When they were forced to write the Bill of Rights they made sure to add the 10th Amendment, which states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.”

If the Constitution did not limit a person from doing something and it was not specified in the amendments, then the people, not the government, had the power.

Two hundred and twenty years after the founders wrote the Constitution, however, the question has to be asked: Do current laws infringe upon people’s personal rights?

The last decade has seen the powers of the government expand with the creation of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security bringing about a constant monitoring of citizens to defend against terrorism. It is the people’s job to question laws that would seem to infringe upon their own personal rights. In Michigan and several other states, debatable laws recently have been added.

The Constitution states people have the right to do as they please as long as their actions do not affect the rights of others around them. But Michigan’s seat belt law is one such case where the government seems to have gone too far.

The argument that not wearing a seat belt negatively affects the rights of others seems to be a stretch. Motorcyclists drive just as fast as cars and wear only a helmet on a mode of transportation far more dangerous than driving inside an automobile. There is no doubt that seat belts save lives, but when does it no longer become a personal choice?

A valid argument to the necessity of seat belts is if the driver is injured and cannot afford health care payments, it becomes the taxpayers’ responsibility to pay for their medical treatment. But this argument is dangerous, as it gives monumental power to the government. Anything that is potentially dangerous could be limited by the government, which is perhaps more power than they were meant to wield. 

A similar situation is deciding how the government should determine the proper way to deal with smoking. It seems wrong that a law made to require seat belts to be worn would be enacted before a law making smoking illegal. Cancer is one of the leading causes of deaths in America. About 140,000 people die each year from lung cancer, a number that is far more than traffic deaths, which is slightly more than 40,000 people a year. Smoking not only causes a massive amount of medical bills, but second-hand smoke affects others.

A law requiring seat belts is far easier to pass than one that would make smoking illegal. The amount of money behind smoking is overwhelming. The government collects as much as $2 a pack sold. With smokers as addicted as they are, Michigan uses addiction to help finance the hurting government. Having a product that is addictive is a big help, and because of it the lobbyists who represent the tobacco industry have no problem keeping their product on the shelf. 

Smoking is a huge problem for those people who choose not to smoke, although this battle will not be easy since the addiction to cigarettes is very strong.

Seat belts save lives, and cigarettes kill. Smoking is legal, but the right to choose to wear your seat belt is not. If the government is to maintain consistency, it must make both either legal or illegal. It is the duty of government to make laws that protect our rights, not limit them, and sometimes that calls for radical change.

Gerard Ruskowsi is a State News guest columnist and political theory and constitutional democracy sophomore. Reach him at ruskows1@msu.edu.