Why can the government tell us we must wear seat belts but can't force pregnant women to stop smoking?
449107
Your question is good and very interesting. What it shows is the many contradicitons in the law.\n\nIf goverment had it their way--I imagine they would outlaw many of the personal freedoms we have.\nWhy one law is set in place opposed to another depends on the lobby of folks in higher places that are willing to fight agaisnt it.\n\nIt is a fine line the goverment walks as they make laws on a public level without stepping on peoples personal rights.\n\nHowever--you are not without choice--you can choose not to wear seatbelts and pay the 10$ ticket if caught or you can organize folks to fight agaisnt an unjust law.\n\nLike I said above--it is these fights that explain why we have so many contradictions.
996643
No, if booze and cigerettes just came out today, they would be just as illegal as pot. They are all bad for you. Also, the government makes too much money by keeping it illegal. If they said it was ok, they couldn't keep all the money, cars, etc., that they took away from all the people that they catch.
1096946
way too far! businesses are going to suffer from these foolish laws. I say to people that don't smoke, just stay away from us and don't breath it. We don't blow the crap on them or anyhting.\nOh yeh, what about drinking in public, is that alright to have your child exposed to useless drunks, our governement is a bunch of a**wipes!
289611
If you don't agree with contraception don't use it.  If you don't agree with abortion don't have one.  What I don't understand is why you want the government to impose your beliefs on other people.
41806
An automobile puts more toxins into the atmosphere than any tobacco smoker does.  Should cars be banned?  It is always easier to point the finger at someone else and say their behavior is bad for your health than it is to accept one's own faults.\nSmoking is a bad habit.  So is overeating.  Should fat people be banned from public places?\nOur society should spend more time and effort preventing the next generation from smoking tobacco.  It may already be too late to change people who smoke now.
1170936
If they are a alcholic and not a drinker that is the more costly. They may cause car accidents costing police to look out for them as well as court costs for processing them. Lots of health costs for liver disease and others. If they are pregnant and drink that just continues the problems and cost for another person (and ruins their life for pretty much good.\n\nAs for smokers. Police do need to look out for them just underage smokers. They have lung and some other problems and cancer but I've never seen real studies that show that second hand smoke is anything but a nuisance. A pregnant smoker can cause problesm for her kid like underweight birth and such but nothing like a drinker would.
896149
The tobacco tax is more of a prohibitive act rather than a forced imposition from smokers.  This tax is term as the "power to destroy" a business because it levies a burdensome tax on the makers and users of cigarettes.
655637
In Utah, seatbelts are required for:\nAll front seat passengers \nAll passengers under age nineteen\n\nUtah's primary seatbelt law that states people under 19 years of age not in a seatbelt can automatically be pulled over and cited.\n\nPassengers over age nineteen riding in the back seat are NOT required to wear a seat belt....but it is a wise choice, nonetheless!
1018822
It is all objection and judgment! I want to ban women in public on their period! There are hospitals full of sick young fat people who can not stop putting food in their mouth.As their are old dieing smokers.We foot the larger portion of the bill for the long term sick fat addicted people.Do some research and you will have to agree with him it is a very similar PROBLEM.
431131
2 reasons:  1) History.  2) Momentum.\n\nIn regard to history, we already prohibited alcohol once in this country and it failed miserably.  For that reason, the prohibition was lifted.  Instead, we do have strict laws that greatly restrict when and how we can consume alcohol.  \nThose laws are designed to protect innocent people, even though people don't always follow the laws and people still get hurt.\n\n2)  The anti-tobacco campaign, however, is gaining huge political momentum.  The tobacco companies have lost big law suits because they lied about knowing of the harmful chemicals they were putting in cigarettes.  The tobacco industry had to shell out billions of dollars to states in a settlement and they have very little lobbying power right now to stop the local laws that are going into place.  The laws themselves don't prosecute a person for smoking per se, they only prosecute a person for smoking in a way that jeopardizes someone else's health.  So, if you are in public smoking a cigarette and someone else can breathe in your harmful smoke, you can be prosecuted... just like you can be prosecuted if you ram your car into someone when you are drunk.\n\nThe real question is... if we are holding people legally liable for polluting our air with cigarettes, why aren't we holding manufacturers strictly liable for dangerous smoke that they put into the air when there are things they can do, although more expensive, to lessen that degree of smoke?
134413
No, we wouldn't have to factor in the unwanted people if legs would be kept closed and there plenty of people who want but can't have. If self control was practiced we would have a lot less trouble with this topic. There are the few that get raped and whatever the other excuses are but there is adoption for that and as for health...my child has a right to live more than I do...abortion isn't really great for a woman's health either ya know?
290427
I've often asked myself the same question.  People say that driving is NOT a right but a privilege.  Using that logic, then having a baby is a right but NOT a privilege.....I think not.  It's been shown that having a drivers license does not make the roads safer but is generally simply a source of revenue for the state.  Everyone would be up in arms if a license were required to have a baby.\n\nThen there's Adoption.  The requirements for adoption are sometimes so onerous that one has to be practically a saint in order to adopt but any 14 year old (or younger) or drug addict can have a baby.\n\nIn other words, the answer to the question...Society and People are illogical and stupid.
942181
The government will always controll us-there's no getting away from that.  I have been living in scotland for 3 months now, and have been working in a pub for the duration, and i've yet to make up my mind whether its a good thing or not.  As a non smoker, i can see the benifits of not stinking of smoke or inhaling second hand smoke all night.  However on the flip side, if i really hated stinking of ciggeretts and inhaling second hand smoke, i wouldn't work in a smokey enviroment, and i would stay away from similar enviroments.  What i DON'T think is a good thing is crowds of 20 to 30 people gathering outside a pub/club for a smoke-in the pouring rain. I think proper ventilation and/or a beer garden.  They are fantastic. especially with BBQs.
626665
There is a federal law that says all people inside a car must be wearing safety belts.\n\nDoesn't matter if you're an adult or a child, front seat or back.\n\nClick-it-or-ticket!
816492
good question! I don't care for that freedom of choice jazz. the issue is the child's health & I keeping waiting to see what has to happen before overweight children becomes an important enough issue for the AMA or any govt agency to address. for example, I think it should be a crime for pregnant women to smoke but so far it's completely legal even with evidence of risks to the baby.
180445
Decisions made by government regarding the health and safety of the people are extremely difficult to change through the court system.  A Supreme Court case called Lee Optical established that as long as the law regulating medical practices in particularly, and health and safety generally, has a "rational basis" for being enacted, it will stand.  This is a state medical board decision, and it would likely be granted the same kind of broad deference.  The only way you could seek to change that regulation is to petition the board, and to enlist the help of others in petitioning the board.  That's just the way the democratic process works.
1034718
I don't really think Big Brother is listening to all our phone calls. Big Brother just doesn't have that much time and help.\n\nNot smoking? Here in FL people pretty much can't smoke indoors anymore, except in bars. That was a law passed by the voters. As a non smoker, even though I did not vote for it, it sure doesn't bother me to sit in a restaurant and not breathe in second hand smoke.\n\nI'm also all for the seat belt law. Aside from it protecting children, it also protects other people in the car from the 200 pound projectiles that morons become in an accident when they don't want to buckle up.\n\nBottom line (IMHO)-\nI don't really think that not wearing a seat belt is a right, as driving is a privilege. And since secondhand smoke has been proven harmful, I don't think people should be forced to be exposed to it.\n\nThe phone calls- that's something else. I do think there should be just cause for listening in on private conversations.