Self Protection Laws.

What I'm referring to of course are seatbelt laws, self-harm laws, anti-narcotic laws, etc...

Is safety truly worth our freedom? How can the government truly impose on my personal freedom with "we know best" when I'm fully aware of the risks involved of not strapping up?

Are laws such as these borderline on a "Big-Brother" type scenario where they will control all aspects of our lives? Sure today it may seem reasonable to stop us from doing cocaine, the risks are apparent right? But what happens tomorrow when they make tobacco illegal, is that going "too far"? What about banning high-fat food? That's incredibly dangerous...

Obesity is one of the largest killers in the western world, if they feel it's justified to stop you injecting speed into your arm to protect, then how is stopping a chocolate bar any different...?

It may seem like a small price to pay for protection, but I say it is the highest price you can pay for anything: freedom.

How do you feel on the matter?

Because high fat foot is, like, still food?

Seatbelts are not only for your own protection, but for the protection of others from you.

What am I going to do, get in a car crash and go sailing out the windshield into some person on the street?

Because high fat foot is, like, still food?

You're saying that it has to do with it's nature? Last time I checked marijuana was quite natural, the items origin or substance has nothing basely to do with it's illegal status, it pertains with the harmful effects. It's not unfathomable that they would ban tobacco, banning high fat food is in the exact same field, it just happens to be less easy for the public to swallow so it's not something that's been done, although it very well could happen, the morality behind one is the same for the other...

Is there really a defining difference between something like food or the illegal psilocybian mushrooms (a.k.a. shrooms (although legal in certain places as with many things))? They're both edible substances that have negative effects? In fact, I would say that is a food source being banned right there.

Seatbelts are not only for your own protection, but for the protection of others from you.

So it could be justified but that's hardly near a main intent, perhaps the graph of deaths caused by "body shrapnel" could be shown..? I think the evidence behind the harm of second hand smoke is laughable, I can't even say how I feel on this, unless you had a different meaning?

How far would they have to go in order for you to pay attention? If it's banning unhealthy food or similar, then I suggest taking a look around, as that's practically what's been done now...

This is one matter that the government is actually helping people with. Logically in itself it's best to take precautions, even if restricting a little bit of freedom to save lives.

If someone is stupid enough to be reckless, let them, and let them die with freedom.  My only concern would be the people who could get hurt by the others recklessness through no fault of their own.

I actually think it wouldn't be a terrible idea to ban unhealthy food.

Did you seriously just use seatbelt laws as an example of infringing on one's freedom? If wearing a seatbelt bothers you that much, you don't have a problem with self protection laws, you obviously just have a problem with authority and people telling you what to do. People wear seatbelts because it's proven that it saves lives in some cases. I said some cases, so don't get all "a seatbelt won't save your life when colliding headfirst with a truck" on me. Nothing will save you in that scenario, so don't try to use one extreme case as if it dispells all other cases.

I bet you just got pulled over recently or something because you weren't wearing yours and now you need to rage against the machine.

The rest of your argument, though, is actually worthy of being in the Intelligent Debate section.

MANY self protection laws are rediculous. If the government of a country has the power to ban Drugs, why do they not ban alcohol r tobacco, or dangerous foods? Its because they cant tax drugs. Believe me, you could walk into a mom and pop store and buy some coke for 100 dollars with an 8 percent tax if the government was able to do that. And seat belts of course, well, its basically a counter to a law of intertia. And if you think your over the law, and dont need to wear a seatbelt, you're certainly not over the laws of matter.

I wonder. Saucy, are you pro-choice or pro-life?

MANY self protection laws are rediculous. If the government of a country has the power to ban Drugs, why do they not ban alcohol r tobacco, or dangerous foods? Its because they cant tax drugs. Believe me, you could walk into a mom and pop store and buy some coke for 100 dollars with an 8 percent tax if the government was able to do that. And seat belts of course, well, its basically a counter to a law of intertia. And if you think your over the law, and dont need to wear a seatbelt, you're certainly not over the laws of matter.

And why can't they tax drugs?
Also, lol at you being a dumbfuck.