"You know if it makes just one kid think about the consequences and saves him from crippling himself-it's worth it."
At the risk of adding fuel to this discussion, could you define 'worth it'?
IMO, there is relative worth. The individual, the family, the friends, the state, the nation? There is the individual's potential earnings and local, state, federal taxes paid. And, if the individual is crippled for life, eg: life support, quadrapalegic, etc, then there are the medical bills, insurance, stress to family. Lawyers will have precedent to successfully argue other "at fault" suits and make some $$. Individuals, companies, organizations will have to have an attorney (and insurance co.)review their relative risk. The fee's will benefit both. The next person to consider taking on the half-pipe without a clue will at least have the comfort knowing that there may be a chance for a huge reward if they get injured.
Certainly not all-inclusive, the above situation represents the negative aspects of a bad decision. Are there positives? I don't know.. The chance of reproduction will be somewhat limited. The individual will take the brunt of the responsibility for his/her actions, and, if not crippling, will take home a very important lesson.
Should we as a society be protecting those individuals whose thought process short circuit when attempting to assess risk?