On 23 May 2004 05:10:00 -0700, mtodorov...@yahoo.com (Mirsad
Todorovac) wrote:
>> One could apply inverse logic and conclude that a person addicted to
>> both caffeine and nicotine was very disturbed (to say the least!) to
>> begin with, so the question of causation is very uncertain. Besides, I
>> saw no experiment performed on a statistically significant group
>> behind such claims, and, frankly, it would be rather difficult to
>> isolate the actual active substance responsible for the damage,
>> because any observed phenomenon could be attributed to several
>> different causes. A lifestyle that causes addiction likely also causes
>> neurological disorders and dysfunctions.
>
>All legitimate concerns. I trust Dr. Daniel G. Amen's judegment on
>what caused damage to the brain of the key patient - or probably since
>he had several thousand SPECT scans - key group.

Frankly, trusting him or not is not the issue. The issue is that his
observation might be accurate, and its interpretation flawed.

>> It only goes to show that general statements should be avoided in
>> favor of precisely qualified ones.
>
>Good. Caffeine is then God-given substance which in certain situations
>will help organism, but taking too much of it may damage your health.
>Deliberatly risking damaging one's health, the cleanness of his "temple
>of spirit" - this certainly is a sin.
>
>Smoking henceforth is also sin, because it damages not only smokers "temple",
>but also the "temples" of little children.

You somehow have a dendency of confusing the issues. From the fact
that it is unhealthy to smoke, and the fact that passive smoking harms
children, you draw a conclusion that drinking coffee is somehow a
cardinal sin. 

>If you've killed a child to cancer with your smoking, then isn't it
>also a deadly sin, just as murder of poisoning by arsenic.
>
>Do you agree with this statements?

Partially. Murder by negligence is a sin, but not as grave as murder
by intent.

--
http://www.danijel.org/