How do we distinguish "drugs" from alcohol?

[brigid12]

Hi brigid,

I’ve seen the same thing about Fr. Corapi, but I’ve never caught it “live” so to speak. I wonder, did he qualify it at all? Do you think he meant, say, that smoking a pipe once a month would be sinful? Was there any qualification, do you recall?

Thanks!
VC

I don’t remember any qualification (and due to the extreme addictive power of tobacco, I would doubt it happens much other than children picking up a cigarette/pipe the one time that noone’s watching to have a few puffs like mommy or daddy or the person they saw on TV smoking, that are the only one’s they have for years-but that would be the parent’s sin ).

 

[brigid12]

I have no idea if my opinion is correct or not.

Regular use of illegal drugs for recreational purposes are bad for your health (they destroy the brain) which is why its a grave sin to take them. Of course there is also the dangers posed to society and loved ones as well from this.

Excessive eating, alcohol and tobacco are bad for your health and a grave sin. These also can destroy families.

Moderate eating and drinking are not bad for your health whereas moderate smoking is bad for your health.

 

[brigid12]

I’ve been digging a little further and I did find one distinction between alcohol and the other drugs. Your body metabolizes alcohol. Alcohol brings with it calories. And not just calories from the other sugars that may be in the particular beverage. The alcohol itself has calories. It is a source of nourishment.

That is to say: alcohol is food. It is a drug too but it is both food and drug.

Caffeine on the other hand, as far as I know, has no nutritional value. Yet, can I believe coffee is sinful?

As for my pipe, I can’t believe it is sinful. I would yield if I knew the Church taught it was sinful, but the arguments of one priest are not enough. Condemning pipes wholly, not just when excessive, sounds too much like Puritanism.

Still wondering.

Yes, alcohol is a food, until the liver can no longer process it and brain cells start dying, when it becomes a drug.

As for coffee, yes, it is stimulant to the brain so like alcohol (and sugar) it can become a drug in excess. (Many people put calories - even protein in the form of milk - in their coffee or tea, btw.)

As for pipe/cigars/cigarettes - I wonder if there are some (elsewhere) who like to make excuses for a favorite vice ? Can anyone say with surety that any one of the above is not happening? 1) giving bad models to children (I have seen my grandchildren watching their father when he was smoking and he thought they couldn’t or wouldn’t see him), 2) being a near occasion of sin and/or addiction - both having just one once a month for yourself or any other that may be with you, plus when a person smokes it often (unfortunately) is true that they eat and/or drink to excess, 3) being the cause of another’s death (my great-aunt died due to the lung cancer she got from her husband’s smoking, according to the doctor’s thinking), 4) a person is not causing themselves or anyone else, known harm to that which is the Creator’s?
#3 and #4 would certainly have been valid excuses 40 years ago since we didn’t know that smoking was so harmful to health, not only the respiratory system, but the cardiovascular system, nervous system, skin, vision, etc. - and probably in another 40 years medical science will let it be known how many other things are deadly (that we can avoid). I wonder about cell phones, pesticides, hormones and antibiotics in the feed of domestic meat.

Is there a certain limit (such as once a month) that we can (purposely or by just not avoiding it) view pornography?

Just a thought, I wonder how many people could be fed if people sent any money they used for tobacco products and excessive caffeine (and excessive alcohol) to charities.

And yes, I am sure, growing up in the US, that I have some puritanism in me. I also know that I’ve years of medical knowledge/training/experience.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Hi brigid,

I think you brought up some interesting points. In relation to smoking you’ve highlighted several things that could make a specific instance of smoking by a specific individual something sinful. But, I think, this is because sometimes things which are good or neutral in themselves can become sinful in certain circumstances. For instance, it might be sinful to smoke the last cigarette in the life raft without offering a puff to your fellows.

Seriously though, my Catholic sensibilities tingle a bit when we say that smoking tobacco in itself is sinful. As you said in your post, this might have the earmarks of an underlying Puritanism (an error not consistent with our Catholic faith).

Last night Fr. Corapi said that smoking is definitely a sin against the 5th Commandment (and he thought that it could become a mortal sin).

I certainly respect Fr. Corapi. But as a counterpoint, I’d offer Fr. Ripperger, FSSP (an equally holy and orthodox priest who also doesn’t pull any punches) who has said that “if one does not smoke because he thinks it is evil, that person is in error and to persist in that error is a sin.”

An important point to note, again, is that the Catechism mentions that one ought to practice the virtue of temperance in regard to the use of tobacco. **2290 **The virtue of temperance disposes us to avoid every kind of excess: the abuse of food, alcohol, tobacco, or medicine.
thistle, you said in reply that “The excesses make these a grave sin” but that also “smoking in moderation is at least a venial sin.” But that seems to not quite take the Catechism into account. Temperance is a virtue that moderates the use of goods. If we are called to temperance in the use of tobacco, it means that the use of tobacco is not, per se, sinful.

brigid, this is also why

Is there a certain limit (such as once a month) that we can (purposely or by just not avoiding it) view pornography?

isn’t quite applicable to the discussion. The viewing of pornography (qua pornography) is sinful in itself. One can not be temperate in sinful things.

Interestingly on the occasion of the Jubilee Year indulgence in 2000, Pope John Paul II published the Bull Incarnationis Mysterium in which he mentioned

The plenary indulgence of the Jubilee can also be gained through actions which express in a practical and generous way the penitential spirit . . .This would include abstaining for at least one whole day from unnecessary consumption (e.g., from smoking or alcohol, or fasting or practising abstinence. . .) and donating a proportionate sum of money to the poor;

This, once again, seems to indicate that it is possible to smoke without sinning.

The overall point, I think, is summed up in the axiom abusus non tollit usus*. *The abuse of thing does not take away its legitimate use.

I’m not advocating that people take up smoking. For some, smoking would indeed be sinful or an occasion of sin. But I think we should recognize that for others, who moderate their use of tobacco according to right reason, it would not be morally prohibited.

The foregoing points also seem to apply to the use of alcohol.

VC

 

[Freshman88]

Whenever these threads pop up, I like to post this picture.



And one can smoke occasionally/socially and not commit any sins. In fact, I think i’ll step outside for a quick puff and a couple chapters of Chesterton.

Here’s to moderate smoking and drinking

 

[stringbeanduck]

True. Emphysema is a chronic condition. Once you get it one can’t really reverse. It is NOT something that one can develop after quitting smoking. However damage to lung tissue doesn’t mean it is emphysema. Studies have shown that for middle age and younger people I believe, cilia start functional normally after 6 months of quitting with commercial cigarettes. The lung tissues can still generate anew. Most people say it’s like taking a brick off their chest just after the first 3 days. I don’t think I can agree with you when you say that all occasional smokers have emphysema. Once you get emphysema it progressively gets worse even if you quit after be diagnosed. A family member smoked for decade and shortly after quit. As far as I know their lungs are very healthy show no signs of emphysema. For folks with mild emphysema you can slow down the disease, but never stop it or cure it. Each body is different so the tolerance to smoke may differ.

Some people can smoke for 10, 20, 30, 40 years and not have emphysema, and their lung functions can return to normal function with in 6 months or so after they quit. This would take longer depending on the number of years you smoke. With that said, I just don’t see how a person who smokes a pipe or cigar once maybe twice a week will have emphysema. Perhaps if they have weak pulmonary system they could, over time, develop mild emphysema at an older age. Keep in mind that I am only talking about pure untainted tobacco products when it comes to little harm being done if smoked on occasion. Cigars an pipe tobacco usually fit this category best. I would never put that filth that the major cigarette companies use in my lungs. If a person’s lungs can return to normal or near normal function after they smoke commercial cigarettes period of time, imagine the recovery if they smoke cigarettes with pure and untainted tobacco which has way less the number of pollutants and carcinogens that commercial cigs have.

I hate the commercial companies because they give tobacco a worse rap than it deserves. Yes is it common sense that anything form of tobacco even if it just pure has the potential to harm you. But common sense also says that if you smoke tobacco on occasion that doesn’t have the pollutants of commercial companies you won’t be putting your body in the same risk category as those who do smoke commercial cigarettes.

Just like some folks on CAF love to use natural products, make their own diapers, ect… I feel the same about tobacco. If a person wants to smoke, they should only smoke natural and pure tobacco. And this is why: we know that the Catechism of the church says: “2290 The virtue of temperance disposes us to avoid every kind of excess: the abuse of food, alcohol, tobacco, or medicine.” Notice how they church didn’t include “the junk that comes inside commercial cigarettes”. The stuff they put in commercial cigs is only partially tobacco. So in union of what I discussed in post # 12, I think the use of commercial cigarettes should be considered separate from the use of tobacco given that they are two different substances in theory. So it could and possibly should be considered sinful to smoke the commercial cigarettes if the smoker knows it only part tobacco that they are smoking. I can’t stress enough the difference between commercial cigarettes and natural untainted pure tobacco cigarettes. At least 90% of commercial cigarette smokers have no clue what they are smoking; thinking it is just tobacco. Finally, do I think smoking is good? No, but we must acknowledge the fact that we will die some time in our life. There are many things in life that we can avoid to live longer, but ultimately one can live in a house their whole lives and die of degenerative heart disease at age 40. God is the true authority in the time we pass away. Every action, food choice, and breath can help contribute to any of our possible deaths. Some people like me, enjoy to a triple whooper at Burger King with fries. Was that a healthy food choice? No, for all I know that cholesterol and saturated fat in that triple whooper may contribute to some that is building up and kill at age 35. Knowing that and what the church teaches I don’t eat a triple whooper all the time. God built our bodies to take some hit from the things we enjoy. Yes pure tobacco can in excess can and probably will cause health problems, but just like a lot other things in life doing it in moderation is fine though smoking the junk in commercial cigarettes isn’t okay IMO at any moderation. But that’s how I personally feel about commercial cigarette companies.

 

[brigid12]

SBD -

That is very interesting what you’ve found out about “real” tobacco as opposed to commercial tobacco products, and as there are essentially no large double-blind studies on these (that I’ve seen anyway) I certainly can’t say anything. (I used to smoke commercial cigarettes but stopped due to vanity and though I’ve smoked “roll-your-owns” I didn’t like them at all.)
You’d still want to be terribly careful of not letting children (and possibly others) see you, as they wouldn’t distinguish between commercial and non-commercial, and of the papers you were rolling them in along with various ages with the harm it brings to those who smoke at those ages, I suppose.

 

[Michael_David]

Interesting too is that if one lives in a larger metro area, they are already breathing the equivalent of just over a pack-a-day of damaging chemicals into their lungs… without touching a cigarette.

Guess it’s a sin to live in a larger metro area too, due to the known damage we are causing ourselves.

…heading for the country…

 

[stringbeanduck]

SBD -

That is very interesting what you’ve found out about “real” tobacco as opposed to commercial tobacco products, and as there are essentially no large double-blind studies on these (that I’ve seen anyway) I certainly can’t say anything. (I used to smoke commercial cigarettes but stopped due to vanity and though I’ve smoked “roll-your-owns” I didn’t like them at all.)
You’d still want to be terribly careful of not letting children (and possibly others) see you, as they wouldn’t distinguish between commercial and non-commercial, and of the papers you were rolling them in along with various ages with the harm it brings to those who smoke at those ages, I suppose.

You can’t distinguish it until you smoke it. Everybody who smokes the tobacco I grow, loves it.And that’s when you tell the difference. Lots of factors could contribute to the taste of the roll your own tobacco you smoked. For all I know they could use the same substances that go into the commercial cigs. Glad you did quit though.

 

[LilyM]

Interesting too is that if one lives in a larger metro area, they are already breathing the equivalent of just over a pack-a-day of damaging chemicals into their lungs… without touching a cigarette.

Guess it’s a sin to live in a larger metro area too, due to the known damage we are causing ourselves.

…heading for the country…

Uh huh. And how many people have successfully sued a city, state or federal government - or ANYONE at all - for health effects provable to a court’s satisfaction to result from urban air pollution?

As opposed to smokers and victims of passive smoke who’ve successfully sued tobacco companies, hmmm???

 

[brigid12]

Interesting too is that if one lives in a larger metro area, they are already breathing the equivalent of just over a pack-a-day of damaging chemicals into their lungs… without touching a cigarette.

Guess it’s a sin to live in a larger metro area too, due to the known damage we are causing ourselves.

…heading for the country…

I knew this was true (and has been for decades) in LA, but I didn’t know it was true in any other larger city. People can be so stupid ! To do this to themselves - and sometimes it’s not stupidity, it’s greed :nope: . So many toxic substances that were known by the executives of the companies that “distributed” them to be very toxic have gone on until they were sued, due to it. It’s positively depressing. On the other hand, in personal situations so many people amaze you with how good people can be.

Anyway, back to the thread topic. I personally, distinguish drugs by the negative effect on the body (directly or indirectly - commercial cigarettes have both) that can be derived fairly easily by a human. For example, saccharin has a negative effect on a number of systems in the body, however it would be really, really difficult for a human to take in the amount that would cause serious damage - ergo it’s not a drug. Alcohol, on the other hand, is (to my mind, personally) a legal, liquid drug for which it is very easy to have too much, even though a small amount has been shown in a number of studies to have a positive effect on the nervous system and the cardiovascular system. Though I adore wine, I know that I have to be really, really careful with it.

So would I classify arsonic as a drug? It fits with my definition, so I guess I would. Luckily, it’s not in high demand for humans.

 

[brigid12]

You can’t distinguish it until you smoke it. Everybody who smokes the tobacco I grow, loves it.And that’s when you tell the difference. Lots of factors could contribute to the taste of the roll your own tobacco you smoked. For all I know they could use the same substances that go into the commercial cigs. Glad you did quit though.

Thanks, me too. (I must admit that when I’m feeling stressed, have good cheese to eat, etc. that I still think somewhat longingly - it’s been over 10 years since quitting, but… )

 

[stringbeanduck]

I knew this was true (and has been for decades) in LA, but I didn’t know it was true in any other larger city. People can be so stupid ! To do this to themselves - and sometimes it’s not stupidity, it’s greed :nope: . So many toxic substances that were known by the executives of the companies that “distributed” them to be very toxic have gone on until they were sued, due to it. It’s positively depressing. On the other hand, in personal situations so many people amaze you with how good people can be.

Anyway, back to the thread topic. I personally, distinguish drugs by the negative effect on the body (directly or indirectly - commercial cigarettes have both) that can be derived fairly easily by a human. For example, saccharin has a negative effect on a number of systems in the body, however it would be really, really difficult for a human to take in the amount that would cause serious damage - ergo it’s not a drug. Alcohol, on the other hand, is (to my mind, personally) a legal, liquid drug for which it is very easy to have too much, even though a small amount has been shown in a number of studies to have a positive effect on the nervous system and the cardiovascular system. Though I adore wine, I know that I have to be really, really careful with it.

So would I classify arsonic as a drug? It fits with my definition, so I guess I would. Luckily, it’s not in high demand for humans.

Technically you can buy red wine extract which is really just Resveratrol- found in grape skin. I know since many folks don’t like the way wine make them feel. Then again it wouldn’t be that fun to stay healthy for the rest of us. Speaking of wine, that reminds me; today it’s been three months since I put mine into the secondary fermentation vessel. This weekend I’ll be draining it into bottles to age until Thanksgiving. Can’t wait.

 

[brigid12]

Speaking of wine, that reminds me; today it’s been three months since I put mine into the secondary fermentation vessel. This weekend I’ll be draining it into bottles to age until Thanksgiving. Can’t wait.

I wish I could taste it, when you’re done, over the internet. Maybe some IT tech here could think of a way for that to happen?

 

[Michael_David]

Uh huh. And how many people have successfully sued a city, state or federal government - or ANYONE at all - for health effects provable to a court’s satisfaction to result from urban air pollution?

As opposed to smokers and victims of passive smoke who’ve successfully sued tobacco companies, hmmm???

In line with this thread though, it has been said that the ‘use’ or ‘abuse’ of a substance along with ‘bodily damage’ causes it to be a sin… either venial or mortal.

So, in knowing that city life causes ‘bodily damage’ and not trying to stop doing this, not looking to sue somebody for doing this to you, other then you doing it to yourself by staying in the city, is it a sin? Like drinking and smoking? Where is ‘moderation’? Where does the ‘knowing’ what is happening come into play ‘morally’?

These are the questions? If whatever one does to themselves to cause damage can be a sin morally, then with this ‘knowledge’ every Catholic should be living on farms… or at least, up-wind of the city.

 

[brigid12]

In line with this thread though, it has been said that the ‘use’ or ‘abuse’ of a substance along with ‘bodily damage’ causes it to be a sin… either venial or mortal.

So, in knowing that city life causes ‘bodily damage’ and not trying to stop doing this, not looking to sue somebody for doing this to you, other then you doing it to yourself by staying in the city, is it a sin? Like drinking and smoking? Where is ‘moderation’? Where does the ‘knowing’ what is happening come into play ‘morally’?

These are the questions? If whatever one does to themselves to cause damage can be a sin morally, then with this ‘knowledge’ every Catholic should be living on farms… or at least, up-wind of the city.

Well, I’ve the “choice”. I don’t have gainful employment in the city - providing for a family - and I don’t live there now, so if I were to move there without the above reasons (or needed healthcare or other good reason) I’d feel that I would be sinning.

 

[Michael_David]

Well, I’ve the “choice”. I don’t have gainful employment in the city - providing for a family - and I don’t live there now, so if I were to move there without the above reasons (or needed healthcare or other good reason) I’d feel that I would be sinning.

Ah, retirement! That check can go to a mailbox anywhere, even in the sticks.

Humm… why are Priests and Nuns, even the Archdiocese in the metro area’s then? Yes, some in moderate-sized towns, but some in the bigger cities? Imagine the pollution in Rome…

Seems some ‘criteria’ for knowing sin applies to some things, but not to others. Why?

 

[LilyM]

So, in knowing that city life causes ‘bodily damage’ and not trying to stop doing this, not looking to sue somebody for doing this to you, other then you doing it to yourself by staying in the city, is it a sin? Like drinking and smoking? Where is ‘moderation’? Where does the ‘knowing’ what is happening come into play ‘morally’?

Hang on - I made the point about courts to establish that there actually ISN’T sufficient evidence (knowledge) of the causal link between ordinary (general) urban pollution and bodily harm to establish sinfulness.

Besides which, city pollution in the first world has probably been going down. Less manufacturing in our cities, cleaner cars, trucks and other transport, etc.

Some cities like Beijing or Mexico City have measurably higher levels of pollution and measurably way more health impacts - respiratory disease etc. But there are protective measures you can take - air filters, surgical masks for outdoors etc etc. I suppose if you use those, you’re not upping your risk.

 

[brigid12]

**Ah, retirement! That check can go to a mailbox anywhere, even in the sticks.
**
Humm… why are Priests and Nuns, even the Archdiocese in the metro area’s then? Yes, some in moderate-sized towns, but some in the bigger cities? Imagine the pollution in Rome…

Seems some ‘criteria’ for knowing sin applies to some things, but not to others. Why?

Well, forced retirement for the moment (unemployment).

Archdiocesan sees would have been founded long before knowledge of pollution and many priests/nuns need to go to help those who most need their help.

Is the pollution level going down in 1st world countries/cities (like Rome)?

How do you mean, as far as “knowing sin”? I’ve never known of an instance where that isn’t one of the necessary parts of **mortal **sin.

 

[elts1956]

What distinguishes alcohol from EVERY other drug, in moral principle, is not only that Our Lord explicitly used it Himself (Wedding at Cana, Last Supper, being wrongly labelled a drunkard etc) but He explicitly commanded US to use it - it forms one of the Eucharistic elements after all.

The important thing on reading this passage is to have a proper understanding of the term ‘therapeutic’.

It is well established that moderate use of alcohol in people who are otherwise of normal health, not only has no bad health impacts but numerous good ones. Same with caffeine. So these drugs, used in moderation, ARE in fact therapeutic.

Opium poppies ARE regularly medically used - the beneficial components are isolated chemically and used as morphine and morphine-derived painkillers. Even these need to be used with caution as they can be quite addictive. When used in this particular medically-sanctioned way, it can be described as ‘therapeutic’.

Cocaine at any level of use has significant bad health impacts, such that would outweigh any potentially good ones. Thus its use can never be described as therapeutic. Opium products when smoked or used as heroin, similarly are not ‘therapeutic’ in nature.

Marijuana is still a hotly debated topic, but when smoked certainly has AT LEAST the same bad impacts as smoking - which again are bad enough for the most part to outweigh any perceived benefits. True, in some places medical use of marijuana is legalised, but then so are distinctly immoral medications such as birth control pills, so the mere legalisation doesn’t mean its use is moral. It may well be a matter for further research

Nicotine? I think given the overwhelming evidence for the many harms of smoking or chewing tobacco, anyone who smoked now would almost certainly be sinning. It’s a question of their level of knowledge, their level of addiction (since such may reduce culpability) and their level of smoking, as to whether they are sinning gravely or not.

At one time, not too long ago, I worked for a Health system and my job was to go into classrooms, upper grade school and High school giving talks regarding drugs.

What I found about Marjuana is that inhaling one “joint” is equal to that of five ordinary cigarettes. The amount of tar is that much greater in Marijuana.