Is it sinful to smoke?

[Nicollle]

I don’t think drinking and smoking are comparable. Alcohol in moderation is not unhealthy or addictive. Cigarette smoking is both.

 

[tjm190]

Sorry I can’t answer that question with a sound answer. If you’re comparing one molecule of heroin to a gram of tobacco leaf, or some ratio of the sort, possible yes. Again, this doesn’t matter because nobody is going to take such a small amount of heroin to avoid the side effects of a cigar. It’s moot to do so.

Heroin is an illicit drug and extremely dangerous to your health deemed by the church. It doesn’t matter if you’re taking one molecule (intentionally) or a syringe full. Yes it would be sinful. Once again, the church does approve moderate use of tobacco.

I’m not saying one molecule. I was simply stating that if it can be both inert and more harmful than tobacco, and it’s effect is continuous rather than discrete there must be some amount that is too high to be inert, but too small to more harmful than tobacco. It would stand to reason that, if tobacco is okay because it has the potential to not be harmful, then heroin would also be allowed since we know that it isn’t always harmful either. Same will all substances.
If there is a flaw with this reasoning, please enlighten me.

 

[johngh]

If you smoke around others, then yes definitely because you are harming their health. If you are by yourself, then I think it’s to a lesser extent but I still see it as sinful because you are damaging God’s most beautiful creation, you. Too many people seem to fall into the modern day secular idea that your body is yours and you should be able to do whatever you want to it. That is simply not true from a Christian perspective. Our bodies belong to God, not ourselves, and to violate our bodies is to sin against God.

 

[stringbeanduck]

I’m not saying one molecule. I was simply stating that if it can be both inert and more harmful than tobacco, and it’s effect is continuous rather than discrete there must be some amount that is too high to be inert, but too small to more harmful than tobacco. It would stand to reason that, if tobacco is okay because it has the potential to not be harmful, then heroin would also be allowed since we know that it isn’t always harmful either. Same will all substances.
If there is a flaw with this reasoning, please enlighten me.

There is a flaw. You can’t get high on just a little bit of heroin, not too mention you can easily overdose on it. Albeit possible to overdose on nicotine, it is found that most people choose not because the high is not on the same level as heroin. Just because heroin may not be always harmful at some small, very small doses, doesn’t reason it should be okay. Why? Because heroin has far more likely chance be abused, overdose, and impair. Would you say the goverment should legalize heroin in very small doses, too small to cause harm, just for the sake that they don’t; even though that small dose is likely not to have any worthy effect on the user? Sorry if that last sentence was a little hard to follow. It’s just not practical.

 

[tjm190]

There is a flaw. You can’t get high on just a little bit of heroin, not too mention you can easily overdose on it.

Yes, but you would still feel some effects at a low dosage.

Albeit possible to overdose on nicotine, it is found that most people choose not because the high is not on the same level as heroin.

What most people do is irrelevant. If everyone on Earth but you got drunk every night, that wouldn’t effect the sinfulness of your drinking.

Just because heroin may not be always harmful at some small, very small doses, doesn’t reason it should be okay. Why? Because heroin has far more likely chance be abused, overdose, and impair. Would you say the goverment should legalize heroin in very small doses, too small to cause harm, just for the sake that they don’t; even though that small dose is likely not to have any worthy effect on the user? Sorry if that last sentence was a little hard to follow. It’s just not practical.

We aren’t talking about legality.
So I ask again- would taking a dose of heroin that was less harmful than a cigar be sinful?

 

[aingil]

I state that all things can be taken in moderation. You do not knowingly take any intrinsically bad things into your body when you eat desert or fast food. Moderation becomes the parameter of interest here.

So alcohol, because when taken in moderation can have health benefits, is not intrinsically wrong? I am trying to figure out if we are just talking about tobacco or alcohol and tobacco. Basically there seems to be a inconstancy in the discussion. The original question was about tobacco.

I don’t remember how alcohol got pulled in, but according to your premise, things are wrong when they cause harm to your health in any dose. This correlates heroin and tobacco in theory ( not in practice). It does not include alcohol since temperate alcohol use has health benefits. Unless you are saying that because the social use of alcohol in some societies encourages intemperance, it is wrong. But that would all the more invalidate heroin since that drug is essentially never taken in moderation (recreational context).

So basically your argument is just about tobacco. Can you clarify why anything that causes physical harm (even if the harm is not great or perceptible as is the case if you just smoke 4 or 5 cigars a year as I do) is intrinsically evil. Usually intrinsic evil is described as a spiritual harm. Though causing physical harm is usually also a spiritual harm, but not always. I’m just asking you to state the argument in depth, so we can develop the conversation more.

apa.org/releases/smokestress.html
If you’ve smoked since 1999, there has been information available that contradicts the idea that smoking causes stress relief.

The study was about smokers as in people who were addicted and did not smoke in moderation. Find a different study that is about occasional and non-addicted smokers.
“Far from acting as an aid for mood control, nicotine dependency seems to increase stress.”

I understand the difference, but damaging your body for enjoyment is not mere enjoyment.

see above question.

Would you care to copy/paste it here? I’m having issues locating that statement

newadvent.org/summa/3150.htm
newadvent.org/summa/3170.htm

But you are allowing for the possibility of responsible recreational heroin use?

only hypothetically. I don’t think it would be wrong to consume one molecule of heroin, but why would anyone? No one does that…

And according to some translations people at the party were drunk- not a stretch, sine the couple had gone through a party’s worth of wine. Does this mean Jesus was encouraging drunkenness?

What was he encouraging? Apparently drunkenness was not enough of a concern and there was something more going on and something more at stake. This is the heart of the issue that I am trying to explain to you. Why do you think he did what he did? Something about the nature of wine was appropriate for a wedding.

 

[tjm190]

I’ve taken what I interpret to be your queue to get back on the original topic- my bad for diverting us.

So basically your argument is just about tobacco. Can you clarify why anything that causes physical harm (even if the harm is not great or perceptible as is the case if you just smoke 4 or 5 cigars a year as I do) is intrinsically evil. Usually intrinsic evil is described as a spiritual harm. Though causing physical harm is usually also a spiritual harm, but not always. I’m just asking you to state the argument in depth, so we can develop the conversation more.

Something is not automatically evil if it causes harm- chemotherapy causes more harm to your body than just about anything else you can put into your body without killing you, but I wouldn’t consider it evil. The difference is in the intent. If you intentionally harm yourself at any degree for your own enjoyment, that seems to be a flagrant violation of natural law and violates the “temple of the holy spirit” mentality more than anything else I can conceive of.

The study was about smokers as in people who were addicted and did not smoke in moderation. Find a different study that is about occasional and non-addicted smokers.
“Far from acting as an aid for mood control, nicotine dependency seems to increase stress.”

If you’re smoking to relieve stress, would you not be smoking on a regular basis? You’ve stated you only smoke 4-5 times a year- don’t you feel stress more often than that?

newadvent.org/summa/3150.htm
newadvent.org/summa/3170.htm

Again, I don’t see anything about the impairment of reason only being a sin when good moral sense if effected- but this topic is related to my alcohol tangent anyway.

only hypothetically. I don’t think it would be wrong to consume one molecule of heroin, but why would anyone? No one does that…

Again, the one molecule was just an extreme so that the intermediate value theorem could be applied

What was he encouraging? Apparently drunkenness was not enough of a concern and there was something more going on and something more at stake. This is the heart of the issue that I am trying to explain to you. Why do you think he did what he did? Something about the nature of wine was appropriate for a wedding.

Or he was showing respect for his mother- but again, alcohol

 

[stringbeanduck]

Yes, but you would still feel some effects at a low dosage.
What most people do is irrelevant. If everyone on Earth but you got drunk every night, that wouldn’t effect the sinfulness of your drinking.

We aren’t talking about legality.
So I ask again- would taking a dose of heroin that was less harmful than a cigar be sinful?

I don’t care about legality; I care what the church says. The church believes the use or heroin( which includes one or more molecules) is a sinful and an illicit drug. What part of that do you not understand? Or do you think you are better than what the church teaches? That’s a question, not an accusation.

So I re-peat my answer, again… Heroin is an illicit drug and extremely dangerous to your health deemed by the church. Try not to miss the underlined part. Tobacco usage in moderation is approved of by the church.

 

[Nicollle]

I don’t care about legality; I care what the church says. The church believes the use or heroin( which includes one or more molecules) is a sinful and an illicit drug. What part of that do you not understand? Or do you think you are better than what the church teaches? That’s a question, not an accusation.

So I re-peat my answer, again… Heroin is an illicit drug and extremely dangerous to your health deemed by the church. Try not to miss the underlined part. Tobacco usage in moderation is approved of by the church.

Tobacco in moderation is dangerous to your health. “Tobacco in moderation” is really a misnomer considering it is extremely addictive.

 

[tjm190]

I don’t care about legality; I care what the church says. The church believes the use or heroin( which includes one or more molecules) is a sinful and an illicit drug. What part of that do you not understand? Or do you think you are better than what the church teaches? That’s a question, not an accusation.

So I re-peat my answer, again… Heroin is an illicit drug and extremely dangerous to your health deemed by the church. Try not to miss the underlined part. Tobacco usage in moderation is approved of by the church.

You brought legality into the equation. I don’t know why you found it relevant at the time, but it appears we are in agreement that it has nothing to do with morality.

“2291 The use of drugs inflicts very grave damage on human health and life. Their use, except on strictly therapeutic grounds, is a grave offense. Clandestine production of and trafficking in drugs are scandalous practices. They constitute direct co-operation in evil, since they encourage people to practices gravely contrary to the moral law.”
There are a few problems with using this to support your case-

1. Tylenol is a drug and it does not inflict grave damage on human life.
2. Alcohol and tobacco are drugs (not to bring alcohol back into the equation!)
3. We have already established that unless you are ingesting anti matter, no substance can be said to be harmful all the time.

 

[stringbeanduck]

Tobacco in moderation is dangerous to your health. “Tobacco in moderation” is really a misnomer considering it is extremely addictive.

I don’t see any evidence that an occasional cigar, cig, chew, ect… is dangerous to your health in the respect that herion on any hard drug is. Tobacco can certainly be used in moderation without addiction, I’m living proof of it and so are many other people. So I disagree it is not a misnomer. BTW folks, lets keep a mental note that there is a difference between commercial cigarettes and tobacco. Commercial cigs are made with about 50% real pure, albeit low quality tobacco, the rest is filthy chemicals, reconstituted tobacco, and paper. These are very addictive.

You brought legality into the equation. I don’t know why you found it relevant at the time, but it appears we are in agreement that it has nothing to do with morality.

“2291 The use of drugs inflicts very grave damage on human health and life. Their use, except on strictly therapeutic grounds, is a grave offense. Clandestine production of and trafficking in drugs are scandalous practices. They constitute direct co-operation in evil, since they encourage people to practices gravely contrary to the moral law.”
There are a few problems with using this to support your case-

1. Tylenol is a drug and it does not inflict grave damage on human life.
2. Alcohol and tobacco are drugs (not to bring alcohol back into the equation!)
3. We have already established that unless you are ingesting anti matter, no substance can be said to be harmful all the time.

Read this and tell tobacco use in moderation is sinful.

The virtue of temperance disposes us to avoid every kind of excess: the abuse of food, alcohol, tobacco, or medicine. Those incur grave guilt who, by drunkenness or a love of speed, endanger their own and others’ safety on the road, at sea, or in the air.

 

[tjm190]

Read this and tell me the moderate use of tobacco is sinful.

Although I don’t accept the infallibility of the Magisterium (let’s not get into that here), I’ll play ball. Where are heroin or hard drugs condemned- you can use the quote I used, but that also condemns Tylenol and tobacco.

 

[Mumbles140]

Sorry for my delayed absense from the thread–I was out of town. But I’ve read through the posts and realize that we are on an orbit not that different from the earth’s around the sun. In an eliptical shape, we draw closer and closer to the point, then shoot out to the extreme, slowly working our way back in, and shooting off topic again.

For all those who believe that smoking tobacco in moderation is not a sin, I want to know if you all smoke? How much a day? How did you start? Do you think moderation is a subjective term?

For all those who find any use of tobacco as sinful, do any of you smoke? Did you smoke? What about parents, friends, relatives–do they smoke?

Honestly, I think that ‘in moderation’ is up to the person who smokes to decide whether they are abusing cigarettes or not. I want to give you all a brief history of my smoking so you can understand where my opinions derive from.

I had my first cigarette (and the next several dozen) when I was 11. My friends were older and got cigarettes from their older friends, and it passed on to me. Every couple of weeks, I’d sneak out to the woods with them and have a smoke or two. They moved away 6 months later and I didn’t smoke until freshman year of high school.

I picked it up here and there when I was drinking, but it wasn’t until I was 17 did I start getting packs on my own (I had a fake ID). I quit cigarettes for 6 months and picked up dip (chewing tobacco) because I was a swimmer and it was my senior year. Since then, I’ve smoked as much as 2 packs every 3 days (about 12 cigarettes a day, giving the others away to my cheapskate frat bros), my lowest regular amount I smoke has been 3 cigarettes a day, and I’ve made several serious attempts. I hope to start another serious attempt in the next month or so.

Smoking at such a young age, before I was reasonably able to understand the weight of my decisions regarding sinfulness, left me pre-disposed to the enjoyment of tobacco. And even when I was smoking at my heaviest point, I was never dependent on cigarettes, nor did I rely on them. I enjoyed them, and I wasn’t feeling ill-effects on my health (no coughing up blood, no noticeable lung issues, etc.

In my opinion, I have never sinned using tobacco. I feel bad that I started smoking in the first place because I think it’s a disgusting habit and that long-term abuse can increase your chances of serious health problems, but never have I felt guilt towards God about using tobacco, and in my heart, that makes me believe it’s not a sin ‘because of my mindset’.

I think some people can sin from using tobacco, but I think it comes down to whether you control the tobacco usage, or the tobacco controls your usage.

 

[tbcrawford]

An old parish priest(deceased) of mine was a “cigarrette smoker”, currently a very devout catholic couple members of Opus Dei that i know are “cigarrette smokers”,my deceased father was a “cigar smoker” and my mum is still a “cigarrette smoker”,one of my sisters is a “cigarrette smoker”.I grew up in an age whereby most adults smoked,it was the norm.
I myself have the occasional cigarrette and occasional glass of wine i am lucky im not addicted to either smoking or drinking.Lots of people around me have a real addiction.
My point is,what difference does it make whether a person is a “real smoker” to their life as a catholic?If they practise the churches teachings attend mass,confession and all the sacraments regularly and are good and kind to people and are good examples of the catholic church then i dont see the harm.
Of course we all know now about health benefits of not smoking,binge drinking alcohol,eating a healthy diet etc but the generation that grew up with smoking as the norm apart from not being as healthy as others have lived good lives in many ways.

God bless you all

Ummmm hello ? This is for Mumbles 140
I am re posting my post that got completely ignored which i think relates to your topic.
I hope this is of use

 

[Mumbles140]

Thank you very much for that, TB. I agree with you whole-heartedly. A lot of people argue against smoking, often quoting 1 Cor 6: 19-20 “Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.” But I believe that this doesn’t necessarily mean you can’t smoke, can’t drink, etc. If that were so, then anything high in cholesterol, fast food, and the like could all be considered sinful.

When I think of using my body to honor God, I think of two things–labor (volunteering, helping at the church, etc) and sexual purity. I’ve never thought having a smoke is in any way conflicting to this. And as TB said, a lot of amazing Catholics smoke, and they obviously do not see it as sinful.

 

[tbcrawford]

Yes Mumbles i agree.I have of course read Cor. passage and as i respect all the clergy i have ever known very highly and they smoked then it must be acceptable.I also feel its a personal thing between each individual person and the Lord.I personally drink in moderation, smoke occasionally, live within the catholic teachings try to be good and kind to all i meet and pray earnestly several times a day.I have an excellent relationship with God and He answers my prayers regularly.
I personally dont think there is anything wrong with someone being a good catholic and being a smoker.

 

[stringbeanduck]

Although I don’t accept the infallibility of the Magisterium (let’s not get into that here), I’ll play ball. Where are heroin or hard drugs condemned- you can use the quote I used, but that also condemns Tylenol and tobacco.

No that quote does not condemn Tylenol or tobacco. Let’s restate the section and start with Tylenol.

“2291 The use of drugs inflicts very grave damage on human health and life. Their use, except on strictly therapeutic grounds, is a grave offense. Clandestine production of and trafficking in drugs are scandalous practices. They constitute direct co-operation in evil, since they encourage people to practices gravely contrary to the moral law.”

Tylenol(and all the like) is a drug that people use under therapeutic grounds. People can, will, and have used it for recreation, so that would be imoral as stated by that section.

I talked with a parish priest about this not too long ago and it turns out that 2291 is refering to drugs that are considered hard core or prescription drugs. Tobacco does not fall into this catagory because it and alcohal can be enjoyed in moderation with the virture of temperance.

Furthermore I wish not to argue with a person who disagrees with the infallibility of the Magisterium on this type of subject. There are certain things that must be solid and understood agreed upon in an arguement and the Magisterium is one of them in this argruement.

Sorry for my delayed absense from the thread–I was out of town. But I’ve read through the posts and realize that we are on an orbit not that different from the earth’s around the sun. In an eliptical shape, we draw closer and closer to the point, then shoot out to the extreme, slowly working our way back in, and shooting off topic again.

I think some people can sin from using tobacco, but I think it comes down to whether you control the tobacco usage, or the tobacco controls your usage.

I agree. People need realize if their tobacco usage is putting a barrier between them and God.

For all those who believe that smoking tobacco in moderation is not a sin, I want to know if you all smoke?

I use tobacco in a few forms including smoke. Not sure if you are directing refering to cigs.

How much a day?

About 1-2 times a day, it’s not every day that I use any.

How did you start?

I starting growing tobacco a while back as a statement against the major tobacco companies, and for experimental/educational purposes. From there I became in the different methods of using tobacco and dabble in bit of each.

Do you think moderation is a subjective term?

I believe it can depend on the person. Some people are more vulnerable to certain things and therefore modertation for them can be very little an not often.

 

[tjm190]

No that quote does not condemn Tylenol or tobacco. Let’s restate the section and start with Tylenol.

“2291 The use of drugs inflicts very grave damage on human health and life. Their use, except on strictly therapeutic grounds, is a grave offense. Clandestine production of and trafficking in drugs are scandalous practices. They constitute direct co-operation in evil, since they encourage people to practices gravely contrary to the moral law.”

Tylenol(and all the like) is a drug that people use under therapeutic grounds. People can, will, and have used it for recreation, so that would be imoral as stated by that section.

I talked with a parish priest about this not too long ago and it turns out that 2291 is refering to drugs that are considered hard core or prescription drugs. Tobacco does not fall into this catagory because it and alcohal can be enjoyed in moderation with the virture of temperance.

A. Then why doesn’t it say “hardcore or prescription”?
B. We’ve already established that anything can be used “in moderation”.

Furthermore I wish not to argue with a person who disagrees with the infallibility of the Magisterium on this type of subject. There are certain things that must be solid and understood agreed upon in an arguement and the Magisterium is one of them in this argruement.

Alright, but you must accept that the magisterium does not help your case.

 

[Mumbles140]

I use tobacco in a few forms including smoke. Not sure if you are directing refering to cigs.

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.

I starting growing tobacco a while back as a statement against the major tobacco companies, and for experimental/educational purposes. From there I became in the different methods of using tobacco and dabble in bit of each.

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

 

[stringbeanduck]

A. Then why doesn’t it say “hardcore or prescription”?
B. We’ve already established that anything can be used “in moderation”.

Alright, but you must accept that the magisterium does not help your case.

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.