Is it sinful to smoke?

[stringbeanduck]

The original thread began as cigarettes, but I enjoy tobacco as cigarettes, cigars, and sheesha (molasses tobacco used in hookahs). I have also dipped (i.e. Skoal), chewed (i.e. BeechNut), and smoked pipe tobacco (once). The only tobacco form I have not tried (nor will try) is snuff, because I have never snorted anything and I have no desire to.

Do you have your own company that you sell through, or is the tobacco more for the personal use of you and friends/family?

I bought a hookah over in Israel, but never got any sheesha. They had some over there, 6 feet tall with 6-8 hoses coming off them. I will: smoke a cigar or cig, pipe, and chew. This generally how I use tobacco. No, never was fond of sorting tobacco, If I sniff my leaves enough, I go into a sneeze fit, so I can imagine what snuff would do. Snus is a bit interesting because it also comes in little pouches with all sorts of flavors. You can also swallow the juices which puzzles me, because it still contains nicotine.

No I don’t sell to companies, just to friends and family. Even so I would only sell leaves to people I don’t know. It’s illegal to sell tobacco products without paying special taxes and going through all the legal stuff.

 

[tjm190]

I asked this to the priest and he says that the Catechasim won’t always be specific as we wish it to be, but that is what it means when it says drugs.

We’ve also established that it’s pointless to use some things in moderation, given that dose isn’t enough to cause the user any worthy effects. Thus it is moot. And looking at it through the church’s eyes nobody can use* drugs* useless it is for theriputic reasons. So yes the church does help my case.

That’s his interpretation. What makes it more valid than anyone else’s?
And just because someone doesn’t get the intense high associated with a full dose of heroin doesn’t mean the effects aren’t “worthy.” Less heroin= less high but also less side effects/addiction. Same with just about anything.

 

[MikiBee]

I used to smoke, but I quit because I realized it was potentially harming me, and others.

I asked this question on another topic, it got ignored. Probably because it has it’s own thread, which I didn’t realize. Over there I was wondering why masturbation was a mortal sin, when it doesn’t outwardly harm your body or anyone else (especially if you’re single). I have equated it with “scratching an itch” – void of any lustful thoughts. But I refrain because it is a “rule” of the Church.

Then I was wondering why smoking wasn’t considered a mortal sin. My knee jerk reasoning is because so many of our Church fathers have done or do it. (And my twisted logic… that because they have to take a vow of chastity it’s easier for them to put a no-masturbation rule into effect.) Most people that I know that smoke will never admit it’s harmful even with a mile-high pile of evidence laid out before them. Priests included.

In my eyes, smoking would be a mortal sin because it a) is a grave matter (intentionally harming oneself and others for no other reason than enjoyment, b) it is commited in full knowledge (culpability comes into play here if you started smoking before you realized it was harmful and find yourself addicted now) and c) commited with complete consent (no one forces you to smoke, you choose to do so with full knowledge it is bad for you and others

Some of you argue that tabacco can be healthy. Whatever. That’s called denial. Commercial cigarettes are FULL of known carcinogens, among other unhealthy things. There is nothing about smoking that is healthy. There are other ways to relieve stress that don’t put cancer causing agents directly into your body or the body of others trying to breathe in your proximity.

I am doing my best to be “obedient” and following Church’s rules simply because I must. I just don’t get why the Church isn’t consistent.

Please don’t slam me. I’m giving my point of view-- nothing more, just an opinion. Like I said, I am going with the flow because I have to, and hope to one day understand why many of the teachings are the way they are.

 

[Mumbles140]

I’m not really sure how the ‘masturbation’ example applies here–it’s sinful because it is performing a bodily function reserved for those that are married, and is therefore not living a chaste lifestyle.

I think a part of the reason the Church hasn’t come out as clearly on this is because it is a complicated issue. It may be that people who start smoking now are sinners because they know, but people who started in the 1930s and 1940s (when actors in commercials would tell people it made their headaches better) may not have sinned because the information was not available.

I would like to point out that although I’m not including the facts now (don’t have time to find the link), the CDC or NIH or some body has a listing of the benefits of quitting tobacco after sustained use. It goes from your physiological reactions 20 minutes after a cigarette to 15-20 years down the road. Ultimately, if you smoked a pack a day for 10 years and then quit for 10 years, your lungs would have repaired themselves almost entirely to the level they would be at had you never smoked. Your chance of getting lung cancer decreases significantly, and you are pretty much unchanged from it all.

 

[stringbeanduck]

Some of you argue that tabacco can be healthy. Whatever. That’s called denial. Commercial cigarettes are FULL of known carcinogens, among other unhealthy things. There is nothing about smoking that is healthy. There are other ways to relieve stress that don’t put cancer causing agents directly into your body or the body of others trying to breathe in your proximity.

Actually tobacco does a have few health benefits, with some diseases, but it’s not in the way people think. Tobacco plants can be very defensive when it comes to viruses given that it can suffer from all sorts of disease. For example scientists have actually been able to take a cancer gene from persons with abnormal cell growth and inject it the tobacco plant. The plant responds by making antibodies against that gene which can be harvested and injected into the cancer patient. It’s still in a primitive stage, but studies do support it. So I must disagree that tobacco can offer health benefits, Smoking, of course, doesn’t really offer any.

I fully agree that commercial cigs are full of junk that you wouldn’t believe. I find it sad that most smokers will never know the difference between pure tobacco cigs and the commercial ones

 

[MikiBee]

I’m not really sure how the ‘masturbation’ example applies here–it’s sinful because it is performing a bodily function reserved for those that are married, and is therefore not living a chaste lifestyle.

Yes, I’m sorry. I really should have omitted that sentence-- I put it there because I had asked in another topic/thread why one was a mortal sin while the other isn’t. It had no place in this thread-- Sorry.

–Michelle

 

[Portrait]

The consumption of tobacco can never be justified in light of the medical evidence which links smoking with cancer and other nasty respiratory illneses. St. Paul states quite clearly that our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit. Thus if we introduce any harmful substance into them, and tobacco is incontrovertably a carcinogenic, and do so knowing full-well the risks involved, are we without guilt before God?

I appreciate the arguments about having the occassional cigar and pipe, but this* could*, I am not saying will, lead to potential dependency, especially if one is going through say a difficult period of stress, anxiety or depression. Now is that really worth the risk? Both sides in the debate would concede that nicotine is a highly addictive substance, so why take up the smoking in the first place?

The Questioner asks: “Is it sinful to Smoke?”. I would retort, is it right for a Catholic to dice with death? There is a strong possibiliy that a smoker will meet with a premature death as a result of his habit. If he is a married man he must surely ask how this will impact his spouse and children - she will be a widow and his children will be fatherless, perhaps at a time in their lives when he is needed the most. Clearly, he must think of the long term cost of his habit, not merely to himself but to his nearest and dearest.

In terms of health the prevailing medical orthodoxy is decidedly against smoking even if one does not inhale. Thus pipe and cigar smokers risk tongue, throat and nasal cancer and their so called “gentlemanly” passtime is not without risk.

I have no doubt that some will respond by saying that all of life involves risk; we can meet an early death just crossing the road outside our house. True, but in those sort of instances we don’t have any choice do we, they are just tragic accidents. However, with smoking we do have a choice and I feel sure that God would expect us to exercise that choice in light of all the current available evidence.

By the way I write as a former cigarette smoker who quit owing to recurrent chest infections and bouts of bronchitis. As a smoker I was well aware that my habit was harming my health and puting me at risk of very serious illness. Moreover, in view of St. Paul’s words I felt exceedingly guilty about being a professing Christian and a smoker and rued the day I started. Thanks be to God and His grace I gave up about three years ago and I now feel a brand new man - better general health, more energy, less fatigued, better looking complexion (people say I look younger!) - and I no longer smell like a stale ash
tray.

Forgive me if I sound harsh or judgemental; I know reformed smokers can sound intolerant and hard. Perhaps it is because they are so profoundly aware of what it is that they have been delivered from and wish to save others from self-destruction, surely not such a bad thing.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[Mumbles140]

Portrait,

Thank you very much for your insight. And though I do not agree with your arguments concerning the sinfulness of smoking, I think you hit it dead on with your account of being a reformed smoker. Some of my other smoker friends hate reformed smokers because they think they are ‘too preachy’ or ‘don’t understand because they’re at a different point in their lives’, but through your words, I understand why reformed smokers talk the way they do.

And for the record, I also regret the first day I ever lit up a cigarette, and I regret every cigarette I’ve smoked thereafter. As far as cigars and hookah, well, occasional usage of those treats is pretty nice.

 

[Portrait]

Dear Mumbles 140,

Thankyou for your response to my posting.

Yes I agree that we reformed smokers must avoid being priggish and pitiless when discussing the health risks associated with smoking. I am reminded of our Lord’s beautiful words in St. Matthew’s Gospel when He said, “he will not break a bruised reed or quench a smoldering wick” (no pun intended). Some people are really crushed down under the burden and guilt of sin. A stern, unloving rebuke could cause them to be discouraged and, worse, drive them to despair. This the meek and lowly Jesus would never do and neither must we.

As a smoker my wife used to often upbraid me on account of my habit, of which she did not approve. Thus she would moan about the cost, not just to my health but to my wallet, the lingering tobacco odour around the home and the fact that she was a passive smoker whether she liked it or not. At the time I really resented her nagging me, however with hindsight I’m glad she did because it always kept to the forefront of my mind just what a filthy habit smoking was.

By the way what is our Church’s position vis-a-vis tobacco? They appear on the one hand to forbid “excess” (CCC para.2290) rather than usage, yet in the next paragraph (2291) they state “The use of drugs inflicts very grave damage on human health and life”. Is not nicotine a highly addictive drug present in tobacco, that “inflicts very grave damage on human health and life”? Current medical opinion would be unanimous in saying that it does. Moreover, what about para. 2288 which states that “Life and physical health are precious gifts entrusted to us by God. We must take reasonable care of them…” (emphasis mine). Now are we taking “reasonable care of” our physical health by introducing a substance that is acknowledged to be carcinogenic and hence lpotentially life threatening? I would like very much to know what is the official position of the Church on the subject of smoking, because they do appear to be a little nebulous don’t they?

 

[Mumbles140]

By the way what is our Church’s position vis-a-vis tobacco? They appear on the one hand to forbid “excess” (CCC para.2290) rather than usage, yet in the next paragraph (2291) they state “The use of drugs inflicts very grave damage on human health and life”. Is not nicotine a highly addictive drug, present in tobacco, that “inflicts very grave damage on human health and life”? Current medical opinion would be unanimous in saying that it does. Moreover, what about para. 2288 which states that “Life and physical health are precious gifts entrusted to us by God. We must take reasonable care of them…”
(emphasis mine). Now are we taking “reasonable care of” our physical health by introducing a substance that is acknowledged to be carcinogenic and hence lpotentially life threatening? I would like very much to know what is the official position of the Church on the subject of smoking, because they do appear to be a little nebulous don’t they?

See, I agree dead-on with their views on ‘excess’–it’s ultimately a form of gluttony. The issue with ‘how much is excess’ depends on each person. Also, for those who are addicted, how does that change matters? They are now physically and mentally partial to this behavior, so does that take away the full weight of conscience necessary for sin? Take my example, where though I was not addicted at that age, I began smoking when I was 11 (have not been a steady smoker since), so I was always impartial to it and never really considered the health risks until the past couple years (once I already was addicted).

And as far as the ‘drugs’ are concerned, I don’t think you can p(name removed by moderator)oint specific things like that to rule out the whole batch. I feel like there are dozens of things that are considered ‘drugs’ in a medical sense that are included in things we eat/drink. I think the focus should be on illicit drugs, such as stimulants, hallucinogens, and depressants used outside the purposes prescribed by a physician. When someone asks me what kind of drugs are bad, I think “Coke, meth, weed, speed, x, etc”, but nicotine doesn’t rush to mind.

The other issue with that is that some cigarettes contain no added nicotine. Truth be told, because of this thread, I have been purchasing American Spirit cigarettes, which have no added chemicals. Stringbeanduck grows his on tobacco, so I’m certain there are no additives there. By removing the drug argument, does the ‘reasonable care’ argument hold as much weight?

And the reasonable care argument is weak in and of itself because it is entirely subjective. I take reasonable care of my body, but I enjoy a beer or glass of wine most days. It would not be reasonable care to drink myself into a black-out every night, so moderation obviously plays a factor. I believe this carries over to tobacco as well. I think whether the action is sinful or not depends on the mindset one has in smoking each cigarette as its own distinct act.

I am working on quitting, but it’s hard when it’s something that I both enjoy thoroughly and has yet to noticeably hinder my health. And I know it isn’t good for me in the long-run, but I do not believe that it is sinful.

 

[Portrait]

Dear Mumbles 140,

Those “American Spirit” smokes may have no added chemicals, but they nevertheless contain harmful tar and this could still trigger lung cancer. Sorry but there is no such thing as a safe cigarette. The cigarettes to which you refer will, over a period of time, undermine your health. Moreover, I would seriously question that they are non-addictive. If people were to take up smoking these organic cigs, would they be able to quit them with relative ease? I very much doubt it.

In any event you yourself do not bracket smoking with alcholic beverages. You freely acknowledge that smoking “isn’t good for (you) in the long run” and that you are “working on quiting”. Presumably then you would not speak in this manner regarding beer or wine, and quite rightly so since they are perfectly harmless if taken in moderation, such is not the case with tobacco is it? I mean the issue of moderation is inapplicable since you, and indeed most smokers, want to quit altogether.

Clearly tobacco consumption, even in moderation is not good for one, which is why you will find no reputable Doctor advocating or encouraging such a policy.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

PS I do hope and pray that you manage to quit smoking soon.

 

[Mumbles140]

Thank you very much for your prayers, Portrait. There is a lot of truth in what you say, but most of it is medically speaking. I understand the dangers/risks of tobacco, their addictive nature due to added chemicals, and more importantly (and this is critical, I believe) the mentally addictive nature of the habit. A human filters nicotine from their system in 3 days, let’s say you have a week of serious withdrawals, and then it gets hard. It’s the mental craving like “Stuck in traffic, time for a smoke” or “Teeing off on the 3rd hole, time for a smoke”.

Also, my comparison between alcohol and tobacco was solely in regards to control and moderation, not health benefits derived from either. And again, I still don’t support the argument that just because something can lead to future health problems should it be avoided. If that were the case, no Catholic would ever go to a fast food/soul food/deep fried food establishment ever again.

 

[stringbeanduck]

Dear Mumbles 140,

Those “American Spirit” smokes may have no added chemicals, but they nevertheless contain harmful tar and this could still trigger lung cancer. Sorry but there is no such thing as a safe cigarette. The cigarettes to which you refer will, over a period of time, undermine your health. Moreover, I would seriously question that they are non-addictive. If people were to take up smoking these organic cigs, would they be able to quit them with relative ease? I very much doubt it.

In any event you yourself do not bracket smoking with alcholic beverages. You freely acknowledge that smoking “isn’t good for (you) in the long run” and that you are “working on quiting”. Presumably then you would not speak in this manner regarding beer or wine, and quite rightly so since they are perfectly harmless if taken in moderation, such is not the case with tobacco is it? I mean the issue of moderation is inapplicable since you, and indeed most smokers, want to quit altogether.

Clearly tobacco consumption, even in moderation is not good for one, which is why you will find no reputable Doctor advocating or encouraging such a policy.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

PS I do hope and pray that you manage to quit smoking soon.

Fellow homegrowers of mine who are seasoned to smoking have tried American Spirits and have found them to taste very much like the tobacco they grow at home. Again no one knows for sure if they are completely additive free, but on thing I must say is that that do contain very little if any.

Most commercial cigs contain additives like: sugar, cocoa, licorice, ammonia, arsenic, butane, cadmium, formaldehyde, haxamine, Hydrogen, cyanide, methanol, naphthalene, nitrobenzine, toluene, vinyl chloride and more. And lets not forgot these commercial cigs also contain tobacco stems, low grades of tobacco, and paper. Sugar is an addictive substance when eaten, but far more addictive when smoked, not mention smoking sugar is not approved by the FDA, licorice and cocoa, are bronchodilators which open up every part of the lungs to ensure that most if not all the smoke/chemicals/nicotine is absorbed. I don’t think anyone said pure tobacco cigs are not addictive, but I can sure they that are a heck of a lot less addictive than the common commercial cigs.

Of course there is no thing as a safe cig including the e cigs; however there is a big difference between ones that baked with additives and ones that pure tobacco. Also the church never said smoking chemicals and additives was okay(not sinful) in moderation, just tobacco. I think that alone diserves its on thread.

 

[Portrait]

Dear stringbeanduck,

You will pardon me for saying but this whole notion of exercising temperance in relation to smoking, does strike me as wildly illogical if it is conceded that there is no such thing as a safe cigarette - organic or commercial variety.

Moreover, it follows from this that if there is no safe smoke why are we troubling ourselves about addictive/less addictive cigarettes? In the final analysis addiction is addiction and, in the topic under discussion, an addiction that can and frequently does have fatal consequences.

Therefore the question remains, is smoking hazardous to one’s health or isn’t it? The medical evidence on both sides of the Pond has said that it decidedly is. Thus every Christian smoker, indeed any smoker for that matter, must examine himself in the light of this medical evidence and take resolute action accordingly, just as he would say in the case of obesity or any other potentially harmful lifestyle.

To be addicted to tobacco is to be enslaved by it and such a self-inflicted yoke cannot be pleasing to God our Father. He surely wants us to prosper not only spiritually but also physically as well (cf. 3 St. John 2). More importantly, would He want us to destroy or seriously harm our bodies which are “the temple of the Holy Spirit” (I Cor. 6:19)? Christians both singly and collectively are God’s Temple because the Spirit is in them. Thus it is a very grave matter as to how we treat, or, if you please, abuse our bodies.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[Charlotte408]

What do you all think? Is it sinful to smoke cigarettes, or cigars, or pipes, or huka? I think the Church does say that we can smoke tobacco, as long as we use prudence and temperance, but could somebody find the source? Thanks everyone!

i went thru this for DAYSSSS…on a thread of mine…

its a sin to be addicted to anything…

yet priests smoke and it is not considered a sin…i beat my head against the wall about the obvious contradiction here…but to no avail…everyone seems to be happy to have good priests and think that their job is hard enough to demand a smoke or two…lol…and i love priests so i just let it go…

IMO: sin or not smoking cigarettes is ****** nasty DONT DO IT

since you brought up pipes…I’d also like to note that smoking marijuana, interestingly is not a sin. if it is ILLEGAL in your state/country, then you would be breaking the law and therefore in the wrong, but if it isnt, by catholic standards, its not like heroin, and yes, i’ve been informed…that you can smoke marijuana…

trip out on that huh??

 

[Charlotte408]

Dear stringbeanduck,

You will pardon me for saying but this whole notion of exercising temperance in relation to smoking, does strike me as wildly illogical if it is conceded that there is no such thing as a safe cigarette - organic or commercial variety

I know right??? smoking cigarettes is just as deadly, just as addictive…as…well…crystal meth…maybe not HEROIN…but definitely meth…lol…could you imagine priests- i wont even go there…

addiction is addiction and bad for your health is bad for your health…this is one of those things (cigarettes) that despite the churches position on them i’d do without…

 

[stringbeanduck]

Dear stringbeanduck,

You will pardon me for saying but this whole notion of exercising temperance in relation to smoking, does strike me as wildly illogical if it is conceded that there is no such thing as a safe cigarette - organic or commercial variety.

Moreover, it follows from this that if there is no safe smoke why are we troubling ourselves about addictive/less addictive cigarettes? In the final analysis addiction is addiction and, in the topic under discussion, an addiction that can and frequently does have fatal consequences.

Therefore the question remains, is smoking hazardous to one’s health or isn’t it? The medical evidence on both sides of the Pond has said that it decidedly is. Thus every Christian smoker, indeed any smoker for that matter, must examine himself in the light of this medical evidence and take resolute action accordingly, just as he would say in the case of obesity or any other potentially harmful lifestyle.

To be addicted to tobacco is to be enslaved by it and such a self-inflicted yoke cannot be pleasing to God our Father. He surely wants us to prosper not only spiritually but also physically as well (cf. 3 St. John 2). More importantly, would He want us to destroy or seriously harm our bodies which are “the temple of the Holy Spirit” (I Cor. 6:19)? Christians both singly and collectively are God’s Temple because the Spirit is in them. Thus it is a very grave matter as to how we treat, or, if you please, abuse our bodies.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

There’s also no safe fried twickie or high speed race, but people do that. Infact the church puts it in the same catagory as tobacco. People can sure become addicted to racing and food like tobacco. The point is, God gave us the earth to enjoy, but at the same time as we enjoy it we are slowly coming to our death. I agree anything that we can become addicted to can come in the way between us in God. Whether it be through selfish behavior or harming our bodies.

Lastly it isn’t for us to say whether any Christian smoker is sinning, but a priest, and finally God himself.

 

[stringbeanduck]

I know right??? smoking cigarettes is just as deadly, just as addictive…as…well…crystal meth…maybe not HEROIN…but definitely meth…lol…could you imagine priests- i wont even go there…

addiction is addiction and bad for your health is bad for your health…this is one of those things (cigarettes) that despite the churches position on them i’d do without…

Wow you need to get your facts straight.

Tobacco is not as addictive as crystal meth. I work volunteer my time with the police force and learned during one of our classes that 95% of crystal meth users become addicted on the first use. Pull 100 people off the street, have them smoke a cig and I promise you most won’t be running to their local gas stations for more. Pull 100 people off the street, make them smoke crystal meth, and I promise most will be going nuts for more. Meth takes control of the in a whole other way than cigarettes. The average life expectency of a meth user is 5 years. The average life expectency of smoker is often several times that. There is no debate that in the long run that smoking will kill more meth has, but you also must remember there are far more people who smoke cigarettes than meth.

BTW it’s okay not to understand a teaching in the church, but it’s not alright to disagree. Talk to your local priest on this issue and maybe he will be albe to clear some things up.

 

[Hoppypilot]

I heard, recently, Fr. Corapi said it was a sin. I totally agree with him. Putting smoke into your lungs can never be a good thing for the body, especially after we see pictures of peoples lungs after smoking for x amount of years. Smoking is sinful. We are temples of the Holy Spirit. We need to take care of our bodies and not harm them. Your not doing your body a favor when you smoke, nor are you doing anybody around you a favor. Smoking can be selfish.

 

[tbcrawford]

I heard, recently, Fr. Corapi said it was a sin. I totally agree with him. Putting smoke into your lungs can never be a good thing for the body, especially after we see pictures of peoples lungs after smoking for x amount of years. Smoking is sinful. We are temples of the Holy Spirit. We need to take care of our bodies and not harm them. Your not doing your body a favor when you smoke, nor are you doing anybody around you a favor. Smoking can be selfish.

Thats great but what about the priests that currently smoke? and those who have died that smoked did they die with sin on their conscience? What about an Opus Dei (exceptionally devout) catholic family i know the parents are smokers (huge smokers) they attend mass daily do lots of wonderful things within the parish and dedicate their lives to helping others,are they commiting sin? and are these people bad catholics?
You make a good point though, we do now know that smoking is very harmful but this wasnt always the case.So maybe the older priests who died werent commiting sin as they werent aware? But i do struggle to believe the “good catholics” i know that are smokers now still are bad people and commiting sin.
What does everyone else think?