Francis Close on the evil of youthful smoking

Status
Not open for further replies.

Reformed Covenanter

Cancelled Commissioner
... On this point there is not a doubt or hesitation; all unite in picturing in the strongest colours the frightful effects of the poison on youths under age, — how it stunts the growth, checks the development of all the powers of mind and body, destroys manhood, and whether by its irritating effects on some, or its soporific effects on others, leaves the early smoker at twenty or five-and-twenty years of age emasculated, trembling, effeminate. …

Let parents, teachers, masters of apprentices (many of whom have been hurried into acts of fraud and dishonesty to gratify the craving appetite for tobacco), and all who are in authority, use their power to put down this great national evil of boy-smoking. Let mothers, sisters, and wives use their influence to abate this ruinous practice, against which all who are in the least degree acquainted with the subject so loudly protest. ...

For more, see:

 
I've never heard much opposition to the use of smoking products from this time period. Not that I've looked though, I've just always heard that the opposition grew out of the scientific research done in the U.S. in the 1900s.

Both sides; both pro and against tobacco use; make some good points. I am not entirely against their use, but I personally refrain, as of now.
 
Maybe the longer context makes it clearer but as for the given quote, there is no distinction between occasional smoking and a full blown addict. My wife and I both lost our fathers to the long term effects of cigarette smoking but even though I never smoke, I won’t go around making laws for my brothers who enjoy an occasional cigar or pipe.

One problem I have seen on the PB, which is not indicative of the majority here, is the occasional individual pushing a ban on a particular hobby horse. For instance,

- All video games are bad
- All fiction books are bad
- All movies are bad
- Etc.

When these claims are brought forward, they are often done with an appeal to some earthly authority (famous author) and rarely with any kind of biblical authority to justify the ban.

So I would like my shot at the trend and offer the following:

- Making laws for Christians without any supporting and legitimate biblical authority is really, really bad.
 
Maybe the longer context makes it clearer but as for the given quote, there is no distinction between occasional smoking and a full blown addict. My wife and I both lost our fathers to the long term effects of cigarette smoking but even though I never smoke, I won’t go around making laws for my brothers who enjoy an occasional cigar or pipe.

One problem I have seen on the PB, which is not indicative of the majority here, is the occasional individual pushing a ban on a particular hobby horse. For instance,

- All video games are bad
- All fiction books are bad
- All movies are bad
- Etc.

When these claims are brought forward, they are often done with an appeal to some earthly authority (famous author) and rarely with any kind of biblical authority to justify the ban.

So I would like my shot at the trend and offer the following:

- Making laws for Christians without any supporting and legitimate biblical authority is really, really bad.
Indeed. Once you start making these laws then it follows there is someone godlier than you because he denies x more things than you do. Why are you then not like him?
 
Voddie Baucham shares an illustration of a young Christian smoker who struggles to kick the habit and wants to know God's will by blindly opening his Bible and reading whatever verse his finger sovereignly lands upon:

so he opens his Bible and drops his finger on the very wise verse that "your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit"

feeling the hairs on the back of his neck stand up at such providence he closes the pages again and - with a more confident flourish - randomly opens to a new place and - with a newfound assurance of the voice of God near to him - blindly drops his finger and reads that "the temple was filled with smoke".
 
Maybe the longer context makes it clearer but as for the given quote, there is no distinction between occasional smoking and a full blown addict. My wife and I both lost our fathers to the long term effects of cigarette smoking but even though I never smoke, I won’t go around making laws for my brothers who enjoy an occasional cigar or pipe.

One problem I have seen on the PB, which is not indicative of the majority here, is the occasional individual pushing a ban on a particular hobby horse. For instance,

- All video games are bad
- All fiction books are bad
- All movies are bad
- Etc.

When these claims are brought forward, they are often done with an appeal to some earthly authority (famous author) and rarely with any kind of biblical authority to justify the ban.

So I would like my shot at the trend and offer the following:

- Making laws for Christians without any supporting and legitimate biblical authority is really, really bad.

I agree with your general sentiment, Jim, and I have posted stuff to the contrary on this issue before. As usual, all quotes that I post are disinterested ones. Still, where I come from 99% of smoking is sinful. There are exceptions to this general rule, no doubt but the vast majority of smokers are slaves to it as a result of adopting this habit in their youth.
 
We went from smoking Malboro reds to vaping strawberry shortcake.
I dont think it is because people that Vape necessarily prefer fruity flavors. Its more because burning tobacco has a distinct flavor which can only be wrought by the burning of it. Vapes do not burn plant matter, thus the reason England's Royal College of Physicians, which has done the largest study on Vaping, found it 95% less harmful than smoking. With Vaping, there is no tar; which is the root cause of most of tobacco products carcinogens. It can be done flavorlessly, with just VG (Vegetable Glycerin,) PG (Propylene Glycol,) and Nicotine. People just add the flavors so they taste something while doing it. So people may make slight fun of those that Vape, as far as caring for the temple, it is the overwhelmingly better option if one is going to partake in regular nicotine usage. Nicotine in itself, in the dosage used for smoking or vaping is relatively harmless, though addictive. Its the detriment that the smoking of tobacco products causes on the lungs, mouth, and throat that is dangerous. They do have tobacco flavored Vape juices, but they dont really taste anything like cigarettes. You really cant mimic the burning of tobacco.
 
Last edited:
I dont think it is because people that Vape necessarily prefer fruity flavors. Its more because burning tobacco has a distinct flavor which can only be wrought by the burning of it. Vapes do not burn plant matter, thus the reason England's Royal College of Physicians, which has done the largest study on Vaping, found it 95% less harmful than smoking. With Vaping, there is no tar; which is the root cause of most of tobacco products carcinogens. It can be done flavorlessly, with just VG (Vegetable Glycerin,) PG (Propylene Glycol,) and Nicotine. People just add the flavors so they taste something while doing it. So people may make slight fun of those that Vape, as far as caring for the temple, it is the overwhelmingly better option if one is going to partake in regular nicotine usage. Nicotine in itself, in the dosage used for smoking or vaping is relatively harmless, though addictive. Its the detriment that the smoking of tobacco products causes on the lungs, mouth, and throat that is dangerous. They do have tobacco flavored Vape juices, but they dont really taste anything like cigarettes. You really cant mimic the burning of tobacco.

Is there a study done on the effects of vaping on testosterone?

(by the way, not a joke there in case that possibility gives you pause)
 
Is there a study done on the effects of vaping on testosterone?

(by the way, not a joke there in case that possibility gives you pause)
I dont know, any studies that relate to nicotine and its effects on testosterone would apply; whether it be cigarettes, cigars, or vape. There are really only a few chemicals in Vape juice; VG, PG, Flavor, and Nic. The only one I could see possibly affecting it, would be the Nic. If you overdue it, which is easy to do with Vape because it is not harsh on your lungs like Smoke; too much nicotine intake may affect it. If used regularly, it shoudlnt have any effects. Weighing through this we also have to realize that Tobacco products is a a major industry, not just for vice, but for the taxation of such vice in many states. In many states cigarettes are twice what they would normally cost because of them.
 
Last edited:
There are really only a few chemicals in Vape juice; VG, PG, Flavor, and Nic.
Partly true - when you heat them (benzoic acid, propylene glycol, glycerine, etc.) they change (chemical reaction) into compounds whose effect is yet unknown. Some brands also contain Vitamin E acetate which is strongly linked to the outbreak of vaping-associated lung injury (it even has its own medical acronym now - EVALI).
 
Partly true - when you heat them (benzoic acid, propylene glycol, glycerine, etc.) they change (chemical reaction) into compounds whose effect is yet unknown. Some brands also contain Vitamin E acetate which is strongly linked to the outbreak of vaping-associated lung injury (it even has its own medical acronym now - EVALI).
Yeah, I would never Vape Vit.E. Thats what caused all those Vape incidents a few years back when people were smuggling THC-Vapes from legal states and cutting it with Vit.E to make more money. There is no need to add that to the juices.
 
Eyeroll and yawn.

What do you think of what your denomination's Constitution says?

"The use of tobacco is detrimental to health and is to be avoided because of the responsibility to preserve the body which is a temple of God."
 
What do you think of what your denomination's Constitution says?

"The use of tobacco is detrimental to health and is to be avoided because of the responsibility to preserve the body which is a temple of God."
I think the RP Testimony doesn't link smoking and effeminacy. It's a silly argument.
 
I have a friend, 97 years old, who would wag her finger and say that Christians that smoked were dirty Christians. I don't agree with her on that and don't think smoking is inherently sinful. In things where the Scripture is silent, moderation is the key.
 
As a pipe smoker, it's been interesting watching this thread. I probably won't ever be in the same room as any of you, and so there is no chance to offend in person.

I'm thankful that none of us will see reason for offense in glory.
 
There's only two kinds of people in this world that irritate me.

1. People who are intolerant of other people's decision to smoke.

2. Smokers.
 
Well this is disappointing. I thought this thread was going to be about Pope Francis being close to being right about something.
 
Same here. Both grandfathers smoked and they smelled like ashtrays which was very off putting. I never took up smoking.
I had severe asthma as a child. Having two parents that smoked in the home I'm sure contributed to my suffering. Even to this day, after a few minutes of being around smoke, my upper airways become irritated.
 
What do you think of what your denomination's Constitution says?

"The use of tobacco is detrimental to health and is to be avoided because of the responsibility to preserve the body which is a temple of God."

It's generally not understood as mandate to abstain entirely. Another section, RPT 26.5 in the section "Communion of the Saints":

"For preservation of life and because of respect for our bodies as God's creation, we are to be careful in the use of drugs. Christians should avoid enslavement to alcohol, tobacco or any habit-forming drug. The Scripture strongly condemns drunkenness as a sin."
 
Thinking about the OP earlier, a case could be made that his point was misapplied against the occasional pipe or cigar smoking but could be legitimately applied to cigarette smoking.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top