Rather than attack the science behind studies of this sort, however questionable their processes, we should focus on the inappropriateness of the concept that something should be taxed because it's bad for us; if we focus on bad science, but later good science ends up showing the same results, we lose even though the fundamental reasons for our position are still valid.

I agree with Mark. Our response should be "so what?" Or even better, eliminate subsidies that make corn syrup artificially cheap.

Drop the sugar subsidies that make sugar, and ultimately all sugar end products so much more expensive in the U.S. The subsidies make sugar more than three times more expensive in the U.S. than elsewhere. Ultimately leading to the use of the less expensive corn syrup.

Basing an argument against "sin taxes" on supposedly "bad science" is dangerous. Especially when the main point of the study in question is that soda is not particularly healthy. Soda in moderation may have negligible impact on health. But any doctor worth her MD would tell you that heavy consumption of soda is relatively bad for your health.

The argument should be based on freedom vs. nanny-statism. By attacking these types of studies, those on the side of freedom conceed that the harmful nature of a product is relevant to the discussion.

I agree with all of the above. I also think we should end the tariff on foriegn sugar.

Great point, Mark.

I've been burned on attacking the science behind mandatory helmet laws. I don't believe I really lost the debate, but there are enough stats out there to support either position.

It's much easier and better to just stick to the philosophical argument... "it's my body, it's my choice".

There is one thing that most people don't figure in. We talk of mandatory helmet and seat belt laws but forget about mandatory insurance laws. I carry insurance on my car, wear my seatbelt, not because the government said so BTW, but because it is the intelligent thing to do. But I get screwed, because I have to pay more in insurance, because of morons who don't wear helmets/seatbelts. I strongly oppose seatbelt/helmet laws, but lets change the insurance laws so people like me to have to pay increased risk because of the stupid behavior of other people. If you don't wear seatbelt/helmet and are seriously injured, you should bear the increased medical costs of the situation totally out of your own pocket.

I agree with you on getting rid of mandatory insurance. However, in defense of people like me who refuse to wear helmets on motorcycles, I will say that we are not all morons.

Let's take insurance costs for an example. I work for a Life Insurance company, so I have a little bit of knoweldge about the subject. I am also a volunteer EMT, so again, not a complete uniformed idiot on this subject.

When I last applied for a life insurance policy, I was asked a series of questions to determine the risk I posed to the underwriting company. Among them: 1) do you scuba dive? 2) do you sky dive? 3) are you a firefighter? (I answered yes to all 3 (volunteer on the last one) so far LOL)... are you a tobacco user? how often do you leave the country, etc. But I have NEVER seen any question on any individual life or health policy asking people whether or not they wear helmets on motorcycles. Why is this? Simple. The actuaries have not determined that it is a significant risk factor in determining your risk category.

Beyond that simple argument, there are many other legitimate, reasonable arguments in support of the opinion that a piece of plastic on your head will not save you or help you in the majority of motorcycle accidents. In fact, in some cases, it actually will hurt more than it helps.

The bottom line is, we are entitled to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happines, but I've never seen anything in the constitution entitling us to cheap insurance.

Sorry, you just touched a nerve there, because above all else, I'm a biker.

Sorry about the moron comment. I did get a wee bit carried away, but I do tend to be passionate about safety issues.

Focusing on the seatbelt side, I will insist that people not wearing seatbelts are, to be nicer, exercising extremely bad judgement. I have been on the scene of a number of accidents in this area, where not wearing a seatbelt was pretty much the cause of death. Getting ejected through a pane of glass is a quick ticket to death by rapid blood loss. There is no argument against seatbelts. Of course, the government should not require them, but if you don't wear them, you alone should bear your responsibility.

Yes there is more latitude on helmets and there are certain dynamics where a helmet could actually be an aggravating factor. I would maintain that the odds would favor wearing helmets, but again, of course, the government should never require them.

As long as insurance is mandatory, I think the problem could be partially rectified by partially releasing any party to an accident from medical liability where the other party was not seatbelted. At least from the increased medical costs from not being seatbelted. The long range solution is ending mandatory insurance.

No question about seatbelts. It isn't so much the winshield that does it, it's the impact of a body hitting the pavement. Winshields are designed to come out with fairly little resistance from the inside; however, there are always 3 collisions in any motor vehicle accident: 1) The vehicle hits a foreign object, 2) The occupant hits the vehicle, and 3) The occupants internal organs hit his bones and muscles. Adding yet another impact (ejection onto pavement) just makes a body go through #2 and #3 all over again, but pavement is less forgiving than even aluminum or a dash board, so it's even worse.

Again, the issue of helmets is not quite that clear cut.

but the bottom line is we agree, mandatory insurance should go. In our state, just about the worst thing you can do in a car aside from DUI is driving without insurance. It's an enormous fine and possible jail time. Seems a bit crazy to me.

The catch with removing the requirement to carry liability insurance (which I do support, don't mistake me) is that when an uninsured motorist causes damage to another's property, if they are unable to pay damages, they can file for bankruptcy and then the wronged party has no recourse.

Coupled with removing the requirement for liability insurance should be an exception to all bankruptcy laws requiring that damages levied by a trial or out-of-court settlement still be paid even after bankruptcy.

Bankruptcy laws. That is another issue in and of itself that needs to be addressed by the libertarian movement. I haven't studied on it enough to have a good opinion what to do, other than to know that substantive changes do need to be made.

Was it really seatbelt laws that encourged people to wear seatbelts, or just the natural progression?

I think regardless of a law, the rate of seat-belt usage went up slowly over time just basd on common sense.

All these forced safety issues are tricky, because we are all forced to pay for medical tragedies that occur to poor people who make bad choices.

THAT is the system that needs to be addressed first. BUT, if we are doomed to pay for everyone's medical coverage then legislating behavior becomes ALMOST reasonable; though discomforting.

Seatbelt useage went up because of Click It or Ticket. The sheep didnt want to get seatbelt tickets.

I think seatbelt usage has gone up, because people have seen graphic footage on TV, of what happens when you don't wear seatbelts. When you hear of an accident, as you frequently do, where everybody in a car died, except the one person that was wearing their seatbelt, it tends to set off a bell in your mind. I think the Clickit or Ticket program has a relatively minor role in any increase. Common sense I think has the much greater role.

Did that many people actually get tickets for not wearing seatbelts? I was never quite sure how they can determine you aren't wearing a seatbelt anyway.

I still think it was a natural progression of common sense and learned behavior. More kids grew up with easy to use seatbelts, so they were trained to use them as adults. Seems traightforward.

Alot of this really boils down to whether a person considers driving a privaledge or a right. The LP of Kansas has in its platform that we believe driving to be a right rather than a privaledge. If one takes this stand, then no liability insurance should be required to drive a motor vehicle, just as there is no liability insurance required to own a firearm.