Cigarette Sales to be restricted to over 21's

[Bayum]

I’m all for more stringent rules around smoking, legality and ability to obtain. Doctors are unable to prescribe long courses of addictive medication (opiates, benzos, hypnotics etc) because we know of the devastating effect addiction to these drugs can have, yet we allow smoking to continue. Taxes?

 

[Yew]

They're designed to be dangerous.

Could you back up this assertion? How much R&D money does, say BAT spend on intentionally making their products more dangerous?

 

[najaB]

Could you back up this assertion? How much R&D money does, say BAT spend on intentionally making their products more dangerous?

Okay, to be fair to them - while they aren't deliberately making their product more dangerous, there's lots of evidence that they have made deliberate choices that make their product less safe:

Consider 'filters', which were added to mass produced cigarettes from the 1950s onwards. They are specifically designed so that they change colour to give the impression that they are doing something in order to encourage users to continue using them. The colour change has nothing to do with making the product any safer to use, just to make people think that it's safe.

Consider also that the tobacco used in cigarettes was changed significantly from the 1930s onwards to be more acidic and less strong. This was done to encourage smokers to inhale deeply and deliver the nicotine (and toxins) deeper into the lungs. This is the reason why cigar smokers have a lower incidence of lung cancer than cigarette smokers - cigar smokers puff rather than inhale.

Also, the tobacco industry has stymied research into "cancer-free" cigarettes. Several have been developed, but none have stayed on the market (I remember all the hype around RJ Reynold's smokeless cigarettes in the late 1980s but they never hit the market in any significant way).

Finally, the tobacco companies have been steadily reducing the amount of tobacco leaf and increasing the 'by product' content and using puffed tobacco so that the nicotine content of the average cigarette is lower now than it was fifty years ago - with the consequence that smokers inhale more per puff so that they can get the same 'hit'.

 

[dgl]

The "safe" cigarettes never got to market becuase you would then be admitting that your regular cigarettes were dangerous, the lawyers would never let them be released.
Also in the US the moment the tobacco companies scientists started to link smoking tobacco with cancer they quickly got sacked and their work destroyed and when the heads of said companies were asked if they believed tehir products cause cancer they all said no, despite them all knowing the exact opposite was true.
There's more than just health and monetary benefits to stopping smoking, you are also then not supporting some of the most disgusting companies out there.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Communion wine is largely irrelevant to people who don't go to church, which is the vast majority of nominal "Christians".

To add to that: I believe it's not uncommon for churches to substitute (or at least, make available as a choice) non-alcoholic drinks for the communion wine. If attitudes in society move further against alcohol, then I'd expect that trend to become greater. Besides, in my experience, the amount consumed is normally tiny - usually, barely a sip, so arguably not particularly comparable to drinking even small quantities of alcohol.

 

[najaB]

To add to that: I believe it's not uncommon for churches to substitute (or at least, make available as a choice) non-alcoholic drinks for the communion wine. If attitudes in society move further against alcohol, then I'd expect that trend to become greater. Besides, in my experience, the amount consumed is normally tiny - usually, barely a sip, so arguably not particularly comparable to drinking even small quantities of alcohol.

Yes. All of this is true. However, a ban on alcohol would need to have popular support and most Christians - even those who don't drink - recognise that the Bible itself says that drinking alcohol isn't just okay, but actually promotes it's consumption:

Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities.

 

[Butts]

Yes. All of this is true. However, a ban on alcohol would need to have popular support and most Christians - even those who don't drink - recognise that the Bible itself says that drinking alcohol isn't just okay, but actually promotes it's consumption:

I wonder what it's view on Cigarettes would have been had they existed when it was "written"

 

[najaB]

I wonder what it's view on Cigarettes would have been had they existed when it was "written"

That's a really good question! Though, it's more likely that it would have be speaking of pipes or cigars since those are the traditional way that tobacco was consumed. Cigarettes only became popular in the late 1800s from what I've read.

 

[Ediswan]

I wonder what it's view on Cigarettes would have been had they existed when it was "written"

Smoke (wood) would have been common. Incense is approved of. The majority of people would have died of something else long before tobacco-related illness would have developed, even if a connection was recognised. I suspect it would, like alcohol, have got a 'do not over-indulge'.

How the text is interpreted today is whole different question.

 

[Yew]

Okay, to be fair to them - while they aren't deliberately making their product more dangerous, there's lots of evidence that they have made deliberate choices that make their product less safe:

Consider 'filters', which were added to mass produced cigarettes from the 1950s onwards. They are specifically designed so that they change colour to give the impression that they are doing something in order to encourage users to continue using them. The colour change has nothing to do with making the product any safer to use, just to make people think that it's safe.

Consider also that the tobacco used in cigarettes was changed significantly from the 1930s onwards to be more acidic and less strong. This was done to encourage smokers to inhale deeply and deliver the nicotine (and toxins) deeper into the lungs. This is the reason why cigar smokers have a lower incidence of lung cancer than cigarette smokers - cigar smokers puff rather than inhale.

Also, the tobacco industry has stymied research into "cancer-free" cigarettes. Several have been developed, but none have stayed on the market (I remember all the hype around RJ Reynold's smokeless cigarettes in the late 1980s but they never hit the market in any significant way).

Finally, the tobacco companies have been steadily reducing the amount of tobacco leaf and increasing the 'by product' content and using puffed tobacco so that the nicotine content of the average cigarette is lower now than it was fifty years ago - with the consequence that smokers inhale more per puff so that they can get the same 'hit'.

The actions of tobacco companies can be regulated without resorting to incredibly coarse measures such as those being proposed by some in this thread.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Yes. All of this is true. However, a ban on alcohol would need to have popular support and most Christians - even those who don't drink - recognise that the Bible itself says that drinking alcohol isn't just okay, but actually promotes it's consumption:

Yes that's to some extent true, although the passage you cite probably needs to be seen in the light of, that prior to modern times, water was not of reliable purity and so not necessarily safe; drinking alcohol was - as I understand it - a common way to avoid the risk of becoming ill from drinking unclean water - so it seems reasonable to suspect that Timothy 1 - 5:23 has little relevance today. I'm going to hazard a guess that alcohol in those days was probably weaker (less concentrated) than you'd typically find today too. But of course what matters in the context of how most Christians perceive alcohol is really how different individuals/Churches interpret the Bible, and that will vary widely.

 

[najaB]

Yes that's to some extent true, although the passage you cite probably needs to be seen in the light of, that prior to modern times, water was not of reliable purity and so not necessarily safe; drinking alcohol was - as I understand it - a common way to avoid the risk of becoming ill from drinking unclean water - so it seems reasonable to suspect that Timothy 1 - 5:23 has little relevance today.

Okay then, how about the fact that Jesus (I understand he's pretty big with Christians) (a) turned water into wine; and (b) told his followers to partake of bread and wine in his name.

 

[Techniquest]

Yes that's to some extent true, although the passage you cite probably needs to be seen in the light of, that prior to modern times, water was not of reliable purity and so not necessarily safe; drinking alcohol was - as I understand it - a common way to avoid the risk of becoming ill from drinking unclean water - so it seems reasonable to suspect that Timothy 1 - 5:23 has little relevance today. I'm going to hazard a guess that alcohol in those days was probably weaker (less concentrated) than you'd typically find today too. But of course what matters in the context of how most Christians perceive alcohol is really how different individuals/Churches interpret the Bible, and that will vary widely.

All very good points. Some of my friends are committed Jehovah's Witnesses, and they happily consume small amounts of wine very occasionally. These days, my view of alcohol consumption is that it would not be considered good practice by the divine spirits.

As you say, how people interpret the Bible varies hugely. It's worth noting in Matthew 5 that it says those who look at a woman to create a passion for her are adulterers, as are those who create a relationship with a divorced woman (unless the divorce was because of sexual infidelity). How one chooses to understand that is up to them. I should quote the text:

Matthew 5:27-28

"You heard that it was said: 'You must not commit adultery.' But I say to you that everyone who keeps on looking at a woman so as to have a passion for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart".

And for good measure, Matthew 5:32 reads:

"However, I say to you that everyone divorcing his wife, except on account of sexual immorality, makes her a subject for adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery".

I think it's fairly safe to say such Scripture is not too well known or considered in the modern world! Like the one najaB quoted, it's a bit open to interpretation. All I can say is that I'm certainly not going to be welcomed into God's Kingdom, clearly!

Okay then, how about the fact that Jesus (I understand he's pretty big with Christians) (a) turned water into wine; and (b) told his followers to partake of bread and wine in his name.

It's a shame I can't think where to consult the Bible on that. The latter certainly sounds like an event held at the annual Memorial of Jesus' death, and it's worth noting bread of Jesus' time was nothing like bread we consume today. You'll have to forgive my failure to remember the ingredients, I seem to recall it was made of just 4 ingredients. Modern bread, certainly that made in the supermarkets, is made with flour fortified with things like thiamin and calcium, which absolutely would not have been understood back then. The wine used in such an event is not the sort you might buy in a shop to go with a steak dinner, again you'll have to forgive my failure to remember the ingredients but I'd not want to consume it, regardless of teetotal status!

This is starting to become quite an interesting topic you know!

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Okay then, how about the fact that Jesus (I understand he's pretty big with Christians) (a) turned water into wine; and (b) told his followers to partake of bread and wine in his name.

Well personally, my own Christian beliefs tends to lie on the ultra-'liberal' fringe, and I take the view that it's a bit silly to base your morals on what a book says without reference to life experience etc. My life experience plus evidence from society around me tells me that alcohol (other than in small quantities) is generally harmful and I'm happy to be guided by that and therefore avoid alcohol and favour Government policies that discourage it. Having said that, I recall once or twice when I was younger (and teetotalism much rarer and less accepted) having other people from churches rather disapprovingly questioning me about how I could be against alcohol when the Bible so clearly favours it. To that extent your questions are spot on

More generally, from a mixture of personal experience and some Googling, I would say that there are broadly two ways that those churches/Christians that are more Bible-centric but opposed to alcohol reconcile their beliefs. One is by arguing that Bible passages need to be seen in a historical context, and perhaps those passages that seem to favour wine are less relevant to today's society. That's pretty much the same reasoning by which many Christians are happy to accept things like gay marriage and ordination of women. On the more evangelical side, Wikipedia claims: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_in_the_Bible)

There are some who interpret certain passages in the Bible as not referring to alcohol, arguing that all positive references to "wine" in Scripture refer to non-alcoholic beverages and all negative references speak of alcoholic beverages. Advocates of this view, called the "two-wine" position, argue that the Greek and Hebrew words rendered "wine" in most English versions are generic terms for fruit juices; context determines if the beverage in view is alcoholic or not. The fact is pointed out that even in earlier stages of the English language, such as in 1611 when the King James Version was translated, "wine" could refer to non-alcoholic beverages as well as alcoholic ones.

I have no idea how good the scholarship that leads to that conclusion might or might not be

I think it's important to note that, while the Bible seems to approve of wine, I /think/ I'm correct in saying that nothing in the Bible condones actually getting drunk, so if you're going by the Bible, it seems reasonable to make a distinction between small and large quantities of alcohol.

This is starting to become quite an interesting topic you know!

It is! Shame it has nothing to do with cigarettes! I suspect a moderator request to split the thread could be appropriate if this continues...

 

[najaB]

I think it's important to note that, while the Bible seems to approve of wine, I /think/ I'm correct in saying that nothing in the Bible condones actually getting drunk, so if you're going by the Bible, it seems reasonable to make a distinction between small and large quantities of alcohol.

The problem is, of course, that a ban would be against any sale and/or consumption rather than excessive consumption.

For that matter, how would it impact home brewing?

 

[Yew]

For that matter, how would it impact home brewing?

I think the bible speaks fondly of turning water into wine.