Proverbs 27:9, The Biblical View Of Smoking
11/29/98 PM, Sharon OPC
Dr. Jeffrey K. Boer
During the last three evening sermons, weve been studying what the Bible has to say about the Christians use of alcohol. Weve been looking at this question in the context of our study of the Westminster
Larger Catechisms exposition of the 6th Commandment, Thou shalt not kill. In
that exposition, the Catechism lists, among other things, under the duties required in the 6th Commandment, a sober
use of... drink. And under the sins forbidden in the 6th Commandment,
it lists, among other things, immoderate use of... drink.
We looked at the Scriptures and also cited historical and confessional support that defends the Christians moderate
use of alcohol, both in everyday life and in the Lords Supper.
Up until now, weve been focusing on the Biblical view of the Christians use of alcohol, but many of the same
principles could be applied in discussing the Christians use of tobacco products.
The biggest difference, obviously, is that the use of tobacco products is nowhere commanded in Scripture. But their use is not forbidden either.
In fact, there is both Biblical and scientific evidence that would indicate that smoking tobacco, in moderation, is
consistent with the teachings of Scripture and consistent with godly, Biblical Christianity.
The pertinent sections of the Westminster Larger Catechism Q. & A. #136 are as follows:
Q. 136. What are the sins
forbidden in the sixth commandment?
A. The sins forbidden in the sixth commandment are [among other
things listed], ...immoderate use of meat, drink, labour, and recreations...and whatever else tends to the
destruction of the life of any.
This implies, of course, that Christians should be concerned for the health implications of drinking alcohol, smoking,
eating various foods, and participating in various activities as well. But when
the Westminster Larger Catechism says that the 6th Commandment forbids whatever... tends to the destruction of the life of
any, we must take care that we dont go overboard in interpreting the meaning of that phrase.
For example: Is it a sin to live in the city because the air pollution
there is significantly higher than in the country and would, therefore, tend to the destruction of ones life? Is it a sin to put sugar on your corn flakes in the morning, since sugar is apparently not very nutritious
and may leech vitamins from your system and give you cavities in your teeth? Or
is it a sin to add a teaspoon of sugar to your coffee? -- Oops! What about that
coffee? Maybe thats a sin too? And
if eating sugar is a sin, then drinking Coke or other sodas with nearly 8 teaspoons of sugar in every can must be a cardinal
sin! And thats not to mention the extra caffeine, carbonated water, and various
other chemicals that all tend to the destruction of ones life, at least to some degree.
And if were going to call smoking a sin because it tends, at least to some degree, to the destruction of ones life,
then do we not have to outlaw a lot of other things as well?
Actually, when it comes right down to it, theres a health risk associated with almost everything we do! Driving a car on the Palmetto expressway isnt exactly risk free, as we all know! Youre constantly exposing yourself to the risk of an accident. In
taking an airplane flight to Atlanta, youre exposing yourself to the risk of a plane crash, not to mention the possible exposure
to all those germs that are being recycled through the air circulation system of that plane in flight. When you eat raw or rare seafood or hamburger or eggs, youre exposing yourself to the risk of hepatitis
B or mad cow disease or salmonella poisoning.
My point is that I dont believe that the Westminster Assembly intended for that phrase, whatever else tends to the
destruction of the life of any, to be taken in an absolute and unqualified sense. Its talking about things that are an obvious and serious, immediate danger to ones health or life, such
as playing Russian roulette or mainlining cocaine or sniffing glue. There are
many jobs, many foods and drinks, and many pleasures which carry with them at least a moderate risk to our health and well-being. Are all such things sinful for Christians?
The question I want to deal with first of all, is whether or not smoking tobacco can be classified as a substantial
enough health risk to make it a sin? Were bombarded today with anti-smoking campaigns
by various cancer organizations and by political lobbyists. After all, every
pack of cigarettes and most packages of pipe and cigar tobacco in America now contain warnings that say something along these
lines: Pipe and smoking tobaccos and cigars contain/produce chemicals known to
the state of California to cause cancer, and birth defects or other reproductive harm.
Now Im not going to stand here and dispute one, single word of that warning.
I believe it to be absolutely true. I believe that smoking tobacco increases
the risks of certain kinds of cancers. That fact needs to be weighed, however,
with at least three other facts:
1. First of all, I also believe that some studies show that eating margarine,
peanuts, and many other foods increases the risks of certain kinds of cancer. So
margarine and peanuts and many other foods also contain chemicals known to the state of California (and to all the other states
as well) to cause cancer also. In fact, most of the things we eat and
drink every day, including our drinking water, contain chemicals known to cause cancer, if consumed in certain amounts.
And that brings us to the second fact that needs to be weighed:
2. Smoking doesnt always cause cancer. The question is, In what quantity does smoking become dangerous?
Does all smoking cause cancer? No.
Does really heavy chain smoking all your life cause cancer? Sometimes,
sometimes not. Why? Nobody
knows for sure.
3. The third fact that needs to be weighed is that smoking tobacco has
been found, by some studies, to have certain beneficial effects on health.
In various scientific studies, for example, smokers have been shown to have:
*50% less cancer (obviously not lung cancer, but
the other types of cancer).
*50% less Alzheimers disease.
*50% less Parkinsons disease.
*50% less prostate cancer.
*50% less uterine cancer (or endometrial cancer).
*50% less ulcerative colitis.
*30% less colon cancer.
*5 times less osteoarthritis.
*Lowered rates of sarcoidosis and allergic alveolitis
(both of these are lung disorders).
*Less acne.
*Less obesity.
*Tourettes syndrome improved within 24 hours while
wearing a nicotine patch.
*Attention Deficit Disorder patients showed dramatic
improvements as well with nicotine.
*In addition, smoking has been shown to stimulate
alertness, dexterity, and cognitive capacity (Which might be one reason why the Synod of Dort gave free cigars to all the
commissioners during their deliberations).
*Smoking can also counter both depression and
excitability.
Im not going to take the time in this sermon to cite all of the supporting documentation for those statements, but
Ill attach them to the e-mail version and Ill also make them available to anyone who wants a copy of them after the service.
These studies included cigarette smokers, many of whom would probably not be considered to be moderate smokers. Most of the negative health risks associated with smoking tobacco are associated
with heavy smoking. And yet, these studies seem to show that even heavy
smokers derive certain health benefits from smoking along with the increased health risks of certain other kinds
of diseases.
Moderate smoking carries with it far less health risks than heavy smoking, according to certain studies that
have shown that 3-5 cigarettes (the pre-1960, strong ones) can be quite easily assimilated over the course of a day with relatively
little risk.
Heavier cigarette smoking is related to increased risk of emphysema (which takes @ 30 years of smoking to develop). And heavier smoking is also related to increased risks of lung cancer, breast
cancer, and cardiovascular disease. But even these risks are 5 times lower
in cigar and pipe smokers who do not inhale. A slight increase in the
risk of mouth or throat cancer may be related to those who chew their cigars while smoking them. So overall, according to these studies, its apparently quite safe, and even beneficial, in some
ways, to your health, to smoke a couple cigars a day, especially if you dont inhale and you dont chew. The health benefits appear to substantially outweigh the health risks. Even cigarette smoking appears to be fairly low risk, when done in moderation, since moderate smoking doesnt
carry with it all of those higher risks that are often associated with heavy smoking.
It should also be noted that taking vitamin supplements, such as vitamin C, D, E, A and others, has been shown to further
reduce the health risks of smoking.
Why do I cite all of this medical stuff in a sermon, when Im not a medical doctor and when we know that medicine, unlike
Scripture, is a very inexact science? Because as Christians were responsible
to weigh the results of science and of medicine in making certain decisions in our lives.
We have to apply the Scriptural principles associated with the 6th Commandment, Thou shalt not kill, taking
into account the best scientific and medical knowledge we have available today, but also recognizing that the Scriptures
must be our ultimate, infallible guide to ethics.
Im arguing that the medical information we have available today does not automatically outlaw all smoking as a sinful
violation of the 6th Commandment. Just because some studies show that smoking
is bad for you, that doesnt mean all smoking is a sin any more than drinking Coke is a sin.
There are plenty of studies showing that Coke is bad for you. In making
any such decisions we must weigh the risks with the benefits and enjoyments.
To move on to another argument, some have said that Christians should exhibit self-control and abstain from such worldly
pleasures as smoking. But if abstaining from legitimate God-given pleasures and
activities is how we are to demonstrate Biblical self-control, then why not abstain from all pleasures? And if abstaining from all God-given pleasures is NOT the way to demonstrate Biblical self-control, then
whats the point of abstaining? Why not use such things Biblically
and in moderation as the Scriptures would encourage? Isnt that also demonstrating
self-control?
Ecclesiastes 5:18-6:2 says, Then I realized that it is good and proper for a man to eat and drink,
and to find satisfaction in his toilsome labor under the sun during the few days of life God has given him -- for this is
his lot. Moreover, when God gives any man wealth and possessions, and enables
him to enjoy them, to accept his lot and be happy in his work -- this is a gift of God. He seldom reflects on the days of his life, because God keeps him occupied with gladness of heart. I have seen another evil under the sun, and it weighs heavily on men: God gives a man wealth, possessions and honor, so that he lacks nothing his heart desires, but God does
not enable him to enjoy them, and a stranger enjoys them instead. This is
meaningless, a grievous evil. The book of Ecclesiastes contains
numerous similar passages, indicating that the enjoyment of the various God-given pleasures of life is not sinful.
What about the example youre setting for your children? some might ask.
Well, what example should we set for our children? Asking that
question betrays an automatic assumption that theres something wrong or sinful about smoking.
What example are you setting for your children when you drive a car? Well,
hopefully, youre setting a godly example of responsible driving.
As we saw in the case of alcohol, moderate, responsible use is the normal, Biblical way to demonstrate responsible
use and self-control. Thats not to say that its the only way -- or that there
are never Biblical reasons for abstaining from legitimate pleasures. But partaking
in moderation is being a good example for your children, because youre teaching them the proper use of
these gifts of God. To argue for total abstinence from all alcohol and tobacco
products may mean that youre teaching your children that the Fundamentalist views of alcohol and tobacco are correct -- that
these good things of God are somehow evil or sinful in themselves. As Reformed
Christians, we know theyre not.
In I Timothy 4:1-8 and Colossians 2:20-23, Paul discusses these matters in quite dramatic
terms. Instead of preaching total abstinence, Paul warns against those who preach
total abstinence. He emphasizes that godliness does not come through total abstinence
from things in Gods good creation. In fact, in I Timothy 5:23,
Paul recommends that Timothy stop abstaining and start drinking alcohol (in moderation) for his
health.
I now want to take a few minutes to show, from Scripture, that smoking is not unnatural for man, but that the
Scriptures show that its fully consistent with his nature, being created in the image of God.
The Scriptures are clear that God appreciates the sweet-smelling incense or smoke of mans sacrifices and prayers that
are offered up unto Him. Of course, God is a Spirit and He doesnt have a physical
nose to smell things, but the Bible talks about God in human terms for the sake of mans understanding and the Bible indicates
that God enjoys nice smelling smoke. If nice-smelling smoke is said to be pleasing
to God, and if were created in His image, how then can smoking, in moderation, be evil?
In Isaiahs vision of God in His temple in Isaiah 6:3-4, we read, And they were calling to one another: Holy, holy, holy is the LORD Almighty; the whole earth is full of his glory. At the sound of their voices the doorposts and thresholds shook and the temple
was filled with smoke.
Similarly, Revelation 15:8 says, And the temple was filled with smoke from the glory of God
and from his power...
I doubt very much that this cloud of smoke that filled the temple had a foul
smelling odor. Im sure it was a wonderful smelling smoke.
The point is this: If our God uses a cloud of sweet-smelling smoke in
order to manifest His presence and in order to manifest His glory, it goes without saying then that smoke, in
and of itself, is not evil.
Exodus 30:7-8 says, Aaron must burn fragrant incense on the altar every morning when
he tends the lamps. He must burn incense again when he lights the lamps at
twilight so incense will burn regularly before the LORD for the generations to come. This sweet-smelling incense or smoke was to constantly be offered up on the Lords altar. It was seen as good smoke. Its called fragrant smoke. Thats the Hebrew word, sam, referring to good smelling smoke.
Psalm 141:2 says, May my prayer be set before you like incense; may the lifting up of my hands be
like the evening sacrifice. And Revelation 8:3-4 says, Another
angel, who had a golden censer, came and stood at the altar. He was given much
incense to offer, with the prayers of all the saints, on the golden altar before the throne.
The smoke of the incense, together with the prayers of the saints, went up before God from the angels hand.
Its a natural thing, then, for man, created in the image of God, to enjoy the pleasing smell of aromatic incense and
smoke. Since man is not an animal who has descended from other animals, but who
was created in the image of God, we cant argue that the desire to smell smoke is an unnatural desire, as some want to imply.
Our text, in Proverbs 27:9 says, Perfume and incense bring joy to the heart.
Incense is nothing more than a substance that was burned to produce an aromatic smoke.
There were various kinds of incense, but all of them were burned for the nice smell of their smoke. Incense was even one of the three gifts mentioned in Matthew 2:11 that were brought to Jesus
by the Magi. It says, On coming to the house, they saw the child with his
mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshipped him. Then they opened their treasures
and presented him with gifts of gold and of incense and of myrrh. That
incense was to be burned to create a nice smelling smoke. Jesus would have inhaled
that smoke.
That was not a sin. Inhaling nice smelling smoke is not a sin, at least
not when done in moderation.
Cigars and cigarettes and pipe are all in the same category as incense. Theyre
burned for the nice smell they give. Just like perfume and incense, they bring
joy to the heart.
Now I know some of you may say, They dont bring any joy to my heart! I
cant stand the smell of cigarettes or cigars. Some of you may even be
allergic to smoke -- just as some people are also allergic to perfume and other substances that are not sinful. Obviously, we must all be careful that we dont wear heavy perfume around people that
are allergic to it, if we can help it, and we shouldnt smoke around people that are either allergic to smoke or who cant stand
the smell.
In short, we should be courteous to those around us. But that still doesnt
mean smoking is a sin or that wearing perfume is a sin. We should also weigh
the health risks and benefits of smoking. We should consider, according
to the best of our knowledge, what is a moderate level of smoking so that were not immoderate in our use of
these good gifts of God. And as godly, Bible-believing Christians, we should
give thanks to God for both wine and aromatic smoke as well as any other things that God created to gladden the heart of
man.
May His Name be praised especially, however, for the good gift of His precious Son, Jesus Christ, who gave His life
for us that we might have life abundant, even eternal life in Him.
Amen!
==========================
The following articles are appended for further study.
==========================
The following article is written by Dr. William Campbell Douglass II, MD, a graduate of the University of Rochester,
the Miami School of Medicine, and the Naval School of Aviation and Space Medicine. Hes
been named the National Health Federations Doctor of the Year. Here is a copy
of his entire article RECOMMENDING cigar smoking FOR your health, published recently in the Second Opinion newsletter
which he edits [July 1995 issue, pp. 4-7]. Im reproducing the entire article
so that you can see each statement he makes in the context of the rest of the article.
-------------------------------------
Eat Tobacco?
Dr. William Campbell Douglass II,
MD
The American people have been worked into such a frenzy about cigarette smoke that people in Europe think we have gone
completely off the deep end.
All of you know that I am absolutely opposed to cigarette smoking. I hate
it! Im particularly opposed to smoking in public places as it invades the space
of others and not only irritates their eyes and breathing passages (including mine), but makes many of them a little crazy
with paranoia.
Having cleared the smoke, I am now going to give you a report that will surprise you and, if you are an antismoking
zealot, make your eyes bulge a little and cause black smoke to jet from your nostrils.
It has been reported from some of our best medical journals that cancer and Alzheimers disease are 50 percent less
frequent among smokers. It sounds like a man-bites-dog story, but the reported
case studies are quite impressive. These reports are not new -- just ignored. The apparent protective effect of smoking was first reported 30 years ago. With their backs to the wall, I am surprised the tobacco industry hasnt promulgated these findings.
The International Journal of Epidemiology reported in 1991 that Alzheimers disease was 50 percent less prevalent among
cigarette smokers and the heavier the smoking, the less the risk.
Parkinsons disease, an affliction perhaps worse than Alzheimers because the victim is trapped in a waxen state of semi-paralysis
with his mind still functioning, is also 50 percent less common among smokers. (At
least with Alzheimers, you are unaware of your progressive deterioration into a new babyhood.)
Articles that appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine and the Journal of the American Medical Association over
10 years ago, reported a 50 percent less incidence of osteoarthritis. This degenerative
disease is five times less common among smokers! This was documented by the federal
governments Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, the first report of its type.
Prostate cancer, the most common male neoplasm, was found to be 50 percent less common among smokers and, for women,
the New England Journal of Medicine reported in 1985 that cancer of the uterus was also 50 percent less common among female
smokers.
Even childrens diseases, such as Tourettes syndrome (a bizarre neurological disorder) and attention deficit disorder
have shown dramatic improvement with nicotine. (Cant you just see little Jane
puffing away at the morning break?) The kids with Tourettes usually improved
within 24 hours of application of a nicotine patch.
These findings are a striking contradiction to popular notions about the devastating effects of smoking. On the other hand, there can be little doubt that smoking causes emphysema and is related to other cancers
such as cancer of the lung and even breast cancer.
What are we to make of all this? Should you start smoking at age 60 to
prevent Alzheimers, Parkinsons, prostate cancer, uterine cancer, osteoarthritis, colon cancer, and ulcerative colitis? The idea is, admittedly, preposterous. But,
as Forbes magazine pointed out, the lung damage from smoking takes 30 years to develop -- and at 90 youre not going to worry
about it.
But perhaps there are alternatives to bad breath and brown-stained fingers. You
could smoke a nice aromatic cigar (on the porch, of course) after lunch and supper.
You dont have to, and shouldnt, inhale the smoke to get the nicotine effect; it will be absorbed from your mucous membranes. You can drink something cool while smoking your stogie, which will keep the weed from
irritating your mucous membranes and you will still get the benefit of swallowing some of the nicotine.
Have I gone mad telling you this? If you think so, read the medical journals
yourself. In 30 years of practice, I have noted that my cigar-smoking patients
all led a long and healthy life. Churchill died at 90, H.L. Mencken lived to
75, and George Burns is still gong strong at 99. All of them smoked cigars constantly
from late childhood to the very end. None of these gentlemen were patients of
mine, but I wish they had been, especially my two role models: Mencken and Burns.
There are other possibilities to enable you to get your ration of nicotine (assuming that is the beneficial agent in
tobacco). You could smoke a pipe, chew tobacco (NOT recommended, as chewing causes
cancer of the mouth and tongue -- and it doesnt take 30 years), or dip snuff like my great-grandmother Lucy Bell (who lived
to the age of 99). Snuff-dipping is really messy and you would be an outcast
for sure at the garden club and maybe even the pool hall.
You could even snort snuff powder. In the 18th century, it was quite fashionable
to snort snuff. Hold your hand out with the palm sideways. Lift your thumb up to a vertical position. You will notice
a depression at the base of the thumb. This is where the snuff was placed. Then, with the nose close, one sniffed it into the nasal passages (it was called sniffing,
not snorting -- gentlemen dont snort). In anatomy, this depression is called
the snuff box.
I know all this sounds a bit ridiculous, but everything Ive told you is true.
However, I know youre not going to take up smoking in any form. Converting
you to the foul weed is about as likely as getting a Muslim to turn Jewish -- or vice versa.
For those of you who think the idea of smoking two cigars a day, or even one, is too much, and it will be for most
people, and you wont smoke a pipe, dip or snort snuff, or chew tobacco, Ive heard theres another way to get your nicotine
-- EAT the tobacco.
It has been reported that the tobacco leaf -- raw, not cured as for cigarettes and cigars -- is an excellent source
of niacin and other nutrients and, of course, nicotine. It is said to be tasty
in salads, but I havent tried it. Im not recommending that you eat tobacco-leaf
salad as I havent done enough research on it, yet. All I have at this point is
an unsubstantiated rumor.
In the meantime, try the cigars if you can (1) overcome your aversion, (2) promise not to inhale (if Mr. Clinton can
resist such temptation, so can you), and (3) take the persecution from your family, your friends, and the smoke police.
[References: International Journal of Epidemiology, 1964; Journal of the
American Medical Association, 1981; New England Journal of Medicine, 1983 and 1985; Forbes, July 4, 1994.]
============End of Second Opinion article=========
-----------------------------------
That last cited article from Forbes magazine is also attached below in full.
-----------------------------------
Thank you for smoking...?
(health benefits from smoking)
Authors: Brimelow,
Peter
Citation: Forbes,
July 4, 1994 v154 n1 p80(2)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subjects: Smoking_Health
aspects
Reference #: A15476256
===========================================
Abstract: Smoking cigarettes appears to have some physical benefits despite
reports to the opposite. It may reduce the risks of developing diseases such
as prostate cancer and endometrial cancer, in addition to the behavioral benefits.
===========================================
Full Text COPYRIGHT Forbes Inc. 1994
THE HANGPERSONS NOOSE is unmistakably around the tobacco industrys neck. In Florida and Mississippi, state governments are attempting to force tobacco companies
to pay some smoking-related health care costs. In Washington, D.C., the Environmental
Protection Agency has claimed that secondhand smoke is a significant risk for nonsmokers and the Food & Drug Administration
is making noises about regulating nicotine as a drug. And recently the American
Medical Association agreed, reasserting that nicotine is addictive. Smokers have
already been driven from many workplaces into the street for a furtive puff. But
further legal harassment, to the point of what an industry spokesman calls backdoor prohibition, seems unstoppable.
Lost in this lynching frenzy: the
fact that smoking might be, in some small ways, good for you.
Hold on now! Lets be clear: The Surgeon General has indeed determined that smoking is dangerous to your health. Lung cancer and cardiovascular diseases are highly correlated with cigarette consumption. Annual smoking-related deaths are commonly said to be over 400,000 (although critics
say the number is inflated).
But so is driving automobiles dangerous to your health (over 40,000 deaths
a year). Yet people do it, because it has rewards as well as risk. And they judge, as individuals, that the reward outweighs the risk.
This is called freedom.
Well, what are the rewards of cigarette smoking? Apart from intangible pleasure, the most obvious is behavioral. A
battery of studies, such as those by British researcher D.M. Warburton, show that cigarettes, whatever their other effects,
really do stimulate alertness, dexterity and cognitive capacity.
And alertness, dexterity, etc. can be useful.
Such as when driving. Or flying -- as Congress recognized when it exempted
airline pilots from the ban on smoking on domestic flights.
These behavioral benefits suggest an answer to the Great Tobacco Mystery: why almost a third of adult Americans continue to do something they are told, incessantly
and insistently, is bad for them. (Duke University economist W. Kip Viscusi reported
in his 1992 book, Smoking: Making the Risky Decision, that survey data
show smokers, if anything, exaggerate the health danger of their habit.).
Smokers, according to numerous studies such as those by University of Michigan
researchers Ovide and Cynthia Pomerleau, are different from nonsmokers. They
tend toward depression and excitability. Current understanding is that nicotine
is amphoteric -- that is, it can act to counter both conditions, depending on how it is consumed. (Quick puffs stimulate, long drags calm.)
The implication is fascinating: A
large part of the population seems to be aware of its significant although not pathological personality quirks, and to have
discovered a form of self-medication that regulates them.
Of course, this explanation for the stubbornness of smokers is not as satisfying
as what Washington prefers to believe: mass seduction by the wicked tobacco companies
and their irresistible advertising. Nor would it justify huge rescue operations
by heroic politicians and bureaucrats.
Beyond its behavioral effects, smoking seems also to offer subtler health
rewards to balance against its undisputed risks:
* Parkinsons disease. The frequency of this degenerative disorder of the nervous system among smokers appears to be half the
rate among nonsmokers -- an effect recognized by the Surgeon General as long ago as 1964.
* Alzheimers disease. Similarly, the frequency of this degenerative mental disorder has recently been found to be as much as
50% less among smokers than among nonsmokers -- for example, by the 11 studies reviewed in the International Journal of
Epidemiology in 1991.
* Endometrial cancer. There is extensive and long-standing evidence that this disease of the womb occurs as much as 50% less among
smokers -- as documented by, for example, a New England Journal of Medicine article back in 1985. The triggering mechanism appears to be a reduction in estrogen levels.
* Prostate cancer. Conversely, smoking seems to raise estrogen levels in men and may be responsible for what appears to be
a 50% lower rate of prostate cancer among smokers, although this needs corroboration.
* Osteoarthritis. This degenerative disorder of bone and cartilage is up to five times less likely to occur among heavy smokers
-- as documented, for example, by the federal governments first Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.
* Colon cancer, ulcerative colitis. These diseases of the bowel seem to be about 30% and 50% less frequent
among smokers -- documented, for example, by articles in the Journal of the American Medical Association and in the
New England Journal of Medicine in 1981 and 1983, respectively.
Other benefits that have been suggested for smoking: lower rates of sarcoidosis and allergic alveolitis, both lung disorders, and possibly even acne. Smokers are also lighter -- ironic, because obesity is a leading cause of the cardiovascular disease that
smoking is also supposed to exacerbate. So you could quit smoking and still die
of a heart attack because of the weight you put on.
None of these health benefits is enough to persuade doctors to recommend
occasional cigarettes, in the way that some now occasionally recommend a glass of wine.
But consider this theoretical possibility:
Should 60-year-olds take up smoking because its protection against Alzheimers is more immediate than its potential
damage to the lungs, which wont show up for 30 years if at all?
A theoretical possibility -- and likely to remain theoretical. Research into possible benefits of tobacco and nicotine is widely reported to be stymied by the absolutist
moral fervor of the antismoking campaign.
Under the Carter Administration, the federal government abandoned its research
into safer cigarettes in favor of an attack on all smoking. No effort is made
to encourage smokers to switch to pipes and cigars, although their users lung cancer and heart disease rates are five to ten
times lower (somewhat offset by minor increases in mouth and throat cancers). There
is no current support for studies of the marginal increase in danger for each cigarette smoked, although it appears the human
system can clear the effects of three to five of the (much stronger) pre-1960 cigarettes, if dispersed across a day, with
relatively little risk.
Instead, the extirpation of smoking has become another moral equivalent of
war -- as President Carter called the energy crisis in the 1970s, and as price and wage controls were viewed earlier. There is no role for tradeoffs, risk-reward calculations or free choice.
Why dont tobacco companies point out the potential offsetting rewards of
smoking? Besides the usual corporate cowardice and bureaucratic inertia, the
answer may be another, typically American, disease--lawyers. Directing the companies
defense, they apparently veto any suggestion that smoking has benefits for fear of liability suits and of the possible regulatory
implications if nicotine is seen as a drug.
Which leaves smokers defenseless against a second typically American disease: the epidemic of power-hungry puritanical bigots.
=============end of Forbes article===============
MORE ON THE HEALTH BENEFITS FROM SMOKING CIGARS
[The following material is copied,
verbatim, from a booklet written by Dr. William Campbell Douglass, MD, entitled, BRAIN BOOSTERS: Healing the Secret
Causes of Memory Loss, copyright 1998, published by Second Opinion Publishing, Inc., Atlanta, GA. The quotation is from pp. 35-40. To order the whole booklet,
call 1-800-728-2288.]
++++++++++++++
Eat Tobacco to Enhance Your Memory and Prevent Alzheimers?
The American people have been worked into such a frenzy about cigarette smoke that people in Europe think we have gone
completely off the deep end.
You know I am absolutely opposed to cigarette smoking. I hate it! Im particularly opposed to smoking in public places as it invades the space of others
and not only irritates their eyes and breathing passages (including mine), but makes many of them a little crazy with tobacco
phobia.
Having cleared the smoke, I am now going to give you a report that will surprise you and, if you are an anti-smoking
zealot, make your eyes bulge a little and cause black smoke to jet from your nostrils and ears.
It has been reported from some of our best medical journals that cancer and Alzheimers disease are 50 percent less
frequent among smokers. It sound like a man-bites-dog story, but the reported
case studies are quite impressive. These reports are not new just ignored. The apparent protective effect of smoking was first reported 30 years ago. With their backs to the wall, I am surprised the tobacco industry hasnt promulgated these findings.
The International Journal of Epidemiology reported in 1991 that Alzheimers disease was 50 percent less prevalent
among cigarette smokers and the heavier the smoking, the less the risk.
Parkinsons disease, an affliction perhaps worse than Alzheimers because the victim is trapped in a waxen state of semi-paralysis
with his mind still functioning, is also 50 percent less common among smokers. (At
least with Alzheimers, you are unaware of your progressive deterioration into a new babyhood.)
Articles that appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine and the Journal of the American Medical Association
over 10 years ago, reported a 50 percent less incidence of colon cancer and ulcerative colitis in smokers.
Perhaps the most startling of the findings is that smoking reduces the incidence of osteoarthritis. This degenerative disease is five times less common among smokers!
This was documented by the federal governments Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, the first report of its type.
Prostate cancer, the most common male neoplasm, was found to be 50 percent less common among smokers and, for women,
the New England Journal of Medicine reported in 1985 that cancer of the uterus was also 50 percent less common among
female smokers.
Even childrens diseases, such as Tourettes syndrome (a bizarre neurological disorder) and attention deficit disorder
have shown dramatic improvements with nicotine. (Cant you just see little Jane
in grade school puffing away at the morning break?) The kids with Tourettes usually
improved within 24 hours of the application of a nicotine patch to the skin.
These findings are a striking contradiction to popular notions about the devastating effects of smoking. On the other hand, there can be little doubt that smoking causes emphysema and is related to other cancers
such as cancer of the lung and even breast cancer.
What are we to make of all this? Should you start smoking at age 60 to
prevent Alzheimers, Parkinsons, prostate cancer, uterine cancer, osteoarthritis, colon cancer, and ulcerative colitis? The idea is, admittedly, preposterous. But,
as Forbes magazine pointed out, the lung damage from smoking takes 30 years to develop and at 90 youre not going to
worry about that; all you care about is getting your memory back.
But perhaps there are alternatives to bad breath and brown-stained fingers. You
could smoke a nice aromatic cigar (on the porch, of course) after lunch and supper.
You dont have to, and shouldnt, inhale the smoke to get the nicotine effect; it will be absorbed from your mucous membranes. You can drink something cool while smoking your stogie, which will keep the weed from
irritating your mucous membranes and you will still get the benefit of swallowing some of the nicotine. [Dr. Douglass revealed, in his March, 2001, issue of Second Opinion, that he practices what he preaches. He says, I like rum (no Coke), wine with meals, and an occasional cigar (p. 2). JKB]
Have I gone mad telling you this? If you think so, read the medical journals
yourself. In 30 years of practice, I have noted that my cigar-smoking patients
all led a long and healthy life. Churchill died at 90, H.L. Mencken lived to
75, and George Burns was still going strong at 99. All of them smoked cigars
constantly from late childhood to the very end. None of these gentlemen were
patients of mine, but I wish they had been, especially my two role models: H.L. Mencken and George Burns.
There are other possibilities to enable you to get your ration of nicotine (assuming that is the beneficial agent in
tobacco). You could smoke a pipe, chew tobacco (NOT recommended, as chewing causes
cancer of the mouth and tongue and it doesnt take 30 years), or dip snuff like my great-grandmother Lucy Bell (who lived to
the age of 99). Snuff-dipping is really messy and you would be an outcast for
sure at the garden club and maybe even the pool hall.
You could even snort snuff powder. In the 18th century, it
was quite fashionable to snort snuff. Hold your hand out with the palm sideways. Lift your thumb up to a vertical position. You
will notice a depression at the base of the thumb. This is where the snuff was
placed. Then, with the nose close, one sniffed it into the nasal passages (it
was called sniffing, not snorting gentlemen dont snort). In anatomy, this little
depression at the base of the thumb is still called the snuff box.
I know all this sounds a bit ridiculous, but everything Ive told you is true.
However, I know youre not going to take up smoking in any form. Converting
you to the foul weed is about as likely as getting a Muslim to turn Jewish or vice versa.
For those of you who think the idea of smoking two cigars a day, or even one, is too much, and it will be for most
people, and you wont smoke a pipe, dip or snort snuff, or chew tobacco, Ive heard theres another way to get your nicotine
EAT the tobacco.
It has been reported that the tobacco leaf raw, not cured as for cigarettes and cigars is an excellent source of niacin
and other nutrients and, of course, nicotine. It is said to be tasty in salads,
but I havent tried it. Im not recommending that you eat tobacco-leaf salad as
I havent done enough research on it, yet. All I have at this point is an unsubstantiated
rumor.
In the meantime, try the cigars if you can (1) overcome your aversion, (2) promise not to inhale (if Mr. Clinton can
resist such temptation, so can you), and (3) take the persecution from your family, your friends, and the smoke police.
Nicotine Is Getting New Respect
Where do you suppose the name nicotinic acid (vitamin B3) came from? B3 was discovered in the tobacco plant.
A recent study, reported in the Journal of the American Chemical Society, concludes that nicotine may alleviate
the symptoms of Alzheimers disease. Another report, published in the journal
Biochemistry, went even further in suggesting that nicotine could actually prevent this brain-destroying disease. The research was partly funded by the Philip Morris Company (I thought you should
know.)
At Case Western Reserve University, chemist Michael Zagorski created a laboratory model of the brains chemistry, and
found that when nicotine was mixed with key brain chemicals, it stopped early development of sheet-like structures in the
brain that indicate deterioration. This deterioration leads to amyloid plaque,
which is characteristic of what is seen in the brains of Alzheimers cases. If
this inhibition of plaque formation with nicotine proves effective in the living patient, it will be an unprecedented breakthrough
in a disease that is now essentially hopeless.
Zagorski says we might prevent the ravages of Alzheimers if we started taking a nicotine-like drug around age 40. And you dont have to smoke cigars or a daily pack of Camel Lights to get the protective
effect. Individuals might be able to use smoking cessation patches, which contain
nicotine, to slow the loss of memory. The idea is that a continuous dose of nicotine
would stimulate key locations in the brain called receptors.
The Georgetown researchers say that the patch has proven very safe in a small study of Alzheimers patients. Since the patch is free of the toxic chemicals found in smoke, and because the nicotine is given in low
doses, there is little risk of individuals becoming addicted to the drug.
Action to take: If you have a strong family history of Alzheimers disease, you should consider using the nicotine
patch. This therapy is not proven, but it is safe and its always better to prevent
something than to attempt a cure later. We dont know if Alzheimers is a hereditary
disease or from aluminum poisoning (I suspect the latter). Since we dont know,
I would go with the patch if the disease seems to run in your family (i.e., father, mother, or sibling).
[Ref: Journal of the American Chemical Society, October 22, 1996; International Journal of Epidemiology,
1964; Journal of the American Medical Association, 1981; New England Journal of Medicine, 1983 and 1985; Forbes,
July 4, 1994.]
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
A good OPC minister friend, Rev. Rodney King, sent me this old poem, written
most probably by a well-known theologian from the past: Ralph Erskine. He describes
how the smoking of tobacco helps to illustrate for us many of the lessons of Gods Word.
-------------------------
This Indian weed now witherd quite,
Tho green at noon, cut down at night,
Shows thy decay;
All flesh is hay.
Thus think, and smoke tobacco.
The pipe so lily-like and weak,
Does thus thy mortal state bespeak.
Thou art evn such,
Gone with a touch.
Thus think, and smoke tobacco.
And when the smoke ascends on high,
Then thou beholdst the vanity
Of worldly stuff,
Gone with a puff.
Thus think, and smoke tobacco.
And when the pipe grows foul within,
Think on thy soul defild with sin;
For then the fire,
It does require.
Thus think, and smoke tobacco.
And seest the ashes cast away;
Then to thyself thou mayest say
That to the dust
Return thou must.
Thus think, and smoke tobacco.
Was this small plant for thee cut down?
So was the plant of great renown;
Which mercy sends
For nobler ends.
Thus think, and smoke tobacco.
Doth juice medicinal proceed
From such a naughty foreign weed?
Then whats the powr
Of Jesses flowr?
Thus think, and smoke tobacco.
The promise, like the pipe, inlays,
And by the mouth of faith conveys
What virtue flows
From Sharons rose.
Thus think, and smoke tobacco.
In vain th unlighted pipe you blow;
Your pains in inward means are so,
Till heavnly fire
Thy heart inspire.
Thus think, and smoke tobacco.
The smoke, like burning incense towrs
So should a praying heart of yours,
With ardent cries,
Surmount the skies.
Thus think, and smoke tobacco.
------------------
E-mail, received 7/3/99 from Rev. Jack Sawyer then a minister at Covenant
Presbyterian Church (OPC), Forest, Mississippi, now Pastor of Pineville OPC, Pineville, LA.
Dear All,
Spurgeon's theological credibility was destroyed by the use of cigars. Thankfully doctor Machen spared us in the OPC of that sad legacy. He only gave them away but did not smoke them (or inhale them either).
Witness this quote from the Stonehouse biography.
The fellows are in my room now on the last Sunday night, smoking the cigars
and eating the oranges which it has been the greatest delight I ever had to provide whenever possible. My idea of delight
is a Princeton room full of fellows smoking. When I think what a wonderful aid
tobacco is to friendship and Christian patience I have sometimes regretted that I never began to smoke....
No photos to my knowledge dispute this testimony.
JS
----------
E-mail from: V E Hathaway
Date: Saturday, July 03, 1999 10:15 AM
Re: Spurgeons use of cigars. I
have seen a photo of Spurgeon which in some older versions show him holding a cigar altered in such a way that that portion
of the photo is blurred or the cigar is replaced with a pair of glasses.
Vaughn Hathaway
+++++++++++
As a rather interesting aside, some kind old lady once asked Spurgeon if
he thought that smoking cigars was harmful. Anything is harmful if taken to excess, replied Spurgeon. Well then, what would you consider excessive?, she persisted. I
believe that if I got to the point to where I was smoking two at once that would definitely be over the line, retorted the
inimitable Spurgeon.
++++++++++++
E-mail to OPC list from Ruling Elder, John Muether
Date:
05/23/2000 8:57:07 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Brothers,
I have been lurking on this list for a while, but when the chimney of the
Presbytery of the South, Jeff Boer, lauded the health benefits of smoking, I could be silent no longer. Jeff referred to the benefits to the body of smoking, and rightly so, as the context of his comments was
alternative medicine. Still, all of the benefits that he cited (none of which
I care to challenge) do not provide the best case for smoking, which is the benefits it provides not to the body but to the
soul.
Smoking enhances conviviality and sociability, which are necessary conditions
for Christian fellowship and thoughtful theological reflection. Can anyone doubt
that the character of G.A. debate would be elevated were it conducted in a smoke-filled room? The
reason is simple: smoking affords the opportunity for one to form an opinion before he offers an opinion. The virtues of tobacco even persuaded Machen, a non-smoker, who delighted in feeding the nicotine habit
of his Princeton Seminary classmates. Perhaps the lapsed Lutheran, Garrison Keillor,
said it best when he suggested that nonsmokers may live longer, but they live dumber.
For more on the benefits of smoking to Reformed spirituality, I would suggest
that you check out the Nicotine Theological Journal. If you are interested, drop
me an email I might know where to find a copy or two.
John Muether
Ruling Elder
Moderate Smoker
Muether.1@opc.org
++++++++++++++
Spurgeons Example As A Cigar Smoker
[William Williams, Charles Haddon Spurgeon: Personal Reminiscences (London:
The Religious Tract Society, n.d.), 30-32. Quoted from http://www.spurgeon.org/misc/cigars.htm]
While Mr. Spurgeon was living at Nightingale Lane, Clapham, an excursion was one day organised by one of the young
mens classes at the Tabernacle. The brake with the excursionists was to call
for the President on their way to mid-Surrey.
It was a beautiful early morning, and the men arrived in high spirits, pipes and cigars alight, and looking forward
to a day of unrestrained enjoyment. Mr. Spurgeon was ready waiting at the gate. He jumped up to the box-seat reserved for him, and looking round with an expression
of astonishment, exclaimed: What, gentlemen! Are you not ashamed to be smoking
so early?
Here was a damper! Dismay was on every face. Pipes and cigars one by one failed and dropped out of sight.
When all had disappeared, out came the Presidents cigar-case. He lit up
and smoked away serenely.
The men looked at him astonished. I thought you said you objected to smoking,
Mr. Spurgeon? one ventured.
Oh no, I did not say I objected. I asked if they were not ashamed, and
it appears they were, for they have all put their pipes away.
Amid laughter the pipes reappeared, and with puffs of smoke the party went on merrily.
+++++++++++
Dr. Jeffrey K. Boer
boer.1@opc.org
