Quote:
Originally Posted by Phaneuf3
why should the government play safety police in one case and not the other? both can have serious (if not lethal) health effects.
|
Well, let's leave cigarettes out of it for the time being because that is a seperate arguement; and you won't find many people who think that cigarettes should be allowed. Non-smokers want to see them gone; and most smokers wish they had never started.
However booze and red meat- both of those consumed in appropriate quantities can be quite healthy. The problems with both come into play when used in excess. However in any motorcycle accident where the head strikes something, the helmet almost always helps.
Now for the "doesn't affect others"- we've been down this road before. Two scenarios:
- I hit a guy and it's my fault. Wearing a helmet he has some minor injuries, sues me for $20K, insurance pays for it. We're both happy. But if he isn't wearing it he ends up being a vegtable, family sues for $1.5 million, my insurance is $1M, and I lose my house.
- I hit a guy; he ran a red light but I was also changing a CD at the time. He dies. Now I have to live with the guilt for the rest of my life; and may never be able to listen to Nickleback ever again without pain running through me. (wait- that's now. nevermind.)
This doesn't even get into the insurance rates for all, taxes, etc.
Then let's take it to the extreme. We have people who's beliefs state they must not show off the colour red. Are we going to allow those people to disconnect their brake lights (ie- other safety equipment) to satisfy their beliefs?