I'm sorry....

[cliaz]

OK Cliaz, then it's the state's role to mandate what you eat? How much you excercise? How much/whether you smoke or drink?

 

I wear my seatbelt everywhere, and my helmet when on my motorcycle. It should still be my choice, not a requirement of the nanny state for me to do so. It's not a valid function of government to protect you from your own bad decisions. If it were, half your posts would be intercepted by some government censor...

 

 

The states does those as well but have not place a direct law on them. You have reports on what you should be eating, reports on the dangers of smoking, reports how many times a week you should exercise, etc, etc. You have lobbyists for big tobaccoo which prevent any further negative impact on the industry, same with fast foods, etc.

 

But I just wanted to point out that those items you listed is going to the extreme. This is what happens when a discussion about these items comes out, people are quick to throw up the "So the state has the right to make X, Y, and Z illegal as well?

 

There is a huge difference between not wearing a seat belt and dying in a crash verses eating 15 big macs then smoking a pack of digs. You cannot compare the two, its apples and donkeys. You can say in accidents that wearing a seat belt would increase the rate of survival but you can't say that if person A ate a Big Mac a day, he will have a heart attack, they can only say the fats in a Big Mac can increase the changes for a heart attack in the general public but there are so many factors involved such as race, age, genetics, level of activity, etc. This is generalizing.

 

And I'm pretty sure almost all of my posts have been intercepted by either the Government, PETA, or NAMBLA.

[westvirginia]

The states does those as well but have not place a direct law on them. You have reports on what you should be eating, reports on the dangers of smoking, reports how many times a week you should exercise, etc, etc. You have lobbyists for big tobaccoo which prevent any further negative impact on the industry, same with fast foods, etc.

 

But I just wanted to point out that those items you listed is going to the extreme. This is what happens when a discussion about these items comes out, people are quick to throw up the "So the state has the right to make X, Y, and Z illegal as well?

 

There is a huge difference between not wearing a seat belt and dying in a crash verses eating 15 big macs then smoking a pack of digs. You cannot compare the two, its apples and donkeys. You can say in accidents that wearing a seat belt would increase the rate of survival but you can't say that if person A ate a Big Mac a day, he will have a heart attack, they can only say the fats in a Big Mac can increase the changes for a heart attack in the general public but there are so many factors involved such as race, age, genetics, level of activity, etc. This is generalizing.

 

And I'm pretty sure almost all of my posts have been intercepted by either the Government, PETA, or NAMBLA.

 

Cliaz - the difference is only in degree - why can no one see that? Eventually, the more you'll put up with the more you'll be forced to put up with. 100 years ago, any restriction on guns at all on the federal level would have been resoundingly denounced. Now, the debate is on HOW MUCH is proper. The same with a government mandate of how you could use your own land. And a million other examples I could list. What you people don't realize is, when you tell the government "this far and no further", they might say OK, for now. But they witll ALWAYS be back for more. See the fingerprints versus DNA argument in another thread. Aww, what's it hurt? DNA is just a LITTLE more intrusive! It doesn't hurt, and we wont give those insurance companies or anyone access to it - today anyway...

 

If you don't see the camel's nose under the tent then I guess you really won't mind when the whole camel gets in there with you. Enjoy the fleas...

[Ursa Majoris]

Certainly this is a valid observation but does not give the government the right to legislate compliance.

Didn't your argument in favor of state-mandated non-smoking areas (pretty much everywhere now) cite the increased costs to others through higher health insurance premiums caused by those that choose to smoke? This is no different - the extra costs associated with failure to use a seat belt cause increased costs to all of us one way or another.

 

You should be in favor of this given your previous stance.

[cliaz]

Cliaz - the difference is only in degree - why can no one see that? Eventually, the more you'll put up with the more you'll be forced to put up with. 100 years ago, any restriction on guns at all on the federal level would have been resoundingly denounced. Now, the debate is on HOW MUCH is proper. The same with a government mandate of how you could use your own land. And a million other examples I could list. What you people don't realize is, when you tell the government "this far and no further", they might say OK, for now. But they witll ALWAYS be back for more. See the fingerprints versus DNA argument in another thread. Aww, what's it hurt? DNA is just a LITTLE more intrusive! It doesn't hurt, and we wont give those insurance companies or anyone access to it - today anyway...

 

If you don't see the camel's nose under the tent then I guess you really won't mind when the whole camel gets in there with you. Enjoy the fleas...

 

 

Now you know I love you, westvirginia. Hell, I have your jersey and a cardboard cutout of you glued to my head board so I can slap you five when i'm banging whatever is unlucky enough to stumble into my back yard. But I strongly disagree with this POV. What was valid 100 years ago may not be in today's world. Why do citizen needs to carry firearms? Don't get me wrong, I believe if you legally qualify for a firearm and want one, you should have it. But I highly doubt that Natives are going to put on the war paint and attack your house in suburban America, or the British, Spanish, French will launch an attack on your city. The whole DNA thing as well, what's the difference between finger printing a felon or taking a DNA sample? As technology moves forward, our means of preventing or solving a crime do so as well. Finger prints can only give you so much, DNA is the next logical choice. Once you are convicted by the state/federal government you no longer hold the same rights as a citizen on the outside.

[Egret]

Certainly this is a valid observation but does not give the government the right to legislate compliance.

No, but the constitution does:

 

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

[Pope Flick]

I think you meant to say driving is a privilege, not a right.

[Grits and Shins]

While your statement may be a byproduct of a seatbelt law [feel good law], the state and transportation departments do in fact spend a lot of money on various items related to seat belts. The law suits are but one item, there is also the repairs to any safety devices on the roads which are damaged [i.e. guard rails, reflectors, street signs, street lights, etc], the costs for having accident scene re-creators investigating the scene and by the cost i also mean the additional resources needed such as forensics investigators, investigations into the make/model of the cars involved to see if they have some faulty piece of equipment that may have attributed to the crash, if it is determined during the investigation that the road itself was a factor then there is additional funding directed to repair the defect in the road. Then there is the cost to auto insurance companies that have to pay out for personal injury and as we all know insurance companies have very good lobbyists on their payroll. There is much more to this than a feel good law.

 

Repairs required as a result of accidents are not related to seat belts. Wearing of the seat belt is relevant to the health of the car occupants AFTER the accident / damage has occurred. Unless you are maintaining that wearing a seat belt PREVENTS accidents, thereby preventing damage.

 

Since when it is the business of our government to help regulate costs incurred by private businesses (insurance companies).

[cliaz]

Repairs required as a result of accidents are not related to seat belts. Wearing of the seat belt is relevant to the health of the car occupants AFTER the accident / damage has occurred. Unless you are maintaining that wearing a seat belt PREVENTS accidents, thereby preventing damage.

 

Since when it is the business of our government to help regulate costs incurred by private businesses (insurance companies).

 

 

Fair enough, remove the state highway commission from this thread and just factor in the Insurance companies.

[Grits and Shins]

you shouldnt be ticketed if you put 100k into an escrow account to be used for your medical, public service, and any other cost associated with a non-seatbelt injury or death.

 

Again ... what gives the government that authority to require I fasten my seatbelt. What ground would they have to require 100K in an escrow account. I already pay for auto insurance to cover the cost of any accident.

[Egret]

Again ... what gives the government that authority to require I fasten my seatbelt. What ground would they have to require 100K in an escrow account. I already pay for auto insurance to cover the cost of any accident.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

[Controller]

Maybe what they should do is cite drivers who refuse to wear seat belts, but instead of fining them, which smacks of just another way to raise money, just warn them of the dangers and report them to their insurance company. Then let the insurance companies decide what to do with drivers who refuse to wear seat belts (i.e increase their rates accordingly). That way, my insurance would go down, as it should, and the drivers who refuse to wear seat belts would pay more, as they should. Same as with drivers whose cars have better safety features (side airbags, anti-lock brakes) - they get discounts.

Edited May 19, 2008 by Controller

[dmarc117]

Maybe what they should do is cite drivers who refuse to wear seat belts, but instead of fining them, which smacks of just another way to raise money, just warn them of the dangers and report them to their insurance company. Then let the insurance companies decide what to do with drivers who refuse to wear seat belts (i.e increase their rates accordingly).

 

 

not bad, not bad

[Grits and Shins]

The states does those as well but have not place a direct law on them. You have reports on what you should be eating, reports on the dangers of smoking, reports how many times a week you should exercise, etc, etc. You have lobbyists for big tobaccoo which prevent any further negative impact on the industry, same with fast foods, etc.

 

But I just wanted to point out that those items you listed is going to the extreme. This is what happens when a discussion about these items comes out, people are quick to throw up the "So the state has the right to make X, Y, and Z illegal as well?

 

There is a huge difference between not wearing a seat belt and dying in a crash verses eating 15 big macs then smoking a pack of digs. You cannot compare the two, its apples and donkeys. You can say in accidents that wearing a seat belt would increase the rate of survival but you can't say that if person A ate a Big Mac a day, he will have a heart attack, they can only say the fats in a Big Mac can increase the changes for a heart attack in the general public but there are so many factors involved such as race, age, genetics, level of activity, etc. This is generalizing.

 

And I'm pretty sure almost all of my posts have been intercepted by either the Government, PETA, or NAMBLA.

 

So then it should be sufficient to issue a report on the negative effects of not wearing a seat belt.

 

You can say in accidents wearing a seat belt would increases the rate of survival

You can say that eating a Big Mac a day increases the chances of a heart attack

 

Both are statements of probability not certainty. When you grant the government the authority to project you from the first probability you are opening the door wide for the government to protect you from the second liability.

[Perchoutofwater]

As many of my liberal friends have noted in the past, driving is a privilege, not a right. If it was a right, then anyone could do it regardless of age, and there would be no need for licensing. The seat belt laws are in place for three reasons, the least of which is revenue. The 1st reason like someone else said it to protect the states, counties, etc.. from law suits. Then 2nd and IMO the most important reason is because emergency care is free if you can not afford it. If you are wearing your seatbelt, then you are less likely to need extensive emergency care in the event you are in an accident. Our E.R's are all ready over-run buy illegals and the poor who can not afford the services they seek. As a result, the counties and states have to pick up the additional cost of the medical treatment, as do those that have insurance because the hospitals are going to try to make up for the loss some where. The idea of ticketing someone for a seatbelt violation being a revenue source is laughable, as the cost of patrolmen to monitor the motorist, and the court cost and time associated will negate the small fine.

[cliaz]

So then it should be sufficient to issue a report on the negative effects of not wearing a seat belt.

 

You can say in accidents wearing a seat belt would increases the rate of survival

You can say that eating a Big Mac a day increases the chances of a heart attack

 

Both are statements of probability not certainty. When you grant the government the authority to project you from the first probability you are opening the door wide for the government to protect you from the second liability.

 

 

Couldn't disagree more.

[Grits and Shins]

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

 

So you are in favor of the government determining what is in our best interest and legislating compliance ... so you would favor the following kinds of legislation:

 

1) Regular exercise is required, minimum of 30 minutes a day 4 times a week, or be fined.

2) People are required to maintain the weight that is deemed appropriate for their height, or be fined.

3) Smoking is prohibited, or be fined.

4) A large number of activities are deemed to be inherently risky and are prohibited, activies like sky diving, hang gliding, martial arts etc.

 

I'm sure there is a whole host of other things the government could think of that would keep us safe from ourselves.

[Grits and Shins]

Couldn't disagree more.

 

Expound.

 

Are you saying that it is not enough to issue a report on the negaive effects of not wearing a seat belt as it was in your other examples? If so, why not.

 

Are you saying that it is a certainty that you will survive or be less injured in a car wreck if you wear a seat belt?

 

Are you saying that it is a certainty that you will not have a heart attack as the result of eating a Big Mac every day?

 

Or are you saying that if we give the government the authority to legislate for one probability they would never attempt to legislate for another probabilty?

 

Or are you simply saying you don't like what I said?

[Egret]

So then it should be sufficient to issue a report on the negative effects of not wearing a seat belt.

 

You can say in accidents wearing a seat belt would increases the rate of survival

You can say that eating a Big Mac a day increases the chances of a heart attack

 

Both are statements of probability not certainty. When you grant the government the authority to project you from the first probability you are opening the door wide for the government to protect you from the second liability.

Why do you hate America?

[Egret]

So you are in favor of the government determining what is in our best interest and legislating compliance ... so you would favor the following kinds of legislation:

 

1) Regular exercise is required, minimum of 30 minutes a day 4 times a week, or be fined.

2) People are required to maintain the weight that is deemed appropriate for their height, or be fined.

3) Smoking is prohibited, or be fined.

4) A large number of activities are deemed to be inherently risky and are prohibited, activies like sky diving, hang gliding, martial arts etc.

 

I'm sure there is a whole host of other things the government could think of that would keep us safe from ourselves.

You stated that the government doesn't have the authority to legislate on behalf of seatbelt use. I quoted the Constitution. My opinion on what is legislated beyond that is irrelevant.

[cliaz]

So you are in favor of the government determining what is in our best interest and legislating compliance ... so you would favor the following kinds of legislation:

 

1) Regular exercise is required, minimum of 30 minutes a day 4 times a week, or be fined.

2) People are required to maintain the weight that is deemed appropriate for their height, or be fined.

3) Smoking is prohibited, or be fined.

4) A large number of activities are deemed to be inherently risky and are prohibited, activies like sky diving, hang gliding, martial arts etc.

 

I'm sure there is a whole host of other things the government could think of that would keep us safe from ourselves.

 

 

 

 

The preamble clearly defines the two major functions of government: (1) ensuring justice, personal freedom, and a free society where individuals are protected from domestic lawbreakers and criminals, and; (2) protecting the people of the United States from foreign aggressors.

 

When the Founding Fathers said that “WE THE PEOPLE” established the Constitution to “promote the general Welfare,” they did not mean the federal government would have the power to aid education, build roads, and subsidize business. Likewise, Article 1, Section 8 did not give Congress the right to use tax money for whatever social and economic programs Congress might think would be good for the “general welfare.”

[AtomicCEO]

You know what else is a stupid law? The age of consent. What is this, nazy Germany?

[Grits and Shins]

As many of my liberal friends have noted in the past, driving is a privilege, not a right. If it was a right, then anyone could do it regardless of age, and there would be no need for licensing. The seat belt laws are in place for three reasons, the least of which is revenue. The 1st reason like someone else said it to protect the states, counties, etc.. from law suits. Then 2nd and IMO the most important reason is because emergency care is free if you can not afford it. If you are wearing your seatbelt, then you are less likely to need extensive emergency care in the event you are in an accident. Our E.R's are all ready over-run buy illegals and the poor who can not afford the services they seek. As a result, the counties and states have to pick up the additional cost of the medical treatment, as do those that have insurance because the hospitals are going to try to make up for the loss some where. The idea of ticketing someone for a seatbelt violation being a revenue source is laughable, as the cost of patrolmen to monitor the motorist, and the court cost and time associated will negate the small fine.

 

Emergency care is free to the uninsured regardless of the cause for the care. Do you support legislation that would prohibit anybody from doing something that might cause them harm because that activity might cause harm to an uninsured person? If not, why are you singling out a single activity (driving) for legislation?

 

Again ... I fail to see why the government should be in the business of enacting legislation to help a private industry.

[Savage Beatings]

So you are in favor of the government determining what is in our best interest and legislating compliance ... so you would favor the following kinds of legislation:

 

1) Regular exercise is required, minimum of 30 minutes a day 4 times a week, or be fined.

2) People are required to maintain the weight that is deemed appropriate for their height, or be fined.

3) Smoking is prohibited, or be fined.

4) A large number of activities are deemed to be inherently risky and are prohibited, activies like sky diving, hang gliding, martial arts etc.

 

I'm sure there is a whole host of other things the government could think of that would keep us safe from ourselves.

 

Wouldn't it be easier to just do a pre-natal genetic screen to find out if someone is predisposed to being overweight, and then aborting that baby? You know, for promotion of the general welfare.

[Grits and Shins]

You stated that the government doesn't have the authority to legislate on behalf of seatbelt use. I quoted the Constitution. My opinion on what is legislated beyond that is irrelevant.

 

Okay ... then explain how requiring an individual wearing a seat belt promotes the 'general welfare of America'. Granted it might promote that specific indivdual's general welfare. I guess you've also decided the bill of rights is irrelevant too?

[Big Country]

So Grits and others who are upset by seat belt laws, why is it okay for there to be speed limits?

 

 

Roads are paid for by taxes, thus technically roads are owned by the "State". A driver's license gives you the privilege of driving on the State owned roads provided you follow the rules they establish for their roads. In this case, wearing a seat belt, as well as following speed laws, stop signs, traffic signals, etc. By applying for and accepting the driver's license if you qualify, you are agreeing to abide by the rules that are established for the roads, which are subject to change.

 

Choose to not wear a seat belt.. no problem so long as you are not on a road.