JC> your head, why not let the government control what type of
JC> food you put into your body?  After all, it's for your own
 DS> They do that already.
 
Really?  The government forces you to eat vegetables and brown rice to the 
exclusion of sugary treats and high-fat fast food restaurant goodies? Somehow 
I doubt it.  Even in the miliary they eat whatever garbage they want (and as 
far as I know, there is no law against eating slugs and worms and garbage and 
leaves if you really want to).
 
 DS> Just to play Devils Advocate for a moment (not that I believe
 DS> this stance mind you), but for the general good the Government
 DS> has said you must wear safety belts in a car. Why can't they say
 DS> that you must wear a minimum amount of protection on your head
 DS> (namely a helmut)? I agree with you that it is your own choice.
 
In my opinion, the safety feature of seat belts is the nominal reason for the 
law, but in reality the seat belt regulation is a vehicle control issue.  You 
can't operate the brake pedals or steer the car out of the spin if your hiney 
is hanging out the passenger side window.  :)
I don't object to the seat belt law because people who don't control their 
vehicle are a risk to other people.  The best application of law is when it 
protects me from bodily harm caused by someone else.
 
If someone wants to disable their air-bags, that is a personal safety choice 
issue, not a vehicle control issue.  I would not support a law that required 
you to keep your air-bags if you didn't want them in your car.  Let's hope 
that Congress doesn't pass a law requiring bicycle riders to wear air-bags on 
their heads!
--- Maximus 2.02
---------------