Buddhism and smoking, what's your thoughts?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
Ben
Posts: 18442
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:49 am
Location: kanamaluka

Re: Is tobacco a drug

Post by Ben » Sun Jul 26, 2009 11:16 pm

Hi Blackbird

In the 19th Century, Nicotine was the poison of choice by assassins as it was, then, undetectable.
7.2 Toxicity
7.2.1 Human data
7.2.1.1 Adults
The mean lethal dose has been estimated to be 30
to 60 mg (0.5-1.0 mg/kg) (Gosselin, 1988).
7.2.1.2 Children
The lethal dose is considered to be about 10 mg
of nicotine (Arena, 1974).
7.2.2 Relevant animal data
Dog: oral LD50: 9.2 mg/kg
mouse: oral LD50: 3.3 mg/kg (RTECS, 1985-86)

Main risks and target organs
Nicotine is one of the most toxic of all poisons and has a
rapid onset of action. Apart from local caustic actions, the
target organs are the peripheral and central nervous systems.
Nicotine is also a powerfully addictive drug.


Inhalation
Smoking causes coronary and peripheral vascular disease,
cancer, chronic obstructive lung disease, peptic ulcer
and reproductive disturbances, including prematurity.
Nicotine may contribute to tobacco related disease, but
direct causation has not been determined because
nicotine is taken up simultaneously with a multitude of
other potentially harmful substances that occur in
tobacco smoke and smokeless tobacco

9.4.1 Cardiovascular
The overall effect on the cardiovascular system leads to
tachycardia, peripheral vasoconstriction and elevations
of blood pressure with an attendant increase in the work

of the heart. Nicotine may induce vasospasm and cardiac
arrythmias. Tolerance does not develop to the
catecholamine-releasing effects of nicotine.

Nicotine could contribute both to the atherosclerotic
process and to acute coronary events by several
mechanisms. Nicotine could promote atherosclerotic
disease by its actions on lipid metabolism and
coagulation by hemodynamic effects and/or by causing
endothelial injury.

Nicotine may act by releasing free fatty acids,
enhancing the conversion of VLDL (very low density
lipoproteins) to LDL (low density lipoproteins),
impairing the clearance of LDL and/or by accelerating
the metabolism of HDL (Brischetto, 1983; Gluette Brown,
1986; Grasso, 1986; Hojnacki, 1986.)

Nicotine could affect platelets by increasing the
release of epinephrine, which is known to enhance
platelet reactivity by inhibiting prostacyclin, an
antiaggregatory hormone secreted by endothelial cells,
or perhaps directly (Sonnenfeld, 1980). Alternatively,
by increasing heart rate and cardiac output and thereby
increasing blood turbulence or by a direct action,
nicotine may promote endothelial injury. Cigarette
smoking, most likely mediated by nicotine, facilitates
AV nodal conduction which could result in an increased
ventricular response during atrial fibrillation (Peters,
1987). Nicotine could aggravate peripheral vascular
disease by constricting small collateral arteries and/or
by inducing local thrombosis. Patients with coronary or
peripheral vascular disease are likely to suffer some
increase in risk when taken nicotine. Nicotine could
contribute to the progression of chronic hypertension by
aggravating vasoconstriction either in sympathetic activation
or inhibition of prostaglandin synthesis.

Based on its pharmacological actions, it is likely that
nicotine plays a role in causing or aggravating acute
coronary events. Myocardial infarction can be due to one
or more of these precipitating factors: excessive demand
for oxygen and substrates; thrombosis; and coronary
spasm. Nicotine increases heart rate and blood pressure and,
therefore, myocardial oxygen consumption.

--http://www.inchem.org/documents/pims/ch ... nTitle:2.1 Main risks and target organs

[/quote]
Ajahn Mun smoked 4 cigarettes a day. The often heard response is: "Oh, well they didn't know about the health risks back then."
My response to this is that surely, such an excellent man as Ajahn Mun would have known the health effects of smoking cigarettes.
Why? Are you infering the Ajahn lied?
Manapa's link is worth a good read.
It might be a good read, but not one that it is based on evidence.

You have a nice day too.
Ben
“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.”
- Cormac McCarthy, The Road

Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.
- Sutta Nipata 3.725

Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global ReliefUNHCR

e: ben.dhammawheel@gmail.com..

User avatar
clw_uk
Posts: 4718
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

Re: Is tobacco a drug

Post by clw_uk » Sun Jul 26, 2009 11:17 pm

Reguardless of if it causes cancer or not it still has a negative effect on health, shortness of breath being one of them
Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken

User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6625
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Is tobacco a drug

Post by Cittasanto » Mon Jul 27, 2009 5:17 am

Ben wrote:Perhaps you should have a look at this Manapa:
http://www.quit.org.au/article.asp?ContentID=7484" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Hi Ben I am actually refering to the data part of which is on the site I linked to, not the article on the site, unfortunately I could not find a site with all the papers, but there is data which contradicts other data, and this is another reason why no set of data is perfect.

the original data which pointed to a link between smoking and cancer, actually set out to prove this premis, so an over attribution can of happened, based on the expected or hoped for results by those doing the research, remember data can proove anything you want it to.

plus if smoking was as bad as some research would sugest then it would be illegalised and made unfit for human consumption by the various agencies, unfortunately there are two sets of data which dont add up together so neither can actually be the full story here is an example, the data which sugests that passive smoking is dangerous has been proven wrong, yet passive smoking is used falsly as a way of guilting people into stopping smoking with the incorrect data, is this right (morally) no.

here is another example my father got throat cancer 30 years after quitting, the reason (despite the proven data) was passive smoking, or his former habit, both of which could not of been the case, I have later found out I have a high genetic risk of cancer forming because on that side of the family there is a history of cancer which would suggest so, yet my mothers side has no gentetic link with cancer and are heavy smokers, although it is more likely I will have Arthritis which is already starting.

unfortunately there is no strong link especially when you add sales figures (packets) to the data.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill

User avatar
BlackBird
Posts: 1928
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:07 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: Is tobacco a drug

Post by BlackBird » Mon Jul 27, 2009 6:42 am

Ben wrote:
Ajahn Mun smoked 4 cigarettes a day. The often heard response is: "Oh, well they didn't know about the health risks back then."
My response to this is that surely, such an excellent man as Ajahn Mun would have known the health effects of smoking cigarettes.
Why? Are you infering the Ajahn lied?
I'm totally confused as to how you can construe what I said as infering that Ajahn Mun lied. Lied about what?

The point i'm making is that:
A) I think Ajahn Mun was a very very wise person
B) He smoked 4 cigarettes a day
C) If it was such a big deal, don't you think someone like him would have kicked the habit?

I don't think we can go so far as to say smoking tobacco is harmless. I think it's harm is over-emphasised.
Finally, I think the demonisation of tobacco smokers, and tobacco is wrong (as is comparing a 'Tobacco defender' to a Holocaust denier, to whom that may concern).

But i'd like to make it clear I'm not angry, got nothing but love for you.
Last edited by BlackBird on Mon Jul 27, 2009 7:51 am, edited 3 times in total.
"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:
'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23044
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Is tobacco a drug

Post by tiltbillings » Mon Jul 27, 2009 6:51 am

Wow. Tobacco defenders. I am amazed.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23044
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Is tobacco a drug

Post by tiltbillings » Mon Jul 27, 2009 7:55 am

Whatever the link between tobacco use and disease is (though tobacco companies have admitted it in courts of law), it is a filthy, stinky habit. It stains your teeth, stains your fingers, gives you really bad breath. Kissing a smoker is not really much fun. Smoking stinks up your breath, clothes and your hair, making you unpleasant to be around, and stinks up the clothing and hair of anyone unfortunate enough to be around you when you smoke. Smoking stinks whatever room you are in, leaving a stinky film on the walls, furniture. Makes your lungs ugly (but who sees them?) and makes you short of breath. Cigarette smokers often leave the results of their stinky habit on the ground making it ugly. Full ash trays are so aesthetically pleasing. Nicotine in tobacco is highly addictive (admitted to by the tobacco companies) and made even more so by the manipulation of cigarettes by the tobacco companies (which they have admitted to) to hook those who get suckered into start smoking, lining the pockets of the tobacco companies suits.

If a person wants to smoke, that is their choice, but it should be done where it has absolutely no impact on anyone else.
Attachments
gollum.jpg
gollum.jpg (9.97 KiB) Viewed 1563 times
smoking3[1].jpg
smoking3[1].jpg (55.57 KiB) Viewed 1563 times
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23044
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Is tobacco a drug

Post by tiltbillings » Mon Jul 27, 2009 7:58 am

BlackBird wrote: got nothing but love for you.
That's nice, but I certainly would not want to kiss you (if I were a guy kissing kind of guy and if you were a smoker into kissing guys).
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

User avatar
Ben
Posts: 18442
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:49 am
Location: kanamaluka

Re: Is tobacco a drug

Post by Ben » Mon Jul 27, 2009 11:40 am

Hi Manapa
Manapa wrote:but there is data which contradicts other data, and this is another reason why no set of data is perfect.
Yes, sometimes different data sets are the results of different focal point of measurement, or looking at the same phenomenon yet wth a different methodology. There are also issues regarding the authenticity, authority and repeatability of the data the method. As you know, science is a discipline of investigation.
There is an epidemic of scientific ignorance in the United States. This isn’t surprising, as very few scientific truths are self-evident, and many are counterintuitive.
-- Sam Harris, Science Is in the Details, New York Times, 26 July 2009
I do not infer that you are ignorant, Manapa. The truth is, you are probably more knowledgeable than I. Data requires interpretation and the publication of studies in esteemed peer review journals ensures the authenticity of the methodology and findings.
plus if smoking was as bad as some research would sugest then it would be illegalised and made unfit for human consumption by the various agencies,
I think you would agree that it is more complicated than that. The cat's been out of the bag for some four or five hundred years with regards to tobacco consumption in Western Europe. And it might be politically unpalatable to ban tobacco products outright. Hence, you find governments attemt to discourage smoking by increasing the tax on tobacco products.
here is another example my father got throat cancer 30 years after quitting, the reason (despite the proven data) was passive smoking, or his former habit, both of which could not of been the case, I have later found out I have a high genetic risk of cancer forming because on that side of the family there is a history of cancer which would suggest so, yet my mothers side has no gentetic link with cancer and are heavy smokers, although it is more likely I will have Arthritis which is already starting.
I am sorry to hear of your father. I lost my mother to smoking related illness when i was a teenager and my fathrr and numerous family members have contracted and died from various cancers over the last 20 years. The fact that your father presented with throat cancer 30 years after quitting doesn't seem inconsistent with the research which suggests very long lead time between exposure and metastasis.
unfortunately there is no strong link especially when you add sales figures (packets) to the data.
Manapa, I think you will find that the health effects of tobacco is one of the nmost extensively researched topics in medicine. I also think that if you had a look at the body of literature the consensus of scientific opinion will be different to yours.
Metta

Ben
“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.”
- Cormac McCarthy, The Road

Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.
- Sutta Nipata 3.725

Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global ReliefUNHCR

e: ben.dhammawheel@gmail.com..

User avatar
Ben
Posts: 18442
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:49 am
Location: kanamaluka

Re: Is tobacco a drug

Post by Ben » Mon Jul 27, 2009 12:15 pm

Hi Blackbird

My surprise was due to these statements:
Ajahn Mun smoked 4 cigarettes a day. The often heard response is: "Oh, well they didn't know about the health risks back then."
My response to this is that surely, such an excellent man as Ajahn Mun would have known the health effects of smoking cigarettes.
Which I interpreted to mean that Ajahn Mun would have known of the health effects even if they [health authorities of Thailand] did not. Its not an assertion that I agree with. I think it is more likely that Ajahn Mun was telling the truth and he didn't know either back when he began using or for a significant part of his life of the risk to his own health of smoking. The fact that the Ajahn didn't think it was a big deal, is irrelevant. I think you'll agree his context was very different to ours. He may have made that statement when he was advanced in age or at a point in his spiritual development where he had no more clinging to rupa or self.
I think it's harm is over-emphasised.
I couldn't disagree with you more. Tobacco is an insidious poison that impoverishes personal wealth, health and wreaks a massive social cost.
Here's something from your New Zealand's Ministry of Health (admittedly, out of date):
smoking remains the single biggest cause of preventable morbidity and mortality in New Zealand. It is estimated that half of all long-term smokers die of a smoking related illness.

About 5,000 deaths each year in New Zealand are attributable to direct smoking or second hand smoke. Overall, smoking prevalence is now 23.5 percent and consumption is around 1,000 cigarettes per adult (aged 15+) each year, down from 2,000 cigarettes in 1990.
-- http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:O_ ... en&ct=clnk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Smoking related disease and death really is a big deal for each of those individuals, their loved ones and the communities they come from.
And I am sorry if you felt i demonised you (that is, if you are a smoker). It wasn't my intention to demonise smokers but I felt it neccesary to refute those who feel that it isn't just some little thing.
Thanks for the love, back at you mate!

Ben
“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.”
- Cormac McCarthy, The Road

Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.
- Sutta Nipata 3.725

Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global ReliefUNHCR

e: ben.dhammawheel@gmail.com..

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23044
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Is tobacco a drug

Post by tiltbillings » Mon Jul 27, 2009 2:10 pm

Ben wrote: And I am sorry if you felt i demonised you (that is, if you are a smoker).
No need. He is referring to a comment I made and quickly deleted, but not before he saw it. Smoking defenders/disease from smoking deniers I compared to Holocaust deniers. In both case there is overwhelming evidence to support the existence of the Holocaust and a connexion between smoking and disease, and yet there are those for whatever reasons in either case opt for denial. That was probably a bit too harsh of a comparison, so I edited it out.

Smoking kills an untold numbers of people, but I am not interested in getting into squabbles about this or that connexion or lack of connexion. Basically and undeniably, it is a stinky, filthy habit, which those who opt to smoke certainly have some right to do, but - in the very least - they have no right to inflict the effluvia of smoking upon others, but that is the least of what smoking inflicts upon others.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6625
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Is tobacco a drug

Post by Cittasanto » Mon Jul 27, 2009 3:44 pm

Hi Ben,
I don't think you are infering my ignorance, and yes there is a mountain of evidence which indicated a whole spread of things, one of the biggest problems with the data is that no one has ever bothered to colate it all and analyse every scrap, also no one has actually done the fullest amount of tests to see whether a particular cancer which caused someone to die actually was brought on by smoking, prefering instead to use family history to genetic research (for the most part).
the relationship which smoking and particular cancers have does not match the stastistics and evidence completely, in one which was given to the US senate I think the cover said smoking causes cancer on the front cover and the introduction supported this but the data was not different enough between smokers and non-smokers to warant the cover and introduction and most of the data was within acceptable difference to not even be considdered a difference in likelyhood (below 1 or 2% increse) and can be ascociated to the group which was looked at being slightly off kilter with normal occurances when it is so close.
the original data was disregarded by the medical profession then a study of the medical proffession was done with similar results then it was accepted as the doctors saw it as also affecting them.

as tilt has mentioned, smoking has actual effects which are not nice, and I am not saying smoking does not affect health only the data which is used to link it to certain things is not as accurate as the "party" would like us to think. those who don't tow the partys line don't get work. on a related note although not subject matter if you get a chance watch Expelled - no inteligence allowed, look at what happens to people who don't tow the evelutionist line, and think how much money goes into the accepted line through credible means in comparison to ID (credible being university grants etc not private funding to further a view such as is the case with most id funding), also it is interesting to know what a leading scientist of the evolutionist theory thinks about how life started.

Ben wrote:Hi Manapa
Manapa wrote:but there is data which contradicts other data, and this is another reason why no set of data is perfect.
Yes, sometimes different data sets are the results of different focal point of measurement, or looking at the same phenomenon yet wth a different methodology. There are also issues regarding the authenticity, authority and repeatability of the data the method. As you know, science is a discipline of investigation.
There is an epidemic of scientific ignorance in the United States. This isn’t surprising, as very few scientific truths are self-evident, and many are counterintuitive.
-- Sam Harris, Science Is in the Details, New York Times, 26 July 2009
I do not infer that you are ignorant, Manapa. The truth is, you are probably more knowledgeable than I. Data requires interpretation and the publication of studies in esteemed peer review journals ensures the authenticity of the methodology and findings.
plus if smoking was as bad as some research would sugest then it would be illegalised and made unfit for human consumption by the various agencies,
I think you would agree that it is more complicated than that. The cat's been out of the bag for some four or five hundred years with regards to tobacco consumption in Western Europe. And it might be politically unpalatable to ban tobacco products outright. Hence, you find governments attemt to discourage smoking by increasing the tax on tobacco products.
here is another example my father got throat cancer 30 years after quitting, the reason (despite the proven data) was passive smoking, or his former habit, both of which could not of been the case, I have later found out I have a high genetic risk of cancer forming because on that side of the family there is a history of cancer which would suggest so, yet my mothers side has no gentetic link with cancer and are heavy smokers, although it is more likely I will have Arthritis which is already starting.
I am sorry to hear of your father. I lost my mother to smoking related illness when i was a teenager and my fathrr and numerous family members have contracted and died from various cancers over the last 20 years. The fact that your father presented with throat cancer 30 years after quitting doesn't seem inconsistent with the research which suggests very long lead time between exposure and metastasis.
unfortunately there is no strong link especially when you add sales figures (packets) to the data.
Manapa, I think you will find that the health effects of tobacco is one of the nmost extensively researched topics in medicine. I also think that if you had a look at the body of literature the consensus of scientific opinion will be different to yours.
Metta

Ben
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23044
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Is tobacco a drug

Post by tiltbillings » Mon Jul 27, 2009 8:07 pm

How accurate, Manapa, is Expelled - no inteligence allowed?
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

User avatar
BlackBird
Posts: 1928
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:07 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: Is tobacco a drug

Post by BlackBird » Mon Jul 27, 2009 9:13 pm

Ben wrote:Hi Blackbird

My surprise was due to these statements:
Ajahn Mun smoked 4 cigarettes a day. The often heard response is: "Oh, well they didn't know about the health risks back then."
My response to this is that surely, such an excellent man as Ajahn Mun would have known the health effects of smoking cigarettes.
Which I interpreted to mean that Ajahn Mun would have known of the health effects even if they [health authorities of Thailand] did not. Its not an assertion that I agree with. I think it is more likely that Ajahn Mun was telling the truth and he didn't know either back when he began using or for a significant part of his life of the risk to his own health of smoking. The fact that the Ajahn didn't think it was a big deal, is irrelevant. I think you'll agree his context was very different to ours. He may have made that statement when he was advanced in age or at a point in his spiritual development where he had no more clinging to rupa or self.
Sorry, I'm not sure which Ajahn Mun quote you are refering to.
When I said
"Oh, well they didn't know about the health risks back then." I wasn't quoting Ajahn Mun.
I was quoting a response to using Ajahn Mun as an example in tobacco related threads. :shrug:
So, sorry for the confusion.


:anjali:
Jack
"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:
'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta

User avatar
BlackBird
Posts: 1928
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:07 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: Is tobacco a drug

Post by BlackBird » Mon Jul 27, 2009 9:22 pm

tiltbillings wrote:How accurate, Manapa, is Expelled - no inteligence allowed?
I'm not sure how you actually feel, as emotions are hard to express, and easy to misinterprete over the internet.
But the way you have been talking in this thread, I think, has some serious potential to cause suffering.

Stay well my friend.
"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:
'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23044
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Is tobacco a drug

Post by tiltbillings » Tue Jul 28, 2009 1:41 am

BlackBird wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:How accurate, Manapa, is Expelled - no inteligence allowed?
I'm not sure how you actually feel, as emotions are hard to express, and easy to misinterprete over the internet.
But the way you have been talking in this thread, I think, has some serious potential to cause suffering.

Stay well my friend.
That does not quite answer the question about the film that you quoted and what you have said is an ad hominem.

But do tell me why calling smoking a stinky filthy habit would cause suffering, or why objecting to the denial of the connexion between smoking is a cause of suffering, given that the United States tobacco companies have admitted in courts of law the connxion about which they have known for decades and have given up billions of dollars in compensation as a result. in other wortds there is a large body of evidence to make the connexion point, contrary to Manapa's supposed evidence otherwise. I'll believe the tobacco companies.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: gonflable, justindesilva, Majestic-12 [Bot], SarathW and 80 guests