That's Right. The Devils Avacado Award* is back for a new year and hopefully with more frequency .
I have 24 issues left at the helm of the Opinion ship and I plan to steer it into cyberspace as much as possible, among many other things.
The beautifully informal blog-uh-sphere enables our ink and page crew to blast out to any and all internuckle heads.
With that being said, I would like to present the first DAA* to Alex Tandy, who recently established his columnist position as a staff writer for the Loyolan.
Mr. Tandy's piece "Some Laws Just Aren't Worth Having" does well to question somewhat peculiar law philosophies about protecting yourself. It tosses us into an ongoing discussion about whether we should be allowed to kill ourselves or not. People often ask if we should just let people who don't want protect themselves, allow them to do so.
After all, especially in a "free" country, one should be able to not wear a helmet or a seatbelt, if they don't want to. If an individual isn't putting anyone else in danger by doing so, of course. Indeed, the world and the USA has had it's share of laws prohibiting or punishing suicide, but it is a rather contradictory law for a nation like the "live free or die hard" USA to have.
Either way, there is something to be said about Tandy's questioning of seatbelt laws, in a moral sense. However, legalities of car accidents and the possibility of someone's body becoming a missile in a wreck do begin to dig up the reasons for seat belt law. Obviously its smart to wear a seatbelt if you want to protect your life, but the actual reasons for the law are in the best interests of other people, it seems. Which would fall into line with the Police motto of "protecting and serving," and believe me I'm not usually one to take the side of the one-time.
So, while this moral pondering is something worth pondering, drunk driving and speeding laws are certainly not. Tandy's storytelling and sharing on-the-rug approach to trying to compare the two laws is a little odd. I think everyone will concede to admit that speeding and DUI charges are warranted, but using them to fuel to attack a seat belt law makes the article not only unbalanced but unfortunate.
There would have been better ways to approach the seemingly absurd seat belt law, but I don't thing considering drunk driving is one of them.
What do you all think?
Also: if you are unfamiliar with the DAA* please check the posts on it below, it will give you an idea of its purpose and its somewhat anti-award nature.
Happy seat-belting.
