I hate being told what I can and can’t do. It’s as simple as that. If I choose not to wear my seatbelt it shouldn’t be anyone else’s concern. If I choose not to wear a helmet it shouldn’t be anyone else’s concern. If I choose to bungee jump, hang glide, jump out of a perfectly good airplane, drive a rocket car, etc…. it shouldn’t be anyone else’s concern.

Now all that being said…. I wear my seatbelt EVERY time I get into a vehicle. I make everyone else buckle up in my vehicle or the vehicle doesn’t move until they do. When I was in high school I rolled my truck down an embankment without wearing a seatbelt. I ended up breaking a few bones but it could have been much worse. Every since then I have buckled up religiously. But to me this is a personal choice. While I think it is stupid to not wear a seatbelt (believe me I have picked up more than I care to ever remember off the freeway for not wearing one) I don’t think it should be against the law. And then on top of that it is only really enforced for a few weeks out of the year. Click it or Ticket here in AR.

Mcoleman brings up a good point. If you choose to not wear your seatbelt or helmet then you have to pay for your choice if you have a wreck. Not the rest of the public. But to make it against the law is ridiculous.

Just my .02 worth.

Britt

 

drugs are NOT a victimless crime.

don't you realize that most crackheads keep pawnshops in business by stealing from honest people, dragging that stuff into a pawnshop,
and using that money to buy crack?

have you ever seen a crack head working at McD's?

get a clue & a gun.
kill the next crack head you see on your property. i will, if my dog don't get them first.

 

I just wish they'd all shut up. If I want to wear a selt belt, I'll wear it. If I want to wear a helmet, I'll wear it.

Why can't people mind their own business and quit minding mine? The Lord may tell me I am stupid for not wearing my seat belt when I get there, but I'll let him make that decision. He can have me when ever he wants, seat belt or no seat belt. And I hear the price of diesel is cheaper up there!

As for the "your truck is twice as likely to flip" commercials on the radio.....bug off. Quit wasting bandwidth that I could be listening to music on.

$.02

 

I agree with you whole heartedly. some folks are ok with one but not the other because it does not fit right with their moral standards, and that is as it should be.
However , because some people disagree with others should not give them OR their elected representative the right to dictate laws as per their personal convictions or beleifs
I can also go along with insurance companies and taxpayers not being held responsable when a person is injured because they chose not to wear a seatbelt or a helmet or when operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of a mind altering drug--prescribed or otherwise. drugs in this case would also include alcohol.

 

Just curious. If the insurance companies and taxpayers are going to be relieved of this responsibility, who is going to pay for the long term care of the individuals in the OTHER vehicle - you know, the one that the DUI driver slammed into?

Rusty

 

Refusing the claim would be fine with me. As long as it is the insurance industry making the decisions and not the (way to big for their own good) Government. I doubt if the insurance companies would have a problem covering the victim in the crash it's the person without the seatbelts or helmet that would lose his personal coverage if an accident occured.

 

And where do you think the insurance company will get the money to cover the victims of the non-covered individual (actually, I cited herb's DUI example in the post prior to yours)? Whose pocket will that money be coming from?

Rusty

 

I'd submit that if they aren't smart enough to buckle up, then elminating them from the gene pool is beneficial in the long run.

Is this kind of spending good stewardship of tax money? In a word: NO. But then again, when was any bureaucrat ever concerned with using money wisely? Heck, if they spent LESS money, then they get less next year. Thus, gov't waste is an institutional way of life. Why they INCENTIVIZE wastefulness if beyond me.

Justin

 

Auto owners now are required to have liability insurance to compensate others for damages. Coverage for this would not change. What should change is the coverage for damage to YOU if you aren't wearing a seatbelt or in the case of a motorcycle, a helmet. And yes there will be uninsured motorists but we have that now.

Not wearing a seatbelt or helmet does not increase the danger to other drivers so there should be no penalty for not doing so. Drinking alcohol or using drugs, as long as you don't operate machinery or vehicles, does not endanger or infringe on the rights of others therefore drug use is a victimless crime.

The reason drug addicts must steal to support their habit is because of the high cost of their drug of choice which is a result of drug prohibition. The violence and corruption of police and other LEO's as well as the many deaths from the violence associated with drug trafficing are the direct result of drug laws. If drugs are re-legalized the violence, death and corruption will disappear.

Of course there will be the occasional death from overdose just as there are deaths attributed to the use of alcohol and legal drugs. Addiction will not cease and there is much controversy as to whether drug use will increase with re-legalization. However saying that drug use is not a victimless crime because of the crime caused by drug prohibition is simply wrong.

Morality cannot be legislated. All of the problems we have from illicit drug use are magnified by drug prohibition. Most of these problems will disappear and addicts and alcoholics can get help or go to blazes for all I care. The wreckage of peoples lives will continue for addicts but the harm caused will be greatly reduced.

With drug re-legalization our prison population will be cut in half. Police and LEO's in general can concentrate of prosecuting violent and property crimes and actually guarding our borders and keeping us safe from terrorists. In fact the profits of the illicit drug trade will be radically slashed and there will be no drug lords and terrorists will lose a major source of funding. Gang violence fueled with drug dealing and turf wars will be greatly reduced.

The War on (some) Drugs is lost. Mainly because it isn't a war on drugs at all but a war on our own people. Everyone suffers in great or small part with the loss of money and the trashing of the Bill of Rights and the constitution.

This is the legacy of an open ended war on drugs (people) And points out the wrongheadedness of seatbelt and helmet laws.

In Liberty
Edwin

 

that would be why the innocent folks who were not at fault had been paying insurance premiums. They should be covered

 

from the premiums that the insurance companies had been collecting from the "non fault" persons

 

No, if those victims are left brain-damaged or quadraplegic for the rest of their lives, the premiums the victims have paid in are a drop in the bucket relative to the costs the insurance companies and/or Medicaid will pay out. Those dollars come out of MY pocket, either as premiums or as taxes.

If individuals want to go do their drugs, have at it. If they think, however, that I'm going to support their doing it with legal impunity, they are extremely wrong, and I strongly suspect that the great majority of the American voting populace shares my opinion.

Rusty

 

Ah yes! The democracy argument. That's why we have a constitution and a Bill of Rights, to protect the minority from the tyrany of the majority who could just as easily vote to enslave those who had the unfortunate fate of being in the minority who opposed slavery.

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

And by the way, our government is a Republic, NOT a democracy. That there are those in our government and others who no longer believe in Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Hapiness, or the bill of rights and think we all should live by a set of very narrow rules and don't do anything that the "majority" disapproves of is a sad thing indeed. More sad than all of the drug users and seatbelt and helmet non-wearers and all of the other perceived harm you think comes from the freedom to simply do what you want as long as you don't infringe on the rights of others and the "haunting fear that someone, somewhere, might be happy."

Edwin

 

Unfortunately....


Britt

 

Instead of legalizing drugs, maybe the left can apply their energies to fixing the cause of drug abuse. If people are so eager to get away from reality, then maybe they're not being raised right to begin with. Starting with some good old fashioned trips to the wood shed at a young age.