'Safe cigarette' claimed to cut cancer by 90%

Who knows whether the claims made in this article are true or not, but I immediately thought of the 'smoking in bars' debate. It is finishing its course in DC, it's already gone through Ireland, New York City, and lots of other places. Was it worth it?

I have a feeling that the elites controlling the health care system in America will not be helped or hurt by the smoking or non-smoking in bars/restaurants. The money will just find its way into some other 'administration' costs.

And what about protecting people's lives from cancer? Well, alcohol is much worse for people than cigarettes, so let's outlaw the drinking of alcohol, right? If people want to kill themselves slowly, then that should be their choice. I'm even open to allowing people to kill themselves quickly - why not? Are we a free people or not?

This is about freedom. I was curious when I first got to California why I kept seeing folks smoking up a storm in their cars - while driving. A few weeks later I finally realized that they couldn't smoke anywhere else.

They're taking away our cigarettes. They're taking away our houses and land. They're taking away our privacy.

The list goes on and on. Where does it stop?

This is one place the Libertarians have it right - maybe the only place. If we want to smoke dope, let us smoke dope. If we want to smoke cigarettes, let us smoke cigarettes. If want to drink alcohol, let us drink alcohol. This is not rocket science. This is the difference between the United States of America and a more totalitarian state. Freedom is more than just being able to go to the polls once every four years.

UPDATE: By the I'm even open with regards to people killing themselves quickly, I meant I'm even open to discussion about. I have a feeling that, in the end of the debate, I'd side with not allowing people to off themselves quickly, but I'm certainly willing to have that debate.