California looking to over regulate another industry out of the state

[Lunar]

How's this any different from a seatbelt law?

And Dead, you can't extrapolate an anecdote like this.  Very,  very few people are willing to travel an extra two to six hours to ski somewhere where you don't have to wear helmets. 

[Lunar]

How's this any different from a seatbelt law?

And Dead, you can't extrapolate an anecdote like this.  Very,  very few people are willing to travel an extra two to six hours to ski somewhere where you don't have to wear helmets. 

The difference is that with seatbelts, you're not just endangering yourself if you don't wear one you're also threatening other's safety since you could be flung out into incoming traffic.

Now personally I'm skeptical about how effective helmet laws actually are, but I don't oppose this on principle. Certainly not if they actually do save money.

Do you really think the danger of you being flung out into incoming traffic is the driving motivation & justification for seatbelts?  Why not allow people to not wear them in the backseat then?

[Lunar]

Do you really think the danger of you being flung out into incoming traffic is the driving motivation & justification for seatbelts?  Why not allow people to not wear them in the backseat then?

I'm not saying that at all, just that you could make an argument for seat belt laws that doesn't involve minimizing/avoiding unnecessary medical costs.

Eh, it's not really a persuasive argument though.  Because it takes up police resources and countless hours of citizen and legal time to enforce, not to mention the enforcement on the completely negligible backseat passengers under this framework....all to prevent flailing bodies from disrupting traffic?