Some readers no doubt think Gov. Mark Sanford a wimp for failing to veto the bill that makes failure to wear vehicle seat belts a primary moving violation. But because the law will serve the greater good, other readers no doubt admire Sanford for letting it take effect without his signature, even though he doesn't like it.

This disparity of views stems from a question that's as old as the republic itself: How far should government go to protect people from themselves? Americans have never been able to agree on an answer.

As Sanford asked last week in explaining his disdain for the bill, should the state now outlaw tobacco? Should it ban foods that contain saturated fat?

Tough questions. An individual who refuses to use his vehicle's seat belt might live to an age so advanced that he's no longer capable of driving. But if he smokes and eats fatty foods, the odds are he won't live long enough to become too old to drive.

The critical difference between those personal behaviors and use of seat belts, however, is that driving is a privilege regulated by the state, not a right. The rules that pertain to driving - how fast we can go, what lanes we must use, etc. - at heart are about making driving as safe for everyone as humanly possible.

Why should it be any different with seat belts? True, those who refuse to wear them place mainly themselves at risk - though there is something about buckling up that enhances the typical driver's sense of caution. But the state has never drawn a line between driving behaviors that threaten others and a behavior that threatens drivers themselves.

South Carolinians driving by themselves, for instance, are still required to adhere to the speed limit on deserted stretches of interstate - even though only they suffer if they lost control of their vehicles at 100 mph and roll into the median ditch. Why should it be any different with seat belts?

Besides, S.C. drivers already were required to wear seat belts. The old law required drivers and passengers to wear seat belts but barred the police from enforcing it unless a driver committed another violation, such as littering. Now, police can stop motorists for failing to wear seat belts.

The penalty is only $25, and violations can't be reported to drivers' insurance companies. As Sanford says, those provisions don't do much to motivate S.C. drivers to buckle up. Only when a child riding in the car isn't properly secured do the penalties become draconian.

But we like the approach that legislators took in writing the law. Most drivers whom police stop for seat belt violations, we're betting, won't be eager to repeat the experience. If seat belt compliance doesn't improve over time, legislators can always make the penalties tougher.

Legislators did well in limiting the law's incursiveness on personal choice as much as they responsibly could. And Sanford did well in keeping his veto pen capped, despite his personal misgivings about legislation that can only save lives.