Seatbelts and Helmets
This post is probably the result of boredom, but here goes. Yesterday, the quarterback for the world champion Pittsburgh Steelers, Ben Roethlisberger, ran his motorcycle into an on-coming car. This accident was serious enough as it was, but it was made more dangerous by the fact that Ben was not wearing a helmet. In Pennsylvania, the governing body repealed the law enforcing motorcyclists to wear helmets two years ago. This got me to thinking about the constitutionality of seatbelt and helmet laws. The question is not whether it is foolish to drive without a seatbelt or ride a bike without a helmet. What I am more interested in is whether or not it is fair for the government to actually force us to do something like this. Or, the way one person explained it today, is it fair for the government to protect us from ourselves? What do you think and why? I know this is a little outside the realm of our normal discussions, but I think it is more pertinent than we might initially realize.
8 Comments:
What is the definition of a law? If it is to protect the citizens, then I think that would be a good law.
Charlie,
A law is defined as: A rule of conduct or procedure established by custom, agreement, or authority.
A rule of conduct...now, I wonder what the purpose of a law is?
Charlie,
The purpose of law is different in different situations. Sometimes, it protect citizens from each other. Sometimes, it protect the environment from the citizens. Othertimes, it protects us from ourselves.
I'm all over the place tonight.
Michael is right, all laws can be summed up by the three categories he listed. I however do not agree with laws that protect us from ourselves. These laws assume that a small group of 50+, usually white, and upper class men, know better than I or any citizen does.
I don't agree with helmet laws for the same reasons I don't agree with drug laws. That being said, I don't use drugs and if I had a motercycle I would wear a helmet. But I don't think that there should be laws limiting freedom of choice.
Mr. McFeely,
I'm sorry but drug laws don't protect you from ourself. They protect others from those that use them. That is why it is illegal to drink and get in car and drive. People who don't wear seatbelts or helmets don't immediately effect anyone but themselves; however, those who take drugs or consume alcohol have the potential to immediately effect other people.
"Mr. McFeely,
I'm sorry but drug laws don't protect you from ourself. They protect others from those that use them. That is why it is illegal to drink and get in car and drive. People who don't wear seatbelts or helmets don't immediately effect anyone but themselves; however, those who take drugs or consume alcohol have the potential to immediately effect other people."
Your logic is flawed.
If it's only wrong to drink and drive, then why is it not only wrong to drugs and drive.
How does someone sitting in their house and smoking a joint affect anyone but that person?
Mr. Mcfeely,
My point was that drugs and alcohol have the potential to cause harm to others.
Post a Comment
<< Home