Smoking

King James was a great opponent of tobacco, which Walter Raleigh had introduced to England. James being of questionable morals, someone wrote this after the king's demise:

Sir Walter Raleigh, name of worth!
How sweet for thee to know
King James, who never smoked on earth,
is smoking down below!

 

I am speechless! I'm surprised you didn't lose your eyesight. Or were you already wearing glasses back then?

That is one story worth retelling.

 

Pipedude.

I have been wearing glasses since I was 2 years old. They don't help me now, I just wear them because my eyes have no strength and they constantly cross.

Scares the neighbors kids when I don't keep them on.

Ha

 

I never smoked until I became so severely stressed out between school and work that my friend offered one to me. I've smoked less than a pack. Bought a pack a month ago, and have only smoked one.

 

Grace throw them as far as you can and never look back.

 

Grace, Brother Bob just gave you the best advice on smoking you will ever get. I threw my last pack away in the Raleigh Durham Airport in November 1973 - look at all the grief I have been spared, and money I have saved since then! Just do it - throw that pack away!!!! Bruce

 

Grace, I have heard a thousand people say they wished they could quit cigarettes. I've never met one who told me he was glad, enjoyed it, and wouldn't quit if he had the chance. Never.

If my experience is valid, let's face it: if you get hooked, you'll rue the day you read these posts and ignored them, even if you live emphysema free and die in a hang gliding accident at 95.

Yet I've never met a pipe smoker who expressed a similar desire to quit, nor a cigar smoker. Have y'all heard different? (From one who isn't dying of throat cancer, I mean.)

 

Probably because pipe smoking does not have quite the social stigma that cigarettes have acquired. Indeed, many people think that pipe smoke smells good. I used to have people tell me that I reminded them of their grandfather or similar things. There is also the notion that pipe smoking is less dangerous than cigarettes. I would have to confess that I often inhaled my pipe smoke, although not as deeply as I would with cigarettes. Also, like you mentioned, there is throat cancer, and I think mouth cancer is not uncommon due to the juices that tend to accompany the pipe. I wouldn't want to go back, even though I did find it pleasurable. At a certain point in a man's life, he has to stop doing things just because he enjoys them.

 

Pipe smoking has a more pleasant aroma than regular cigarette tobacco. I used to love the smell of good pipe tobacco (if any tobacco can actually be called good). I was especilly thrilled in the 70's when the Cherry Flavored cigarettes 'Eric's' came to my home town.

I did not care for smoking them, I was hooked on regular cigarettes then. But I bought the Erics and would burn them like incense. I would light them and set them in the ash tray just for the smell.

This is probably why pipe smoking is not looked down on as much as cigarettes. The aroma.

 

My doctor told me to get a pipe and what tobacco to buy. Of course it was very expensive tobacco and so was the pipe. He was trying to get me off cigarettes. But that was 35 years ago. I tried the pipe but my tongue became so sore I couldn't stand it so back to the cig for years and years. It is a shame really that we grew up with cowboys, heros, doctors you name it on TV advertising a brand of cigeratte. You remember John Cameron Swazey. Not sure I spelled it right but he was a new anchor who advertised Camels. Tis a rough life we overcome but thank God we made it after some heart surgerys and others.

 

I spoke at length with a medical doctor today, a specialist in internal medicine, and he told me what he knows or thinks:</font>

• Only 20% of smokers develop lung cancer</font>
• Fewer develop emphysema</font>
• Probably 95% of lung cancer patients are smokers</font>
• Maybe 75% of emphysema patients are smokers</font>
• He smokes Dunhill cigarettes himself, about twelve a day.</font>

 

&lt;-- And we look so distinguished!

 

When I started smoking a pipe at age 16, this was the early days of making smoking illegal in enclosed buildings, "except in designated areas," and virtually eliminating it inside stores, schools, et al. My older sister picked up on the arguments used by those who wanted get rid of smokers by saying she was going to get lung cancer if I smoked near her. I told her I read that 95% of those who develop lung cancer were "heavy cigarette smokers," which I did in fact read; and that leave 5% for 'moderate' cigarette smokers, smokers of pipes and cigars, occasional smokers, and then nonsmokers who are around smoke, then finally those who develop the disease from other sources [industrial pollution, etc.] This goes along with what the doctor you mentioned said about 95%of lung cancer patients were/are smokers. The argument didn't sway my sister and it won't sway anybody else... because oppositon to smoking is mostly just the abhorance of it; to say you are going to get a disease against vast odds as the reason, especially the very long odds of lung cancer, knocks probabilities winding. My sister, I might add, liked to burn incense, a smell she liked instead of detested, and it has been shown to be related to lung diseases.

The "dangers of second-hand smoke" is far more an excuse of the senses than a legitimate reason of physiology to militantly oppose smoking.

 

The best passage in the Bible for dealing with any potentially addictive habit would be:

The question should not be "Is there anything wrong with smoking?" The question should be "Is it expedient? Does it edify? Is it something that would cause someone to stumble?"

If you think you can smoke and not get addicted and not get health problems, fine. However, think about it:
* What if your smoking caused a weaker person to be turned away from receiving Christ because that person knew of someone else who had died of lung cancer because of cigarettes and your testimony did not help your witness one bit?
* What if your strong health allowed you to smoke, but your condoning of the worthless habit caused a weaker one to acquire the same worthless habit and then suffered the consequences? Wouldn't you feel to blame, with that person's blood on your hands?
* What if your second-hand smoke affected the health of those with weak lungs around you?
It is a worthless, costly, unhealthy habit.

If it is not expedient or it has the power over you (addiction), follow Paul's example.

The same would go for alcohol, drugs, over-eating, etc. Any of these habits that (1)do not improve your health, (2)are addictive, (3)could possibly cause a poor testimony to weaker believers or the world, (4)cut unnecessarily into your budget (that could be used for much more profitable things for your family and others), and/or (5)supports those whose main purpose is to continue to lock you and others in the same worthless habits, should best be avoided by believers whose main purpose on this earth is to impact others for Christ.