozens. Should someone have the right to cut them all

*if* all these maple trees are part of culture, and not of nature,
the economic interrests that has cultivated them are responsible to
in some way compensate to those who suffer...
If society's laws and regulations states the right do something, or if it
don't forbid, the society takes the responsibilty for the individuals who has
disadvantage from the activity.

>down? Does one child with a serious peanut or milk allergy mean that no one
>in his/her school can eat peanut butter or drink milk at that school? Each
>of us has rights in a democracy. But where does one person's rights have an
>overriding value to someone else's rights? We all drive on the right side of
>the road would be one example.

but these are regulations between parties that has agreed to drive a car.
I feel tat the issue here is about the indivdual who has to move because her
house is placed where the road is going to be built. Or who lives by the
small
road who  in time becomes a heavy traficated road.

>But when it comes to food, we are entering
>uncharted territory. I'm not concerned about one walnut tree, but I am
>concerned about the possible extension of the logic to other circumstances
>with much broader implications. We are having a horrendous debate in this
>country about Hepatitis C sufferers who were infected via the blood system.
>There are legal rights to compensation because of malfeasance by public
>officials but that covers only a subset. Many Canadians want compensation
>paid to all. That leads into a tough topic - do we compensate all victims of
>medical misadventure?

Yes, if medical treatment is forced. And at least here in Norway it seems
like lots of medical misadventures are caused by political reasons, or by
the force of individual or company profits. And even the doctors decision
of what *is* best for a patient.

Tobacco producers are facing a tough time with regards to economical
compansation.
They told us all about the positive effects of smoking, but not about the
impact
it had on the health.
What about the dairy? And the prepared foods industry?
Drink milk and get healthy is their loud words.
At age 38 I discovered it was not true, at least not for me. It has been a
major
negative factor in my life, I am not able to distinguish between smoking and
consuming dairy products, at least for me.
But the common opinion tells me the difference..... good or bad...

Am I to be paid overtime salary for the time used to catch up for the hours
spent in mental fog caused by consuming the food the society told me to eat?
Time other individuals would use to recreation, or building knowledge
funds, or
spend with their children or making a social network, or beeing friends.

I believe the issue Don adressed is very important.

regards,
-martinf