Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Havoc
And therefore, their requirement is bad law.

There you go in a nutshell.

I glean that you think it's bad law because there's no predicting whether or not a seatbelt will actually hurt you or harm you, and perhaps you think in the absence of such exactitude, the state has no compelling interest to step in and save you from yourself by passing law in that area. On one level, that's exactly how I feel about our federal government's laws on marijuana: there's no predicting whether or not using marijuana will ruin your life or just be another aspect of it. I know people whose lives are ruled by pot and people who use pot as part of their lives like others would use a six-pack. I feel that the state has no compelling interest to step in and save people from themselves when it comes to pot. For other drugs, maybe they do. I don't see "drugs" as all-encompassing.


622 posted on 10/04/2002 9:45:34 AM PDT by Hemingway's Ghost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 549 | View Replies ]


To: Hemingway's Ghost
RE: "no predicting whether or not a seatbelt will actually hurt you or harm you"

The seatbelt law is nothing but a ploy to allow police to pull over any vehicle and search any vehicle they say had someone in it not wearing their seat belt! Did not start that way but it ended up that way.

anecdotal but true: My brother was 1 of 4 not wearing a seatbelt and the only one to live in a car crash he was thrown clear of the car.

I wear mine because I always have and it saved my life twice. But, I don't like the law nor believe it is constitutional.
629 posted on 10/04/2002 10:12:13 AM PDT by PaxMacian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 622 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson