can a christian smoke...??

[jcm]

now, for those of you who are using the second-hand-smoke-kills rhetoric, do your research. it is not true. that is the media hype of the PC crowd. we've had this topic before, and the results of studies from the CDC and WHO and other scientifc studies on the affects of second hand smoke have been posted in full, and absolutely contradicts this nonsense. second hand may do a lot of things (stink, annoy, etc.) but unless one is allergic to it, it does not cause the health problems people claim it does.

That's the same line the tobacco companies took years ago, that according to scientific studies smokers weren't exposed to any health risks, yet now we have warning labels on cig packs.

I did a google search and came up with articles from the National Health Institute (NIH), the EPA, the CDC (which you mentioned said there were no risks) on their own websites detailing the risks of second-hand smoke.

NIH: http://cis.nci.nih.gov/fact/3_9.htm

EPA: http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/

CDC: http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/research_data/e...al/etsfact3.htm

[jcm]

This is from an article on PHILIP MORRIS' website:

We also believe that the conclusions of public health officials concerning environmental tobacco smoke are sufficient to warrant measures that regulate smoking in public places. We also believe that where smoking is permitted, the government should require the posting of warning notices that communicate public health officials' conclusions that secondhand smoke causes disease in non-smokers.

Here's the whole article:

http://www.philipmorrisusa.com/health_issu...dhand_smoke.asp

[Guest idied2]

Smoking will kill you.

One thing I know for certain. You can't scare a smoker into quitting. Anymore than you can scare a driver into not taking part in vehicles anylonger becaus they kill people.

No one can do anything without CHRIST (that will last). Ask him for Help. If HE don't seem to answer you right away keep asking. HE does give good gifts to those who ask HIM.

In CHRIST JESUS :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug:

[Guest shadow2b]

-........ bottom line is it stinks looks nasty and it kills and kills those who are innocently minding there own business by being near a smoker ,in no way sucking on death can glorify God

-YA Know glad--People like You drive me up a tree AS well as you DRIVE lost folks AWAY from GOD with your mean-sarcastic-Judgemental--UNinformed messages of Hate----NOT ONE PERSON HAS EVER DIED FROM SECOND-HAND-SMOKE--THAT is a little LIE ALL them MORONS in the government want You to believe & you have swallowed it "Hook-line-&-sinker"--Now you can keep on believing & spreading that Little-Lie IF you want to----But it won't be because it is true-------

-Yeah AS long as everything on the "outside"LOOKS good wyyyyyyy--that's ALL that counts huhhh??But Inside a person can be "Full of dead mans bones"-

-NO body EVER stops to think that just maybe GOD might be working on More-Serious matters in a persons life that might be More Important to deliver them from than smoking......NAWWWWWW--That couldn't possibly be relavent could it??

- I guess a "Contract-killer"that smoked might need to "Stop-killing-people-for $money"before the issue of"smoking"was dealt with--ya-Think?

[Anonymous]

marriedtomymaker:

I used to smoke.... in fact, not all that long ago. I once asked my pastor if smoking would send me to hell. He replied: "No, you'll just smell like you've been there!" (This conversation really took place.)

All funnin' aside.... I'm sure you know all the hazards of smoking! For the sin part, only have this to say about it ...

Our body is the temple of the Holy Spirit and we are expected to keep it holy (for he is Holy). And for those who seeking Christ..... seeing you smoke, could be a poor witness. Your brothers and sisters in Christ know your Fruits and so does the Father, but new comers may doubt your sincerity.

Pray about it and ask the Lord to give you the will to stop. It took me 35 yrs to quit! I'll be praying for you.

Blessings sent with Love~

Pam aka Anonymous

:t:

[Guest LCPGUY]

-........ bottom line is it stinks looks nasty and it kills and kills those who are innocently minding there own business by being near a smoker ,in no way sucking on death can glorify God

-YA Know glad--People like You drive me up a tree AS well as you DRIVE lost folks AWAY from GOD with your mean-sarcastic-Judgemental--UNinformed messages of Hate----NOT ONE PERSON HAS EVER DIED FROM SECOND-HAND-SMOKE--THAT is a little LIE ALL them MORONS in the government want You to believe & you have swallowed it "Hook-line-&-sinker"--Now you can keep on believing & spreading that Little-Lie IF you want to----But it won't be because it is true-------

-Yeah AS long as everything on the "outside"LOOKS good wyyyyyyy--that's ALL that counts huhhh??But Inside a person can be "Full of dead mans bones"-

-NO body EVER stops to think that just maybe GOD might be working on More-Serious matters in a persons life that might be More Important to deliver them from than smoking......NAWWWWWW--That couldn't possibly be relavent could it??

- I guess a "Contract-killer"that smoked might need to "Stop-killing-people-for $money"before the issue of"smoking"was dealt with--ya-Think?

:o BRO!!!

[Guest LadyC]

now, for those of you who are using the second-hand-smoke-kills rhetoric, do your research. it is not true. that is the media hype of the PC crowd. we've had this topic before, and the results of studies from the CDC and WHO and other scientifc studies on the affects of second hand smoke have been posted in full, and absolutely contradicts this nonsense. second hand may do a lot of things (stink, annoy, etc.) but unless one is allergic to it, it does not cause the health problems people claim it does.

That's the same line the tobacco companies took years ago, that according to scientific studies smokers weren't exposed to any health risks, yet now we have warning labels on cig packs.

I did a google search and came up with articles from the National Health Institute (NIH), the EPA, the CDC (which you mentioned said there were no risks) on their own websites detailing the risks of second-hand smoke.

NIH: http://cis.nci.nih.gov/fact/3_9.htm

EPA: http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/

CDC: http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/research_data/e...al/etsfact3.htm

nice work. now how about if you take a look at some more authoritative studies.

here's one, i'd quote parts of this 10 page study, but i can't cut/paste from pdf. this study was quite extensive, spanning 39 years, focusing on nearly 120,000 individuals who either smoke or are married to a smoker.

or...

Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol. 92, No. 20, 1666-1673, October 18, 2000

or...

National Library of Medicine, 2001

or here's an interesting quote... from the american lung association... like how they backpeddle here regarding the risks...

American Lung Association/American Thoracic Society International Conference Day 1 - April 25, 1999 "Passive cigarette smoke often has been thought to increase the risk of active asthma, but studies to date have not demonstrated this association convincingly.

or...

International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyons France

or...

The {federal} court vacates Chapters 1-6 of and the Appendices to EPA's Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and other Disorders, EPA/600/6-90/006F (December 1992).

or try this article... this is the last link i'm posting, although i could post about 100 more...

Respiratory Epidemiology Unit, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, and Department of Sociology, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

gladiator, your "chick" and "egypt" comments are repugnantly self-righteous. i'd appreciate it if you would make an attempt not to belittle people who don't agree with you, particularly since you're the one who is not doing your homework and reading the evidence from decades of scientific studies.

[jcm]

nice work. now how about if you take a look at some more authoritative studies.

here's one, i'd quote parts of this 10 page study, but i can't cut/paste from pdf. this study was quite extensive, spanning 39 years, focusing on nearly 120,000 individuals who either smoke or are married to a smoker.

or...

Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol. 92, No. 20, 1666-1673, October 18, 2000

or...

National Library of Medicine, 2001

or here's an interesting quote... from the american lung association... like how they backpeddle here regarding the risks...

American Lung Association/American Thoracic Society International Conference Day 1 - April 25, 1999 "Passive cigarette smoke often has been thought to increase the risk of active asthma, but studies to date have not demonstrated this association convincingly.

or...

International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyons France

or...

The {federal} court vacates Chapters 1-6 of and the Appendices to EPA's Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and other Disorders, EPA/600/6-90/006F (December 1992).

or try this article... this is the last link i'm posting, although i could post about 100 more...

Respiratory Epidemiology Unit, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, and Department of Sociology, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

gladiator, your "chick" and "egypt" comments are repugnantly self-righteous. i'd appreciate it if you would make an attempt not to belittle people who don't agree with you, particularly since you're the one who is not doing your homework and reading the evidence from decades of scientific studies.

LadyC,

Ok, I'll take a look at the stuff you posted and get back. Might take a while. But if second-hand smoke is safe, why does philip morris have an article on their site supporting findings otherwise?

edited to get names right - sorry again!

Edited September 13, 2004 by jcm

[Guest LadyC]

who is laura?

phillip morris succombed to political correctness as part of the lawsuit settlement. LOL, don't you listen to the news much?

[Guest LadyC]

for the record, if you want to find the studies in their entirety, you know, the ones that show the actual numbers relating to cause and effect, not just the portions that sound good, you might start with sites that defend smokers' rights. they always have links to hundreds of scientific studies.

however, don't waste your time reading the stuff posted on the sites that provide the links. i'm a smoker, but i'm no dummy, and there is a tremendous amount of bias and spin on smokers' rights websites, just as there is in the opposite direction on anti-smoking sites.

to get to the nitty gritty, ya gotta skip past the spin all the way around and just go to the links of published research, and read for yourself... and then be sure to put it in perspective. for instance, there are many conditions for which there is evidence to suggest (though not usually enough to prove) an increase of risk, but is there any scientific relevance to the amount of that risk?

for example.. there's a presumed 2% increase of risk for certain conditions that applies to children born to a woman who smoked during pregnancy... find out what the background risk for the same condition is, compare it to other known factors which may have a strong bearing on the outcome, and then subtract from the majority number... the number of healthy babies born in similar or identical circumstances.

and then compare that to other risks. we'll take that 2% increase again... compare that to the risk factor for OTHER things... you might find that a smoking mother puts her child at a significantly lower risk than a teenage mother who does not smoke, or a woman over 35 who does not smoke, because the age is more of a risk factor than the smoking is.

in fact, "might find" is incorrect. you WILL find that to be true. i've been studying genetic risks for years, primarily in relation to another risk factor that has nothing to do with smoking... but in those years i've had to compare risks for all categories.

quite fascinating, really.