[Hoot Gibson]

I see where you're coming from on the whole individual responsibility thing and all; however, would you at least admit that it could be argued with resonance that the State has a compelling interest in an adult wearing a seatbelt, given accident statistics and the tremendous cost (in life and real dollars) to society in such "no belt" cases?

The reason that the state has a compelling interest in adults wearing seatbelts is the system that the state has created. As long as the state is willing to use public funds to keep individuals from facing the consequences of their own reckless behavior, then you can make the case for all sorts of instances where the state has a compelling interest in depriving individuals of personal liberty.

The cost of the consequences of conscious decisions by individuals who ignore the statistical evidence that seatbelts save lives should be placed where it belongs - on the individuals making those decision. More people would be wearing seatbelts and fewer people would be dying in automobile accidents if the costs of not doing so were not distributed to taxpayers and large pools of insurance policy holders.

I want to buy a cheap policy that is null and void if I fail to wear a seatbelt and I am injured or killed in an accident. Why should we not have that option and why should we be paying any the costs for others who make a conscious decision to risk flying through their windshields in car crashes?