I have recently viewed a plethora of TV commercials here in my home state of Arkansas regarding the enforcement of the new seat belt laws. The first law stated that you could get a ticket if you or your front seat passenger weren't wearing a seat belt, but it could only happen as a secondary offense, meaning the hired guns for the government couldn't pull you over for it. So of course, this past legislative session has given birth to the new law that makes not wearing a seat belt a primary offense traffic violation. This means, starting June 1st, I can be pulled over for not wearing my seat belt and given a ticket. Nearly every state has some form of seat belt laws. I have a problem with this.
The legislature has stated time and again that these laws are implemented for our own protection. The legislature is protecting me from me. When have they had the power to do so? I have listened to many people that I'm acquainted with say they believe the seat belt laws are great and that it will save lives. That may be, but the question still stands: When did it become the government's job to protect the citizens from themselves? And where is the line drawn when it comes to this? Seat belts? Skydiving?
As well intended as this may be, which is rarely the case, it is still a complete Constitutional violation of my rights. I make the choice whether I wear a seat belt or not. The act of not wearing a seat belt does not infringe upon the rights of any of my fellow citizenry. So why does the government feel it must protect me from me when the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of Arkansas say no such thing? Control is one reason, but mainly, it's about money.
The recession has brought about lower revenues for city and county governments. Sales tax revenues are down. Business licensing fees are down. So, they find ways to fine the populace by going directly after them. Speeding, lane change violations, no seat belts, and reckless driving. The amount of tickets for traffic violations have been increasing as the recession has continued. Traffic violations are also the main source of revenue for city police budgets, especially in small towns and municipalities. But what is rather surprising about this is the populace fails to see that this is the case. Why would money not be the main reason behind these traffic laws if it is illegal to warn oncoming traffic of police? Wouldn't the warning cause people to slow down their vehicles and drive carefully? Isn't that the point of traffic laws? Obviously not.
The people of the United States allow their local governments to rape them of their money, and support them in it. It is a rather sad thing to see.
