Scientific Evidence Shows Secondhand Smoke Is No Danger
Written By: Jerome Arnett, Jr., M.D.
Published In: Environment & Climate News
Publication Date: July 1, 2008
Publisher: The Heartland Institute

Exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) is an unpleasant experience for many nonsmokers, and for decades was considered a nuisance. But the idea that it might actually cause disease in nonsmokers has been around only since the 1970s.

Recent surveys show more than 80 percent of Americans now believe secondhand smoke is harmful to nonsmokers.

Federal Government Reports

A 1972 U.S. surgeon general's report first addressed passive smoking as a possible threat to nonsmokers and called for an anti-smoking movement. The issue was addressed again in surgeon generals' reports in 1979, 1982, and 1984.

A 1986 surgeon general's report concluded involuntary smoking caused lung cancer, but it offered only weak epidemiological evidence to support the claim. In 1989 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was charged with further evaluating the evidence for health effects of SHS.

In 1992 EPA published its report, "Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking," claiming SHS is a serious public health problem, that it kills approximately 3,000 nonsmoking Americans each year from lung cancer, and that it is a Group A carcinogen (like benzene, asbestos, and radon).

The report has been used by the tobacco-control movement and government agencies, including public health departments, to justify the imposition of thousands of indoor smoking bans in public places.

Flawed Assumptions

EPA's 1992 conclusions are not supported by reliable scientific evidence. The report has been largely discredited and, in 1998, was legally vacated by a federal judge.

Even so, the EPA report was cited in the surgeon general's 2006 report on SHS, where then-Surgeon General Richard Carmona made the absurd claim that there is no risk-free level of exposure to SHS.

For its 1992 report, EPA arbitrarily chose to equate SHS with mainstream (or firsthand) smoke. One of the agency's stated assumptions was that because there is an association between active smoking and lung cancer, there also must be a similar association between SHS and lung cancer.

But the problem posed by SHS is entirely different from that found with mainstream smoke. A well-recognized toxicological principle states, "The dose makes the poison."

Accordingly, we physicians record direct exposure to cigarette smoke by smokers in the medical record as "pack-years smoked" (packs smoked per day times the number of years smoked). A smoking history of around 10 pack-years alerts the physician to search for cigarette-caused illness. But even those nonsmokers with the greatest exposure to SHS probably inhale the equivalent of only a small fraction (around 0.03) of one cigarette per day, which is equivalent to smoking around 10 cigarettes per year.

Low Statistical Association

Another major problem is that the epidemiological studies on which the EPA report is based are statistical studies that can show only correlation and cannot prove causation.

One statistical method used to compare the rates of a disease in two populations is relative risk (RR). It is the rate of disease found in the exposed population divided by the rate found in the unexposed population. An RR of 1.0 represents zero increased risk. Because confounding and other factors can obscure a weak association, in order even to suggest causation a very strong association must be found, on the order of at least 300 percent to 400 percent, which is an RR of 3.0 to 4.0.

For example, the studies linking direct cigarette smoking with lung cancer found an incidence in smokers of 20 to around 40 times that in nonsmokers, an association of 2000 percent to 4000 percent, or an RR of 20.0 to 40.0.

Scientific Principles Ignored

An even greater problem is the agency's lowering of the confidence interval (CI) used in its report. Epidemiologists calculate confidence intervals to express the likelihood a result could happen just by chance. A CI of 95 percent allows a 5 percent possibility that the results occurred only by chance.

Before its 1992 report, EPA had always used epidemiology's gold standard CI of 95 percent to measure statistical significance. But because the U.S. studies chosen for the report were not statistically significant within a 95 percent CI, for the first time in its history EPA changed the rules and used a 90 percent CI, which doubled the chance of being wrong.

This allowed it to report a statistically significant 19 percent increase of lung cancer cases in the nonsmoking spouses of smokers over those cases found in nonsmoking spouses of nonsmokers. Even though the RR was only 1.19--an amount far short of what is normally required to demonstrate correlation or causality--the agency concluded this was proof SHS increased the risk of U.S. nonsmokers developing lung cancer by 19 percent.

EPA Study Soundly Rejected

In November 1995 after a 20-month study, the Congressional Research Service released a detailed analysis of the EPA report that was highly critical of EPA's methods and conclusions. In 1998, in a devastating 92-page opinion, Federal Judge William Osteen vacated the EPA study, declaring it null and void. He found a culture of arrogance, deception, and cover-up at the agency.

Osteen noted, "First, there is evidence in the record supporting the accusation that EPA 'cherry picked' its data. ... In order to confirm its hypothesis, EPA maintained its standard significance level but lowered the confidence interval to 90 percent. This allowed EPA to confirm its hypothesis by finding a relative risk of 1.19, albeit a very weak association. ... EPA cannot show a statistically significant association between [SHS] and lung cancer."

The judge added, "EPA publicly committed to a conclusion before the research had begun; adjusted established procedure and scientific norms to validate its conclusion; and aggressively utilized its authority to disseminate findings to establish a de facto regulatory scheme to influence public opinion."

In 2003 a definitive paper on SHS and lung cancer mortality was published in the British Medical Journal. It is the largest and most detailed study ever reported. The authors studied more than 35,000 California never-smokers over a 39-year period and found no statistically significant association between exposure to SHS and lung cancer mortality.

Propaganda Trumps Science

The 1992 EPA report is an example of the use of epidemiology to promote belief in an epidemic instead of to investigate one. It has damaged the credibility of EPA and has tainted the fields of epidemiology and public health.

In addition, influential anti-tobacco activists, including prominent academics, have unethically attacked the research of eminent scientists in order to further their ideological and political agendas.

The abuse of scientific integrity and the generation of faulty "scientific" outcomes (through the use of pseudoscience) have led to the deception of the American public on a grand scale and to draconian government overregulation and the squandering of public money.

Millions of dollars have been spent promoting belief in SHS as a killer, and more millions of dollars have been spent by businesses in order to comply with thousands of highly restrictive bans, while personal choice and freedom have been denied to millions of smokers. Finally, and perhaps most tragically, all this has diverted resources away from discovering the true cause(s) of lung cancer in nonsmokers.

Dr. Jerome Arnett Jr. (jerry.arnett@gmail.com) is a pulmonologist who lives in Helvetia, West Virginia.

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=23399

KB, it was a valiant effort, though citing non-scientific material from an obviously slanted journal (what exactly does a "Truth Squad" do? and proof that Michael Crichton - non-scientist, novelist - was right about climate change? right!) isn't going to get too far around here, I have a feeling.

See this article, for example.

Here are some excerpts from this refereed journal article:

"Today we know that there is no risk-free level of [second hand smoke (SHS)]. Lenient tobacco control policies at health care facilities expose patients, staff, visitors, physicians, and volunteers to the harmful effects of SHS. In addition, such policies encourage patients who smoke to continue doing so, as well as possibly encourage nonsmokers to start or ex-smokers to relapse

Current evidence suggests that a comprehensive tobacco control policy in health care settings, including asking patients to abstain from smoking while receiving care in their home, is necessary to ensure that health care professionals work in environments free of the risks associated with SHS exposure.

Oh, and by the way KB - I don't assume that you smoke, but if you do, and if you are male, you should be aware that smoking is related to impotence. Cigarette smoking slows circulation (which is part of the reason injured soldiers were given cigarettes in previous military engagements).

read about it.

This is the same religious liberty department that advised all Californians to vote for a ban on gay marriages.

That's liberty? Whose liberty is being denied?
Read Amendment IV, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution.

Laws demanding people conduct their private lives according to the government are always an infringement on someone's liberty, but should only be enacted when it seriously affects others.

Elaine,

I think smoking is a stupid choice...but this isn't a burning issue for me either...or the "fast food police." Educate not eradicate!

pat

So, smoking isn't good for sex addicts??

Maybe the FDA needs to regulate sex. It's for the children.

It is not the chemical slurry that the "regulators" want regulated that was the big bang for Big Tobacco. It is the nicotine.

The pharmaceuticals want that. :)

Jared Wright, (nice last name BTW) I know who I'm dealing with here. More FACTS here http://www.davehitt.com/facts/epid.html

Also, check this out - http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/ The Rest of the Story. "Ban on Smoking Just About Everywhere Outdoors in Loma Linda Goes Into Effect"

The comment section is very active.

FDA will make smoking safe and socially acceptable - is that what you are fighting for? No more need for chantix, patches, gum, and all the other nicotine delivery devises so marketed? No more need for a "5 day program"?

SDA's can smoke?

Why is the SDA Denomination fighting to legislate and regulate a behavior they condemn?

Why do Seventh-Day-Adventist condone legislation, demoralization, isolation, discrimination of a minority because they disagree with their legal use of a legal product?

Why do Seventh-Day-Adventist's support the denial of equal protection, equal rights, the right to assemble as well as the rights of private business owners to cater to a public that supports them?

Why do Seventh-Day-Adventist's support and rally for Government to strong arm the denial of constitutionally protected rights?

KB,

One more...Why do SDA's who always talk about a God who values choice want to take choice away in this arena.

But...it is an ethical choice "for your own good." Thanks, thought and lifestyle police...couldn't make it without you. ;~)

KB, yes, I post using my real name. So I guess you do know who you are dealing with (whatever you meant by that). Feel free to use your name too and return the favor if you'd like.

Now look, your sources--Dave Hitt (Nicotine Nazis) and someone's blogger account--fall a little bit short of credible, refereed, scientific research. And an active comments section doesn't equal credibility or gravitas.

I'm willing to discuss the merits and demerits of tobacco / nicotine if you're willing to offer legitimate sources.
Mocking Loma Linda doesn't prove anything either. Let's raise the bar a little bit.

Pat, I'm curious why you feel Adventists ought to oppose legislation that protects people from harmful substances. I have never heard of cigarettes described as a "constitutional right".

Hi Jared,

Haven't read the bill being promoted but my asumption is it also is related to second hand smoke...am I wrong?(No Bill # was provided for me to check)... Or, is that just in LLU.

From a non smoker, I am against micro managing peoples lives in the area of foods, drink and second hand smoke. It is my belief in these listed areas the government should only concern themselves with "near/short term" proven dangers for prohibition.

It is not just a matter of what the government "can do." They could also require overweight management which is to me a far greater health problem in the US than second hand smoke. Is being overweight a constitutional right? Is that not a precipitator of class 11 Diabetes. Should they...as much as I believe in fitness and not being overweight I would oppose that also...

Educate... is the role of the church in this area in my view.

PS. I find no thus saith the Lord...do you?

pat

Jared wrote: "KB, yes, I post using my real name. So I guess you do know who you are dealing with (whatever you meant by that)"

I didn't mean anything personal Jared. I was thinking, Wright as in right vs wrong. I don't know you personally, when I said, "I know who I'm dealing with here", I was referring to the SDA denomination.

Pat, the bill is H.R. 1108: Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1108

And BTW, you are so right: re: "t is not just a matter of what the government "can do." They could also require overweight management which is to me a far greater health problem in the US than second hand smoke. Is being overweight a constitutional right? Is that not a precipitator of class 11 Diabetes. Should they...as much as I believe in fitness and not being overweight I would oppose that also...

Educate... is the role of the church in this area in my view."

Thank you!

Jared, You're not paying attention! That, "someones blogger account", happens to be Dr. Micheal Siegal, an active and noted proponent of tobacco control and instrumental in the court for enacting, imposing, government imposed workplace smoking bans.

This is his bio as posted

I am a physician who specialized in preventive medicine and public health. I am now a professor in the Social and Behavioral Sciences Department, Boston University School of Public Health. I have 20 years of experience in tobacco control, primarily as a researcher. My areas of research interest include the health effects of secondhand smoke, policy aspects of regulating smoking in public places, effects of cigarette marketing on youth smoking behavior, and the evaluation of tobacco control program and policy interventions.

My question again, Why is the Seventh-Day-Adventist Denomination so eager for Government to regulate and legislate tobacco?

Baptized members take a pledge to abstain from any tobacco use, caffeine, alcohol as well as discouraged from eating meat.

The "Health Message" is taking new (Draconian) legs.

This is largely an issue of protecting kids who are unfairly targeted by the aggressive marketing campaigns of big tobacco. If consenting adult want to kill themselves with cigarettes they are free to do so in a free society.

Also, tobacco companies are unwilling to tell the TRUTH about their products by adequately labeling their packages. In a free market economy they have the right to sell poison, but they should have to disclose that it is poison and not trick kids into smoking with candy flavored cigarettes, etc.

"Baptized members take a pledge to abstain from any tobacco use, caffeine, alcohol as well as discouraged from eating meat."

When was that added to the baptismal pledge? If it was taken in the past 20 years, and a huge number are not living up to that pledge, then what?

Of course, it cannot be defended biblically.

When was the last time you traveled to another country where people were allowed to smoke freely anywhere they pleased? Have you noticed a difference in how your lungs felt after this experience? While in the Philippines this past summer I was working with the Department of Health and learned that little kids sell cigarettes in the streets. While in India I found the same thing happening.

Like Ryan said if an adult wants to kill themselves by smoking its their choice. Give them a Darwin award while their at it. But little kids need to be protected and given a choice in the matter. We thankfully have laws in the States to protect kids from Tobacco companies, unlike some of our overseas friends. What's wrong with rules to protect those that can't protect themselves?

Pat mentioned health and diabetes, what do you think of the new legislation in LA, banning the building of new Fast Food restaurants? Or New York banning trans fats? SDA's weren't behind those measures, but then maybe they should have been. :D

For almost three decades I lived in a country where second-hand smoke was a real nuisance, and I was exposed to this undesirable and polluted air almost on a daily basis. I am glad to live in a country where something is done about this, regardless of whether the correlation between SHS can or cannot cause cancer on innocent victims. I am glad that Adventists are concerned about the health of people. Jesus was, and we are told that he spent more time healing than preaching.

What I have a hard time understanding is the following: How come we are willing to invest so much of our time and effort for the government's regulation of second-hand smoke, in spite of the extremely low correlation between SHS and death; while we show no effort to legalize abortion, where the correlation between the practice and death is ONE HUNDRED PERCENT?

Can someone answer this question for me?

http://www.sdaforum.com

It's interesting to me that Pat is opposed to the church promoting a bill to control second-hand smoke, a threat to other people's health. But unless my memory is mistaking Pat for someone else, he approved of the church promoting a bill to prevent gay marriage, which doesn't hurt anyone else.

The tobacco industry is one of the most corrupt, and perverse and tyrannical ever to have been.

It's products do not enhance freedom and neither do its policies. It does everything it can to addict people for life, the younger the better, fully knowing that the imprisonment it promotes is one of the most difficult to escape.

Deception, exploitation and intimidation are its methods, as is purchasing the support of unscrupulous politicians and political parties who use the coercive power of the state to give it unique business opportunities at home and abroad.

Standing up for tobacco companies in the name of freedom makes as much sense to me as enslaving people in the name of justice. On second thought, they are the same thing.

Hi Carrol,

It is interesting isn't it. Here is my article on Spectrum:

http://spectrummagazine.org/blog/2008/02/02/ethical_standards_mores_and_...

I don't smoke. I think it is a bad habit. I am not opposed to education by gov. or church of it's dangers when practiced. But IF this bill leads to laws like the one like at LLU then I'm opposed to it. It is an overkill as far as second hand smoke and micromanaging individuals lives in my opinion. Is the food and overweight "police" far behind? Why not on a health basis? Diabetic mothers reportedly are also related to higher incidence of birth defects.

My comments have come primarily in response to the LLU councils laws. I am not informed on the particular bill that just was made known today.

My article above was about weather it violates the 1st Amendment to have laws against homosexual marriage. I believe society has the right to establish general mores such as marriage and I believe it does not "respect an establishment of religion." By the way Carrol, I am not in favor of spying on gays or anyone else in the privacy of their own home (secular laws etc.)...I am opposed to the "activist" homosexual lifestyle and marriage.

Congress can pass the tobacco bill and I will abide by it and not be personally bothered...or a weight control bill later. Contrary to you it is my belief that society is bothered by allowing same sex marriage or God would have allowed for it in scripture... but we have worn that out and that is not the subject of the strand.

regards,

pat

As expected, there are Kool-Aid drinkers around here.

Having grown up in the 50's and 60's when smoking was allowed everywhere and anywhere, no ventilation or air conditioning there are a LOT of people walking around healthy at my age that have no statistical right to be.

Ryan Bell, re: "This is largely an issue of protecting kids who are unfairly targeted by the aggressive marketing campaigns of big tobacco. If consenting adult want to kill themselves with cigarettes they are free to do so in a free society."

There is no truth to "aggressive marketing" of big tobacco to kids. That is a fabricated agenda by the Anti Tobacco organizations.

As far as your comment about "consenting adults", you follow that logic to justify Government regulation/legislation and you just brought Big Government into your home and your parenting and your kids environment. What you feed them, what they eat/drink... the health of your kids is of Government interest. The health of the State, the Country and Public Health comes before your right to choose.

Nic Samojluk, Re: "For almost three decades I lived in a country where second-hand smoke was a real nuisance, and I was exposed to this undesirable and polluted air almost on a daily basis."

You have no statistical right to be alive. While you relish in your smoke free air, stay off the highways. There is exponentially greater air pollution and harmful toxins in the air. No fire place for you either. Laws are being written up and presented to law makers for you as I type.

The Seventh-Day-Adventist Denominational leaders have a lot of work cut out for them in supporting, working for and helping to initiate all the "Public Health Laws" coming our way.

davidrlarson: Re: "The tobacco industry is one of the most corrupt, and perverse and tyrannical ever to have been.

It's products do not enhance freedom and neither do its policies. It does everything it can to addict people for life, the younger the better, fully knowing that the imprisonment it promotes is one of the most difficult to escape.

Deception, exploitation and intimidation are its methods, as is purchasing the support of unscrupulous politicians and political parties who use the coercive power of the state to give it unique business opportunities at home and abroad.

Standing up for tobacco companies in the name of freedom makes as much sense to me as enslaving people in the name of justice. On second thought, they are the same thing."

Yeah, okay. Now that we've cleared that up and Big Tobacco has been thoroughly spanked and pretty much decimated, lets get tobacco in the capable, trust worthy, honest, reputable hands of the Government.

The FDA will make it safe, restricted, monitored and regulated.

Stamped FDA/SDA approved. LOL

I'm not going to try to convince anyone here, the evils of tobacco, alcohol are big ones in the SDA world. And the Denomination is jumping on the political bandwagon. Using a political agenda to rise to the top of their "Health Message". Advocating for laws, restriction and regulations based on others health habits. They're done educating. They now want policies and public restriction and regulation.

From their pulpits to the legislators, the irony/hypocrisies of the persecuted huddled mass is too much for me.

I'll be keeping my eyes on Loma Linda.

As one poster put it regarding Loma Linda's new health laws:

I counted 20 different whereas statements in the preamble to the Loma Linda ordinance justifying the smoking ban. Still, I don’t think they go far enough in demonizing smokers, or in controlling their behaviour. I think the ordinance might be improved with a few amendments. Who knows, they may even provide an ultimate solution to the smoking “problem”.

Whereas scientific studies conducted around the world have proven conclusively that smoking bans prevent heart attacks. This raises the possibility that even more draconian bans might possibly eliminate death as we know it and allow non-smokers the gift of immortality of which they are currently being deprived by Disciples of the Devil; and

Whereas similar scientific studies from Australia have proven that even the breath of a smoker, hereafter known as Devil’s Breath, can be harmful to children. Countless young lives may be lost due to children breathing in the third hand smoke exhaled by smokers long after partaking in their foul, disgusting habit ; and

Whereas the evidence clearly shows that the vast majority of anti-smokers find the smell of tobacco and the sight of smokers offensive, thus subjecting them to violent convulsions, seizures and all manner of physiological and physical harm, as if a spell had been cast upon them; and

Whereas there is general agreement by many within the tobacco control community that smokers are “stupid bastards” who deserve neither rights nor privileges like normal people since they have so obviously been corrupted by the Evil Spirit of tobacco; and

Whereas it is an established fact that the world would be a much better place if it were rid of smokers, witches, wizards and other evil entities;

NOW THEREFORE, it is the intent of the City Council in enacting this ordinance, to provide for the public health, safety, and welfare by removing smokers to designated re-education camps, there to be incarcerated until they kick their foul, disgusting habit and are deemed fit, by a panel of tobacco control experts, to be returned to polite society. Those deemed to be too obstinate to mend their ways and kiss the collective ass of tobacco control may be burned at the stake.

Carrol,

May I add that unwed mothers, adultery, and divorce also destroy the fabric of the traditional family. Homosexuality should not be anyones scapegoat for today's ills.

May I also add that improper diet and any habit that harms one's health prematurely harms the fabric of society and removes liberty...but to what extent do you want to control it at the loss of personal choices and outside control?... That's my point... Be sure when you point the index finger the three fingers pointing back at you and your family are clean and you would want the same supervision for your health habits.

If righteousness could come by any law or laws Christ is dead in vain. Yet... a change by/through the Spirit towards more holiness is a move towards personal liberty indeed.

Temperence in ALL things.

regards,

pat

David,

Yes "The tobacco industry is one of the most corrupt, and perverse and tyrannical ever to have been."

Indeed, said industry is "one' of the most corrupt and perverse; but there is another industry which is the "most" corrupt and perverse: the industry of abortion.

Consider the following. Smoking deprives those addicted to tobacco betwen four and five years of their lives; while abortion deprives their victims of their entire life. Can we see the contrast?

Yet we, Seventh-day Adventists, are willing to work hard on behalf of curtailing the power of the tobacco industry, but prefer to justify those engaged in the slaughter of the innocents. I can't understand this!

http://www.sdaforum.com

KB,

Your irony is superb! I did survive my exposure to second-hand smoke. Those fifty millions exposed to abortion since 1973 are all dead! Can we do something on this issue for a change?

By the way, we have no qualms about our efforts to fight the power of the tobaco industry, because our early pioneers gave us an example to follow.

Well, James and Ellen White, J.N Andrews, as well as many other SDA pioneers set an example for us as well in their condemnation of the practice of abortion!

How come we imitate them in our attitude towards smoking but look the other way regards abortion?

http://www.sdaforum.com

Nic Samojluk: "I did survive my exposure to second-hand smoke"

You are not giving your survival the exaltation it deserves! According to the 2006 US Surgeon General release, as little as 30 minutes to 30 seconds exposure can cause anything from sudden death to long term chronic illness.

You're a miracle! I trust you are in good health?

Nic Samojluk: "By the way, we have no qualms about our efforts to fight the power of the tobaco industry"

This is not about fighting or regulating the tobacco industry, it is the user that these regulations are going after. The users just didn't learn to abstain even when educated that there were risks. They must now be eliminated!

Since religious liberty is very important to the Seventh-Day-Adventist's, check this out - Smoking ban leads to new religion
http://community.livejournal.com/convert_me/1003051.html

LOL

Whatch gonna do when they come for you?

Sharpen your pencils Boyz and Gals, now that the door is open and the health and habits of free individuals have been governmentized the powers that be are wasting no time.

I know you have counsels on weight and the evil powers and destructive health due to uncontrolled appetite and how it affects the health of children and the increased medical costs to society. Not to mention your spiritual health.

Don't let this get out of the gate with out jumping on the ban wagon and fight for government to regulate:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/04/health/main2645612.shtml

$500M Pledged To Fight Childhood Obesity

If you read the article you will see a pattern. The same formula...

KB,

I think that we may need to test the mental sanity of the Surgeon General. I believe that China is the country with the most concentration of tobacco smokers. If what the Surgeon General stated is true, then the Chinese authorities should have no need to control their population through abortion, since the tobacco poison would have done the job a long time ago.

Now, regarding this new religion built around the smoking sacrament, we probably need to notify the Chinese officials. They might be interested in it.

And as far as obesity is concerned, I understand that the habit of smoking has a tendency to reduce the weight of those addicted to tobacco. Since the Adventist church is interested in health, we should perhaps consider the health benefits of this potent drug.

Nic

I think it would be helpful for those who are most invested in both of the primary sides in the abortion debate to ask themselves what evidence or lines of reasoning it would take for them to change their minds. If we cannot answer this question, we might be in trouble.

Dave

Adventist partner with Philip Morris and Tobacco State Representatives and claim they are on the side of right. Sound incredible. see http://cafesda.blogspot.com/2008/08/strange-bedfellows-adventists-and.ht...

The SDA Religious Liberty Department might as well shut down, or maybe merge with Pat Robertson's American Center for Law and Justice. The support of anti-tobacco legislation and opposition to gay marriage are both against the founding principles of the Religious Liberty department. Gay marriage and smoking should be decided on their own merits, but each has nothing to do with religious liberty.

It's surprising to see so many Adventists upset over protecting children from lifelong addictions because it's the guv'mint.

Instead of arguing that Adventists should take a strict explicit "religious liberty only" stance, I wonder if there might be a deeper principle in play?

Perhaps protecting teens from massive advertising campaigns actually increases their liberty as well as saving tax payers billions in health care costs. And as Lee Greer once pointed out brilliantly, one might have expected that German Adventists would have protected the religious liberty of fellow Sabbath-keepers, but instead, too many remained silent during the Holocaust. Perhaps protecting the rights (and health) of others (in a democratic manner), also protects us.

As pastor Martin Niemöller said:

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

Instead of just taking the easy road of staying on the sidelines, by getting into the muddy arena, we flex our brains and political muscle and spread liberty beyond just our own eschatological self-interest.

If you want to save lives and honor God, actively work and labor, pray and seek guidance to implore{lobby)your leaders to keep church and state separate!!

http://www.adventistreview.org/2004-1504/story1.html

Excerpt:

"Politicizing the Remnant?

Such calls to political activism might seem ironic to twenty-first-century Adventists, given the church's longstanding support for separation of church and state. Adventists at the time felt some tensions, too, but from a different source: their belief that politics were corrupt, divisive, and a distraction from their mission of evangelism. Though the church had from its earliest years been outspoken on such issues as slavery and religious freedom, Ellen White and other leaders consistently urged members not to take sides in partisan political squabbles. As late as the 1880s some members questioned whether even voting was permissible.4

Temperance, though, was placed on an entirely different plane. Adventists concluded that Christian concern for the welfare of others required their involvement in stopping the untold suffering caused by alcohol. Adventist participation became first acceptable, then advisable, then essential.

The Review editors wrote in 1914 that Adventists chose not to "become partisans in the great political controversies which have been carried on." But, they noted, "when there have been great moral issues at stake . . . [Adventists] have felt that it was their duty to cast their influence strongly on the side of truth."5 The examples they gave of "great moral issues" were temperance and slavery.

Church leaders saw no conflict between their morally grounded prohibition activism and their equally vigorous opposition to Sunday-observance laws and other attempts to mix religion and government. But other observers sometimes called attention to the apparent inconsistency. For instance, readers of Liberty, the church's religious-freedom magazine, questioned why the magazine promoted prohibition while opposing Sunday laws. Were not Adventists attempting to force their religious belief in abstinence from alcohol on the public?

Adventists responded by asserting that prohibition was "not a moral but a civil question" and that it could be justified "for purely civil reasons," such as the cost to society of the accidents, illness, crime, and poverty caused by drinking.6 The sale and use of alcohol, though immoral in themselves, should be prohibited not on religious but on secular grounds, they said. Sunday laws, in contrast, had only religious significance. True to this argument, Adventist efforts to persuade the public emphasized the social, economic, and political benefits of prohibition more than the moral aspects.

In essence, Adventists had developed two different lines of reasoning for two different groups. Among themselves prohibition was a moral issue and thus one that merited their involvement. But in their arguments to society at large it was a matter of the public good and thus an appropriate subject for legislative action."

It didn't work then - it won't work now. They hung on to the notion that drinking was less and lives were saved. Maybe they didn't know how to read a newspaper?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/30/AR200807...

House Votes to Let FDA Regulate Tobacco Industry

From the comment section:

"WOW, more work for the FDA! Think about that for just a moment or two. Now consider how many ads you see on television from ambulance chasing lawyers notifying the public of the harmful or deadly after affects of many of the 'safe drugs' approved by the FDA. I've been counting them and they average 5 per week. Law-suits abound for persons injured or killed by prescription medicines 'approved' by the FDA. One can wonder how it is that these drugs were approved before they were fully tested and whether or not the testing is being done on citizens after the approval was given? Save the animals… test these drugs on humans first. Yeah… lets give the FDA more oversight over what is ‘harmful’ to us.

Pharmaceutical companies own the FDA, with the Tobacco industry brining up the rear and insurance companies lurking in the background. None of them are going to allow the FDA to destroy their business. Insurance companies have always been corrupt, preying on the fear and misfortunes of people. Pharmaceutical companies put dangerous drugs on the market to increase their profits, scientists pushed to the edge to come up with new drugs to ‘cure’ illnesses that were caused by the previous drug they put on the market.

Why not tax the people who DON'T smoke for the privilege of Clean air? I'm sure they would make a lot more revenue from that than from continuing to tax and persecute smokers! Where will all that tax revenue come from when everybody jumps on the “no smoking” wagon??? Let's ban Alcohol again, see how fast the underground is created and how violent they can get when they are deprived of their fix. Go ahead and ban smoking entirely, you'll get another underground. Banning assault weapons worked didn’t it?

Why can't people realize that the more you try to dictate what others are allowed to do (restricting freedoms), the more you breed criminals and crime? When you tell someone they 'can't do' something, what is it that they WANT TO DO? When you tell someone that they ‘Must’ do something, what is it that they REFUSE TO DO?

There is too much corruption in our Government and too many people who want to decide what we do in our own lives. What happened to “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”?

Too many politicians are lining their nests from the ludicrous laws they pass to appease too few people (and line their pockets). When will Americans Wake UP and start paying attention to the people we put in our elected offices? Crooks, Liars, Cheats, and it all comes out eventually. Washington is so rotten I can smell it here in Illinois. Big brother was never invited into my home, but I know he's watching. Our freedom to "pursue happiness" has been so curtailed by those who feel they have a right to dictate our social behavior, that there isn't much freedom left.

GREED GREED GREED... No wonder people all over the world look at us with such disdain. We have less freedom than people in so-called ‘3rd world countries’ because we keep allowing it to be legislated away. Our government is way too big, way too greedy, and too many people think that the government should take care of them rather than taking care of themselves. RESPONSIBILTY and RESPECT for others are a thing of the past. Legislate people’s behavior, control the masses, and allow those who are robbing us blind to continue to do so, while we dictate to others how they are to live their lives."

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1777069922535499977

A Time for Choosing, also known as "The Speech", was presented on a number of speaking occasions during the 1964 U.S. presidential election campaign by Ronald Reagan on behalf of Republican candidate Barry Goldwater

You will be amazed! Enjoy :)

Can someone please explain the meaning behind SDAs obsession with future "Sunday Laws"? The first such law, under Constantine in the fourth century, did not require worship, only that it be a day of rest, with exceptions granted to agricultural workers.

How does one today consider exactly how a "Sunday Law" would affect the U.S. population? How would it be enforced? What about the thousands of workers on a 24/7 schedule and the necessity that there always be many service workers at all times?

Is it an obsolete and ludicrous notion, and on what scripture and hermeneutical interpretation was it arrived at? Did the times it was preached not have much to do with the interpretation? Is it still a vital and important doctrine today within Adventism, and if so, what are the plans for preventing its becoming law and does anyone today see it becoming legislated at some in the near future?

David,

I cannot speak for others in the pro-life movement. In my case, the evidence I would need to change my mind regarding my views on abortion would include the following:

A. A discovery of the Decalogue on tablets of stone with the Sixth Commanment missing.

B. Scientific evidence showing that the belief that the unborn possesses a DNA distinct from its mother is pure fiction.

C. Evidence that abortions do not produce a dead baby.

D. Evidence that dismemberment and poisoning are not employed in the so called "pregnancy interruption."

E. Evidence that abortion does not sooner or later produce any undesirable phychological effect on women.

F. Evidence that the unborn babies are not really human.

G. Evidence that the two legs, two arms and hands, two eyes and ears, and the baby's torso are really appendices of the pregnant woman's body.

Do you think that such evidence will ever be produced?

Nic Samojluk, Editor: http://www.sdaforum.com