Laws Designed to Mind Other People's Business

[elfwitch]

I have been thinking about the huge number of laws that exist to mind your business for you. Some of these laws include seatbelt and helmet laws, laws prohibiting suicide, drug laws, laws that limit reproductive freedoms, and so on.

The way I see these laws is that the government feels that people need to be protected from themselves. Which means that the government either feels that people are too stupid and infantile to manage their own personal lives or quite possibly it is something far more sinister.

For you to discuss and ponder:
Why are there so many people that are in favor of these types of laws? Seems that there are quite a few folks in the world that feel they have the right to mind your business while never minding their own.

What laws do you think exist only to mind your business for you? More specifically, which laws do you think are designed to protect you from yourself?

[stopthegop]

1. some of the ones you list...

seat belts, helmets, some drug laws...plus smoking bans in restaurants

[DebJ]

2. smoking bans in public places protect you from OTHERS, not from

your own choices. Sign me "heavy smoker who respects others right to breathe"...right to life and health predominates over right to your pleasure if it injures anothers...

[stopthegop]

11. so go to a non-smoking restaurant...

the owner should decide...not the state...
but that's a discussion for another thread

[forgethell]

12. The second hand smoke

myth has been pretty well debunked. Besides, let the owners decide whether smoking is allowed, and the customer decide if that's where they want to go.

It's just another money-making ruse (through fines) of the government. There is never enough revenue.

[alarimer]

18. Still disgusting

I thinking smoking is a vile and disgusting habit and doesn't belong where food is served. How gross.

[hippiegranny]

62. a smoking section in a restaurant

is equivalent to a pissing section in a pool. i think george carlin said it.

[PissedOffPollyana]

59. Got to agree there...

... as a smoker who thinks Seattle had the right idea. They allowed bars & restaurants to choose for themselves, thus allowing patrons to choose too. What a novel concept!

I haven't read down yet (naughty me), but have an idea that some of the laws have more to do with this:

helmet/seatbelt laws: insurance companies wanting an easy out to having to pay injury claims & cash-strapped states taking advantage of a sure-fire ticket and the revenue raised by it.

drug laws: an easy way to lock up people "we" think are prone to commit crime, an easy out for insurance companies to deny payment of illness claims and a way to raise rates on business policies if any employees test "dirty", a way to keep the control over the lucrative drug trade and keep prices high (lest we forget, we know that not too long ago, our government at least facilitated), uptight zealots afraid their kids might see things through a more mellow eye (*hee hee*)

sex laws: Come on, if guaranteed sex were readily available, cost-effective and legal, what would happen to the lucrative "selling desperate people anything they think might get them laid" industry
**laughing** That one really is just about uptight zealotry ... what else is there?

There are a variety of other factors that cause this sort of victimless crime enforcement in general.
1- Some people have issues with seeing anything they either disagree with, are scared by or do not allow themselves.
2- Many people are pretty dumb (got to admit... I've done a LOT of time with the general public) and prone to do harm to themselves and others if given the opportunity.
3- Too many people just like to boss other people around and force them to live by their rules.

Some "for their own good" laws really are justified and needed. For instance, I am very happy there are speed laws on most urban highways. I am ecstatic that most areas only allow dopey, harmless fireworks unless one is a professional. I sleep better at night knowing that laws like this exist, while hating those that are arbitrary or designed to limit real freedoms.

~M

[elfwitch]

6. smoking bans...

I've been thinking about these laws. I figure when your personal business may intrude on another person's space, that is when some of these make sense.

For example, if I decide to smoke in my own home or around people who I know don't mind if I light up, then it is nobody's business but mine (and maybe my friends who don't care). If I am someplace where my smoking might butt in to somebody else's life, and they hadn't agreed to have my smoke all over them, then it becomes not just my business but theirs too.

I figure some things do fall under the your rights end where someone else's begin clause.

But certain things, like seatbelts, are prety much a me only thing. if I know the risks of driving without a seatbelt and I choose to go without anyway, then I deserve to die if I crash and didn't wear one.

Does that make sense?

[drfemoe]

61. Smoking and non smoking

restaurants would accomplish the same thing. It preserves choice.

OTH if we're riding in the same car, we will both buckle-up. You may not care if you go crashing through the windshield, but I would like to prevent your hurling body from takeing me out along the way.

If I smoke and wear a seat belt, the stats average out . j/k

[ramapo]

3. And strangest of all...

The Republicans constantly preach the "government out of your life" sermon but they're the ones pushing the most intrusive legislation.

I've always favored the helmet and seatbelt laws but I guess you should have the option to be stupid if you want. However when kids are involved it changes the equation a bit.

[elfwitch]

9. I agree on the kids thing.

As a parent you have a cartain amount of Godlike power over the lives of your kids, but since they aren't old enough to make certain decisions for themselves, things like mandatory seatbelts for kids is not such a bad thing.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

4. the essence of libertarianism

no not with a capital L either, as in the party. I'm talking about the belief that if most of the governmental restraints were lifted off of people, they would behave humanely and without belligerence towards one another. Contrast that with the current belief, to sacrifice liberty for the false perception of safety at every turn.

[drfemoe]

64. eeeek!!

they would behave humanely and without belligerence towards one another

IF ONLY .. that's not quite the same. Even DU has to have rules to keep the "peace", and we agree on a lot of things!!

I believe in live and let LIVE. But too many in our society would just as soon deprive others the right to life itself if given the chance.

[lastliberalintexas]

5. Many

There are far too many laws regulating what I can and can not do, despite the fact that my behavior has no impact on others. Unfortunately, too many in power have basically adopted the Hamilton/Federalist view of the world that We the People need to be protected from ourselves, rather than the Jefferson/Liberal ideal of trusting the individual.

There was a good book about this topic I read several years ago- "Ain't Nobody's Business if You Do" or something like that. I think there is also an updated version, though I have not read it. It pointed out several areas where propaganda and/or religiosity have been used to push through these kinds of laws.

I'd add to your list the wet county/dry county laws we have in texas regulating the sale of alcohol and the criminalization of prostitution (I know, not a very popular idea among feminists, but I think women should have FULL control over their bodies and what they do with them, so long as the prostitution isn't forced or part of the sex slave market).

[elfwitch]

13. dry country in Texas

You hit my button on that one. It is one of the MANY resons why I absolutely dispise Dallas. I spent most of my life in San Antonio where you can buy beer and wine at any grocery store. In Dallas, that rule seems to change every 100 yards. Ticks me off more than anything else that is stupid about this city.
:mad:

[DebJ]

7. re: seatbelts and helmet laws... I support them unless

I am not going to have to pay for the head injuries of people too stupid to protect themselves from injury. If a motorcyclist wants to smear his brains all over the highway, just don't jack up MY insurance premiums. I should not have to pay for other people to injure themselves.

[el_gato]

28. that's a phoney argument

can you prove to me there is a direct correlation?

Rather than insurance industry propaganda

and even if it were valid does that mean you value money more than freedom?

[DebJ]

34. do you understand the basic principals of how insurance is designed to

function? Also I worked in insurance for five years and I saw personally how many things were done, and have no problem with what I saw at all.

I value MY money as MY freedom, and do not feel that anyone has the right to take my money to keep them on life support because they were reckless and negligible and endangered themselves.
For example, I don't want my car insurance company to pay out money to a guy whose car was stolen because he left the keys in it and left it unlocked. That type of claim is denied as a moral issue....you set yourself up....hey you can buy a NEWER car and get rid of your junk and I pay for it with car premiums. That is not the intent of insurance, which is intended to protect a group of people from unanticipated events. Unless the participants strive to keep events from occuring, insurance doesn't work. I'm glad when my premiums pay for someone's car that was smashed by a tree in a windstorm. That's different. That's what insurance is for.

[el_gato]

38. It's my freedom keeps your hand to yourself

don't couch your problems with the insurance industry as and excuse to take away my freedom.

If you have problems it is with the insurance industry and how it is sturctured.

I've had insurance for years only because the scumbag lobbyist have worked to make it mandatory but I never use it. Whenever you do happen to use it they jack up your rates. So don't give me that garbage about taking your money.

[DebJ]

40. my Mom was hit head on by a scumbag drunk driver and forced into

shock trauma for six weeks at the age of 60. Six major surgeries, 11 complete blood transfusions, has spent the rest of her life in a wheelchair, still suffering, albeit it has been 15 years, from complications from this accident. If not for the lobbyists who forced the other driver to have insurance, there would not have been even the minimum limit $50k to help pay for her injuries. Mom's insurance put out part of the rest, and she's had to pay a lot herself. Without those scumbag lobbyists, my Mom would not be alive today. Thank you God for SOME mercy.

[DebJ]

42. my problems aren't with the insurance industry. They are with people

who want others to pay for their own recklessness, or who can't see that they are making others pay because they don't want to see that. Insurance is a need in today's society, to protect me FROM people who want me to work extra hours to pay for their fun that injures me.

[el_gato]

44. that's a phoney argument

see my post below about insurance industry profits

so don't tell me they have to raise rates to cover costs of providing a service they advertise to begin with

[lapislzi]

8. you're lumping together 2 types of laws

one, I call the "crotch-doggie" laws...like the ones designed to limit reproductive freedoms or the civil rights of GLBT people.

Then there are the "nanny state" laws, like seat belts, helmets, etc.

Neither morality nor intelligence can be legislated. Fortunately for the former; sadly for the latter. You cannot create enough laws to prevent people from being stupid.

That's why we have Darwin Awards!

[rucky]

10. This is where trial lawyers have hurt the liberal cause

it's ultimately about lawsuits & $$$... unless you genuinely assume that people are too stupid to take care of themselves.

I think it's hypocritical to be anti-gun & and pro-choice. The underlying arguement in both cases is how much control the government should have in people's personal lives.

I don't own a gun, nor would I have an abortion... but I'll respect the rights of others to choose for themselves.

[lastliberalintexas]

14. Umm, no

These laws have nothing to do with the oh so evil trial lawyers. Trial lawyers have sued in the past to have seatbelts included as standard equipment on vehicles, but they have not sued to mandate the wearing of same. There is a difference in requiring the safety equipment be provided by the business/corporation and mandating that an individual actually use it.

These laws have nothing to do with lawsuits- they are simply about controlling people's lives and/or generating revenue for the state. Whether the law concerns seatbelts or abortion or guns, it is indicative of the gov't telling its populace that it doesn't trust the people and would rather attempt to mandate behavior.

Disclosure- I am one of those oh so evil trial lawyers. :-)

[rucky]

20. So Sue Me...

Okay, dont sue me...we'll settle out of court.

I stand corrected

:)

[elfwitch]

15. exactly ! (on the mind your own business part)

What got me thinking about it is something I saw when driving around this weekend. There was one guy standing on the side of the road with a white sign with red letters the read"Anit-Porn, Pro-Decency".

It cheesed me off big time. What business is it of his if I or anyone else likes or watches porn. And who gets to define decency anyway? If it was that whack-job, then we are all doomed. It would be 24-hour "Touched By an Angel" marathons on all channels for guys like that.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

16. Yeah, seatbelts are the problem

Right. The mutual fund industry is in the middle of a fraud scandal that makes Enron look like child's play, wages are dropping like a rock, we're in the middle of a war we can't win, and both Republicans and Democrats are doing whatever they can to "modermize" and "privatize" Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid.

But DU knows where the priorities are - the government is oppressing us by making us wear seatbelts on public highways, wearing a helmet when riding a motorcycle, and the fact that two men can't get married.

No wonder we are the minority party.

P.S. - if you're too stupid to wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle, you deserve your Darwin award.

[elfwitch]

17. but that is the point...

With all the really important stuff that needs to be done, legislators wate time coming up with intrusive laws. As scary as the world is, we really need cops wasting their time pulling people over for not wearing a seatbelt? If all the energy that is spent creating laws that try to control how I lead my private life was channeled in to creating laws that help the environment or the poor or the eldery or whatever else, don't you think the world could be a better place to live in ?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

19. but I don't see how this helps

Sorry I'm bitter today. DU will be little help in dealing with the corporate crooks and exporting jobs. Instead, DU will be at the forefront of gay marriage, late term abortion, and protecting our "right" to not wear seatbelts and helmets.

[elfwitch]

22. intelligent discussion

Having an intelligent discussion about things with like-minded people doesn't preclude taking action on other issues as well. If, for no other reason, people find others here that are just as frustrated about these kinds of issues as they are.

The big corporate scandals and jobs and healthcare and Social Security and son on are VERY important and get discussed a lot on DU too.

[sangh0]

24. intelligent discussion = distraction

The time spent "intelligently discussing" seat belt laws is time that will never be spent intelligently discussing how to defeat Bush* and his minions.

[elfwitch]

27. So people can't have multiple discussions?

We all have to stick to certain issues and leave others undiscussed for the time being?

Some people will get involved in de-throning * because of these types of things. Some people get involved or excited by different things. If a person feels passionately about gay marriage, that might be the thing that gets them out to vote. They might feel they can do something about that and may feel powerless on the things you find most importatn. The point is gettnig people passionate about something. Getting people motivated enough to get out and vote. if stuff like this is the only thing that will motivate someone, then it is a good discussion to have.

The RW has single issue voters. People vote for GW just because he is anti-abortion and for no other reason. Getting butts in voting booths is what the game is all about.

[sangh0]

32. Nice try

but who said you CAN'T have multiple discussions?

[elfwitch]

56. you did in a way...

You said we shouldn't waste time discussing these things when there is more important stuff out there. I say, if a discussion like this gets someone interested, it might lead them to what you seem to think is the more important stuff.

Why can't we spend time on it all?

[sangh0]

23. It doesn't help. It never helps to spread RW propoganda

which is exactly what this "mommy government" crap is. What elfwitch fails to understand (or intentionally ignores) is all the lives saved by these seat-belt laws.

[elfwitch]

25. seat belt laws...

The seat belt thing is not my main beef. Honestly I don't care one way or the other. I'm more interested in finding out what kinds of laws people feel are more about the government playing "mommy" than they are about protecting the interests of all citizens.

Laws regarding sodomy, for example, are just laws dictating what you can or cannot do in the privacy of your own bedroom. These are the kinds of laws I'm talking about. Some people feel that seat belt or helmet laws fall in to this category. Some people don't. I'm just interested in what compells legislators to create intrusive laws and what kind of laws do YOU think fall in to this category.

[el_gato]

29. we could lock you up and feed you to keep you safe as well

this would reduce risk of injury and possibly save your life

[sangh0]

36. Another alternative

would be to learn about the law, and how these specified laws are justified by legal principles and the Constitution. I realize this is a little more difficult than babbling about the simplistic Republican idea of a "mommy government", but it might lead to a discussion that actually is "intelligent"

(Hint: speculating about how my safety is helped by locking me up is "not intelligent". Discussing the govt's role, as detailed in the Constitution, in addressing public health issues is "intelligent". That's why I alluded to the # of lives that are saved, and not just the fact that a life might be saved)

[el_gato]

53. people die all the time, it's a fact of life

So taking away liberty via the "it saves many lives" argument is still not justified IMHO.

[alarimer]

21. seat belts and helmets

While I agree that a person can choose not to use them, I understand why they are mandatory. I see it as more of a public health issue. Having these laws saves money for the government. People who don't wear seatbelts or helmets are more likely to be severely injured or killed in accidents. They would then have to go to an emergency room which are already overburdened with indigent patients. Many emergency rooms are in public hospitals so there is a public cost associated with not having these laws. Plus the fewer people they have to scrape up off the pavement, the more time police officers can spend on other things.

[el_gato]

30. it's called freedom

comes at a price

of course we could all be slaves of the government, if that's what you want

[DebJ]

31. freedom for YOU to spend YOUR money on YOUR head injuries is just

fine with me. But it is not freedom for me if YOU take MY money to pay for YOUR head injuries that were caused by irresponsibility to protect your self. Indeed, this is a similar issue to the real 'flame' that started the American Revolution into a blaze. When the Committees of Correspondance spread the word that the Brits were now allowed by KGIII to come into their homes and take and use whatever they needed, it was this final infringement on the right to dispose of their property as they chose that really set things off.
You have no right to take the money I sacrificed my time/life for so that you can injure yourself. You can have the freedom to spend your own time and money however you like. Just don't steal from my pocket.

[el_gato]

33. That is a bullshit line and you know it

I never asked you for a dime and never will.

NOW keep your hands off my rights.

got anything better?

[DebJ]

39. but you get my dime through the insurance premiums I pay. I agree you

can have your rights to injure yourself, as long as the insurance company refuses to pay for your injuries. I keep saying: you have the right to injure yourself, just don't take any insurance money from responsible people. Pay for shock trauma yourself. You should have the right to do that.

[el_gato]

43. see my post below

you have obviously fallen for propaganda

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

58. on your private property, no helmet or seatbelt needed

now if you want to drive on a public highway, you have to wear a seatbelt or helmet - see the difference? This does not infringe on your freedoms in any way.

[el_gato]

35. You have no right to take my freedom

especially when I don't want your stinkin' money for anything.

I'll take care of myself and you can take care of yourself or if you want to turn yourself over to the government for babysitting that's fine too.

But don't give me these phoney arguments about your money!

[drfemoe]

63. and sometimes I go to the DU Lounge

just to get away from the madness of the world which reflects large even at DU.

Good thread good topic. beats the hell out of candidate bashing.

:toast:

[Jacobin]

26. How 'bout laws that tell you what gender you have to marry?

Or which hole you can't put your schnietzel in?

[ACK]

37. I am left/libertarian so..

I agree with you almost entirely.

I do have problems with the smoking ban but I understand when personal freedoms conflict with public interest stuff.

All the rest of the things you listed annoy the crap out of me. I get all ACLU over this stuf.

[el_gato]

41. Insurance Industry Profits are 14.5 billion for 1st half of this year

So don't give me that rise in premiums excuse for taking my rights away.


"According to the Insurance Services Office, American property and casualty insurers had a combined net profit of $14.5 billion for the first half of this year. American International Group (AIG) and
Allstate, two of the nation’s leading insurers, both had significant third quarter profits showing that the industry’s positive economic trend continued through the summer. AIG reported its net income for the third quarter at $2.34 billion, an increase of 26.9 percent. Allstate reported a net income of $691 million, an increase of 77 percent."

http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:BdvdIMcpDEkJ:www.wvcag.org/victimrights/press/2003_10_27_insurance_profits.pdf+insurance+industry+profits&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

[DebJ]

46. I don't doubt that at all. Big money always takes more and more but

there is also the fact that they will take EVEN more to cover increased expenses, so that their excessive profits always continue to rise. There are two issues here: one the valid means of insurance coverage which does protect those insured, and how it works (you can't put out more than you take in, plus they do get some profit) and the second issue of excess profits, which is rampant in banking and financial industries of all types. No matter how bad the economy, banks keep taking money ooops Freudian typo making money.

[el_gato]

47. so why don't you go after them instead of our liberty?

[DebJ]

52. why is it a choice? I'd go after both....if your liberty means taking my

liberty....I think you lean towards Anarchy?? So we will simply have to disagree. You obviously do not understand the purpose of insurance and obviously do not want to do so, so there is no point attempting anything further. If you don't want the benefits of society, fine, just don't take mine away. You can live in isolation, but don't disrupt my liberties. Don't let drunks and reckless drivers injure me and leave me helpless and penniless because they are having too much fun to pay insurance. If you don't want the responsibilities of being part of society, then stay out of society.

[el_gato]

55. your presenting a false choice

If you don't understand that risk is inherent in life then you don't understand the nature of freedom.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

65. to drive on a public highway, you have to wear your seatbelt

You do not have a "right" to drive on a public highway without wearing a seatbelt. Pretending that takes away your liberty is laughable - only the most spoiled and priviledged person could feel their freedom is taken away by having to wear a seatbelt - I suppose a driver's license is an affront to freedom loving people everywhere?

[bleedingheart]

45. People asked for those laws... I don't like the use of the phrase

"the government" is trying to mother me by (fill in the blank)

The reason those laws are on the books are because constituents asked their lawmakers to look into issues. They presented their case and if the lawmaker was okay with it...they presented the bill that would eventually become law.

Why do people ask for those kind of "mommy" laws...most likely due to tragedies they or a loved one experienced.

I had a friend who ignored the child car seat law just once so she could feed her restless infant a bottle. Her husband lost control of the car and she and the baby were tossed out the windshield. Her little boy died on impact. The law was there...but she ignored it and she paid the ultimate price and her husband was charged with manslaughter.

Helmet laws are the same, I bet a bunch of mothers and ER doctors saw the number of people who were brain damaged or dead due in part to not wearing a helmet...so they acted to help others.

In fact it was people..who got the helmet law overturned in PA just recently....people go to lawmaker >lawmaker decides based on popularity> presents bill> bill may or may not become law... "I'm just a bill sitting on Capitol Hill"...remember that refrain...?

If we were really going to mind our own business I guess there shouldn't be Children and Youth Services ..hell its so underfunded now it doesn't even work well enough in most states. Should we really care as a society if someone is beating the shit out of their kid? Its technically none of our business...and hell if they beat the kid to death they could go to jail...Why should we mother stupid people??? But alas a lot of people have this thing called compassion (note repubs pretend they have it but don't)... and they want to help...they want to help people avoid making terrible mistakes.

I will also make a prediction for the future! (free of charge)

In a few years the tattoo industry is going to be heavily regulated! I predict that a bunch of the kids today that are getting tattoed are going to regret that decision later... as 35-40 year old adults they are going to have a change of heart and due to bias against them they are going to lobby to have a law put into place to raise the age for tattoos to 21...or something like that...and then some waiting period to make sure that your really really want to get it!

[DebJ]

48. Thanks for the reasonable post. Not all of us want to live in anarchy

and go back to cave man days, every man completely for himself, club who you want if it feels good hey do it!

[el_gato]

57. that is a false characterization

and you know it

[el_gato]

49. it's mostly lobbyists protecting profits

as well as established industry insiders protect others from entering the business

[bleedingheart]

51. give me proof...

[DebJ]

54. sure because we are a govt for corporations (money) sure until the people

wake up and start voting and talking and making changes. Its all about money, money, money....the BIG money....

[DrWeird]

50. Marijuana laws.

At least smoking in restaurant laws, seat belt laws, and helmet laws actually protect people.

[SahaleArm]

60. The same could be said if the government locked me in a cage.

It's for your protection :puke:

[Heddi]

66. Re: the Insurance Premium complaints

I, too, don't think that seat-belt and helmet regulations should be regulated by law.

I wear a seatbelt, and I did before S.C. (where I lived the majority of my life) made it a law. I've always worn my seatbelt, and I do it regardless of the status of the law. Should the law re: seatbelts be repealed tomorrow, I would still wear my seat-belt.

My husband has a motorcycle. He wears a helmet, but not because a law dictates that he should. Should the helmet law be repealed tomorrow, he'd still wear his helmet.

People throughout this thread have complained that their insurance premiums shouldn't be affected by the stupidity of another person. THat is true.

The insurance companies should be the ones to 'regulate' seat-belt wearing, or helmet wearing if you want to be covered under their policy.

I don't know about other states, but recently, Washington insurance companies have started basing insurance rates NOT JUST on prior driving history, age, driving habits, etc, but ALSO on credit scores.

Am I more likely to be in an accident if I have bad credit? Am I more likely to disobey traffic rules if I've filed bankrupcy?

I find this more to be more of an issue.

If I don't wear a seatbelt, and I get in an accident, the ONLY person I'm hurting is myself.

If I ride a motorcycle w/o a helmet, and I become road-pizza, I am the only victim

Now, of course, accidents of this nature are generally more life-threatning than accidents that occur when people wear seat-belts & helmets. People involved in these accidents do put a higher burden on health-care, but let's not forget that health care is already overtaxed (work-load wise) as it is. Hospitals are under staffed and have too many patients. They'll be more understaffed as years go by and the nursing shortage increases, as more people become underinsured or uninsured and rely on public health facilities for what SHOULD be routine treatments, and as more public health facilities are shut down due to lack of funding, therefore placing more of a burden on the remaining centers that are open.

We have an aging population who is living longer with diseases that used to be life-enders. We have a rapidly aging baby-boomer generation, and not enough nurses and other non-doctorate hospital personell to fill the rapidly growing spaces and posisitions in need of staffing.

But un-lawing seatbelt and helmet laws isn't going to exponentially add to the problem of overburdened hospitals, or overworked medical personnel.

I would wager to bet that most people would continue to wear their seatbelt were there no law mandating that they do so.

I would also wager to bet that most people would continue to wear helmets while riding their motorcycles should the current laws demanding that they do so be repealed.

Those who decide not to partake in very simple methods to extend their own life in the event of an accident are making that decision themselves.

A large number of people commit suicide by using razor blades. Should all razor blades be sold with safety measures of some kind that would guarantee that the user of said razor blade could never use it as a personal offing device? SHould there be a law stating that a razor blade can never be purchased without this said safety device?

Should all knives and siscors being sold have only blunt ends and plastic blades, to prevent us from harming ourselves while using siscors and knives?

There are many ways people can self-destruct, or participate in self-destructive behaviour. Not wearing a seat-belt, or a helmet are just two of the many, many ways out there.

Legislating it isn't the solution. THere will always be stupid people in society.

Fortunately (or unfortuantely, depending on your views), being stupid isn't a crime, nor should it be.

[bleedingheart]

67. people could work to overturn the seatbelt laws

the helmet law was repealed in PA just this summer because of activism.

If people really don't want to wear seatbelts then they can form a group and lobby to get the law repealed.

Would I stop using a seatbelt? Never.

Before car seats were the rage I had one as a baby in 1969. It saved my life because while sitting in it I was able to open the car door. and because I was restrained I didn't fall out...(although my dad nearly had a heart attack when it happened)

[Qutzupalotl]

69. Interesting.

The insurance companies should be the ones to 'regulate' seat-belt wearing, or helmet wearing if you want to be covered under their policy.
That's a good idea. Could they tell from the photos of the accident or the autopsy that you weren't wearing a seatbelt or helmet? I guess they could. Maybe we should pass this idea along to someone who can act on it. Anyone have an insurance commissioner's address?


If I ride a motorcycle w/o a helmet, and I become road-pizza, I am the only victim.
Up to a point. If you have insurance, despite what the poster said about their profits, eventually they will raise their rates. (Their high profits could be a result of fewer payouts last year, I don't know.) If you don't have insurance, local tax money gets used up for your ER visit and highway cleanup.

Not to diminish your point, though. A few dollars here or there are nothing compared to bashing your skull open.

[Qutzupalotl]

68. Maybe if we think of crimes as either victimless or having victims

it'll be easier to discuss. Many of us are getting stuck on details of particular issues, so I thought this would be a productive way of dividing up the laws.

Possession of MJ for personal use=victimless
Possession for distribution=victimed (maybe)

Consensual sodomy=victimless
Anal rape=victimed

Smoking 20 ft away from me=don't care
Blowing smoke in my face=back off, buddy

That seems to pull out the minding-others'-business laws that serve no useful purpose, but ignores the ones that do have a purpose.

Please discuss...