The 'seat-belt' argument is a pet peeve of mine because it shifts the debate from 'should the government do this' to 'can the government do this' and presupposes a yes answer. The argument shifts away from the specifics of the regulation in question to broadness around government authority itself.

Additionally, just because the government can force you to wear a seat-belt doesn't mean it has the same kind of authority over just about anything else.

You could make an argument that ecigs ARE seat-belts relative to cigarettes. Should we ban cars?

That's not accurate as seal belt laws actually protect other people other than yourself. Think about a human flying through a windshield at 40mph hitting a pedestrian, or you flying around the car smashing into other passengers that were wearing their seatbelt.