I read with dismay the Sun Journal's Feb. 3 editorial continuing to support the status of failure to wear a seat belt as a primary offense. Recent reports have revealed enforcement is unpopular with citizens, which is to be expected for such an unjust law.
The editorial ties the cost of society's interest in helping people in need as a case for regulating behavior. If we accept this, then it is logical to conclude that any behavior that is deemed by government to be expensive must also be regulated. That could include weight gain, the use of salt on food, when we go out at night . . . the list of possibilities is endless. It's certainly a compelling argument to reject any attempt at universal health care.
The editorial also delves into a misleading and amateurish financial analysis of the costs of seat belt use. Medical costs of survivors are cited, while ignoring the financial benefits realized when Americans, particularly older ones, are killed in traffic accidents. Should we be discouraging seat belt use when it saves us money? If this whole line of reasoning sounds sick, it is because it comes from a position which is morally corrupt.
If you're always looking at the financial bottom line when you help someone, then you are really just helping yourself. My advice (and plea) to anyone: If you can't afford your conscience, try looking within, rather than outward for answers.
Lindsey Montana, Otisfield