This past summer, a close friend of mine in my graduating class from Northville High School was involved in an accident when her car collided with a motorcyclist. The biker, who had not worn a helmet, mistakenly turned into oncoming traffic. The impact threw him from his motorcycle and killed him immediately. News of this tragedy spread rapidly throughout our town, causing an upheaval of discussion about the recent repeal of Michigan's motorcycle helmet law. I sympathized with my friend, easily imagining myself in her situation. Only a few months from beginning college, all of my future plans would immediately cease if faced with such a traumatic event. On top of completely disorienting my next steps in life, how could I handle the grim reality that I held partial responsibility for someone's death? Despite knowing it was a tragic accident, any human being could not help but feel guilt. I felt terrible for my friend, and at the same time I considered the emotional toll this tragedy must have taken on the motorcyclist's family and friends as well. Questioning the reasoning behind this new law, I felt obligated to explore its motives and intentions. The arguments supporting the repeal of Michigan's motorcycle helmet law focus on extending personal freedom to include decisions affecting one's own safety while driving. This repeal must be nullified because, despite intentions to promote personal freedom, the new law actually infringes on the individual liberties of other drivers and taxpayers. The law unjustly raises taxes and creates an emotional burden for innocent citizens, violating their inalienable rights set forth in the Declaration of Independence. Economic costs play a crucial role in the debate over the necessity of a universal helmet law. The repeal of Michigan's motorcycle helmet law will undoubtedly increase tourism revenue for the state. Considering the current meager status of Michigan's economy, any possible additional business should not be dismissed without careful analysis. Public support for the repeal emanates largely from a group of entrepreneurs united in the Michigan Licensed Beverage Association, which includes bar and local shop owners, as well as restaurateurs. Scott Ellis, Executive Director of the MLBA, testifies, "Every year we watch our customers ride into neighboring states and very few motorcycles ride in because of this law  (ABATE of Michigan). Ellis makes a good point; since every state adjacent to Michigan has some form of optional helmet law, bikers are likely deterred from crossing the state boundary into Michigan. They would limit their travel to outside Michigan's borders so they could ride feeling free with the wind in their hair. Additionally, Senator Phil Pavlov expresses his support for the repeal saying, "Every year, millions of dollars leave our state because of Michigan's outdated mandatory helmet law  (ABATE of Michigan). The Senator introduced the bill with high aspirations to improve the economy. Despite the optimism for economic growth, the potential revenue is not justifiable when examining the expected rise in health costs resulting from the repeal. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, or NHTSA, conducted a comprehensive study in 2010 to determine economic costs saved from helmet use. They found conclusive evidence that states with universal helmet laws saved more than their counterpart. The costs saved encompass medical and emergency service costs as well as losses from decreased home and work productivity. According to the study, each state could have saved on average "$1,212,800 per fatality, $171,753 per serious injury, and $7,523 per minor injury  (Naumann). In 2010 alone, helmet use saved roughly 3 billion dollars in economic costs; if all bikers had worn helmets, an estimated 1.4 billion dollars could have been saved. Furthermore, states with a universal helmet law in place saved an average of 725 dollars per motorcyclist, compared to the 198 dollars saved by choice states (Naumann). The tourism revenue that results from this repeal remains incalculable until time passes under the new law. The public cannot afford to suffer the consequences of waiting to reverse this repeal, particularly because of the calculated projections of economic expenses by well-accredited professionals. With regards to the esteemed senator's comment, Pavlov failed to see the larger picture and the consequences of this repeal. The millions of dollars he hopes to raise via tourism persist as an illogical tradeoff for the projected multi millions of dollars in