3 ms·

Seat belts and helmets protect the individual using them, so no they shouldn't be required. Heroin hurts the individual using, so it should be warned against b

Seat belts and helmets protect the individual using them, so no they shouldn't be required. Heroin hurts the individual using, so it should be warned against but not criminalized. You can't stop self harm by inflicting harm on the perpetrator. See also the regulation of marijuana which is a huge waste of money and only creates more problems than it solves. Compare with suicide prevention. Vaccines protect the population as a whole through herd immunity, so are different from your other examples.

bashinator 10y ago
Do you think that insurance companies should have the right to withhold coverage from people who don't use seat belts or helmets? Also, do you think the State should have the right to withhold drivers' licenses from people who cannot get insurance?
- vollmond 10y ago
  Wouldn't that come down to liability vs comprehensive? As it is, states only require liability insurance, which seems unlikely to be affected by my wearing of seatbelts or helmets. Helmets are optional in several states, yet I've never heard of that causing a problem for acquiring motorcycle insurance.
tokai 10y ago
You do use seat belts for the safety of others. Back seat passengers without seat belts increase the risk of front seat passengers dramatically during a crash. And front seat passengers without belts run the chance of turning in to a mansize projectile endangering all in an arch in front of the vehicle. You could also ague that anything that lowers the severity of traffic accidents lessens the work need by police and clean up crews. Effectively protecting them as working roadside can be a risky job.
tzs 10y ago
> Seat belts and helmets protect the individual using them, so no they shouldn't be required. Seat belts protect other people from you. If you are driving at street speeds and have to make a sudden sharp turn to evade something, such as a deer or child or pet that has darted into the road, you are much more likely to lose control if you are not wearing a seat belt due to centrifugal forces moving you away from your normal position upright and in front of the steering wheel.

bashinator 10y ago

Do you think that insurance companies should have the right to withhold coverage from people who don't use seat belts or helmets? Also, do you think the State should have the right to withhold drivers' licenses from people who cannot get insurance?

vollmond 10y ago
Wouldn't that come down to liability vs comprehensive? As it is, states only require liability insurance, which seems unlikely to be affected by my wearing of seatbelts or helmets. Helmets are optional in several states, yet I've never heard of that causing a problem for acquiring motorcycle insurance.

tokai 10y ago

You do use seat belts for the safety of others. Back seat passengers without seat belts increase the risk of front seat passengers dramatically during a crash. And front seat passengers without belts run the chance of turning in to a mansize projectile endangering all in an arch in front of the vehicle. You could also ague that anything that lowers the severity of traffic accidents lessens the work need by police and clean up crews. Effectively protecting them as working roadside can be a risky job.

tzs 10y ago

> Seat belts and helmets protect the individual using them, so no they shouldn't be required. Seat belts protect other people from you. If you are driving at street speeds and have to make a sudden sharp turn to evade something, such as a deer or child or pet that has darted into the road, you are much more likely to lose control if you are not wearing a seat belt due to centrifugal forces moving you away from your normal position upright and in front of the steering wheel.