Is smoking wrong or not?

[wcknight]

Excessive anything is wrong. Smoking violates no Church law directly but is a form of self destructive behavior.I put it in the category of eating too much cand. or eating fatty foods or other stuff that is not healthy for you… of course just about anything done to excess is not heathy for you.

Everything in moderation including moderation.

 

[snoopy]

frogman80:

Right… you know it amazes me how our government and general society can be so concerned about the “health” of the people with anti-tobacco campaigns… but then turn around and be pro-abortion, pro-pill(contraceptive). Where are the anti-pill campaigns to save women from pill induced cancer?

Isn’t the topic “Is smoking wrong or not”. If you would like this to be an anti abortion thread, by all means start one.

 

[frogman80]

snoopy:

Isn’t the topic “Is smoking wrong or not”. If you would like this to be an anti abortion thread, by all means start one.

Yes you are right… slightly off topic! Just trying to understand why people are so sensitive to tobacco use… even moderate use. (Undoubtedly… someone will say… there is not such thing as moderate tobacco use.)

 

[SeekerJen]

A work colleague of mine was smoking a cigarette at a Cafe when this lady asked him to move because it was bothering her, so politely he put the cigarette out rather than moving. About 10 minutes passed and he asked the lady politely to move as her perfume was bothering him, this lady’s husband told his wife since the man was nice enough to put out his cigarette she should move or have a shower. Cigarette/cigars are not the only disgusting or bothering smells.
[/quote]

Yup- we were recently on a plane and the lady seated across the aisle from my husband was wearing so much perfume that we could almost see the little smell waves being emitted. It gave him a nice headache, but since the plane was full, there was no possibility of anyone switching seats.

I don’t think that smoking is inherently sinful. I think that in moderation (as with anything else) it is neutral, but the problem with tobacco sources like cigarettes is that they are highly addictive and very difficult to use in moderation. I don’t see as much of a problem with pipes or cigars.

Personally, I am allergic to cigarette smoke- even brief direct exposure leaves me with a severe headache and moderate respiratory distress. However, that means that I only ask for people to respect that by not smoking in my home, car, or workplace (except in the smokers’ courtyard). Anywhere else is fair game, IMO (provided it is not forbidden by law).

 

[snoopy]

stanley123:

The links show that cigaret smoking, eating a red jelly bean, eating a hamburger, drinking a diet soda made from a certain type of artificial sweetner, and drinking alcohol have something in common - they all have the potential to increase the risk from cancer.
So if one were a sin, why wouldn’t they all be sins?
In fact, many alcoholic beverages contain a printed health warning on the container. It seems curious that smoking tobacoo is viewed as a sin because it has been linked to cancer, but other things not, even in the case of alcoholic beverages which have on them a printed warning? Where is the consistency?
By the way the last link on cancer related to alcoholic beverages was sponsored by the American Cancer Socieity. So the American Cancer Society has spoken and you can read what they say by going to the link I already provided.
“Many research studies have established the relationship between alcohol use and cancer.”

Normally I would have by now gotten to the point where I would ignore this thread because it is gotten so ridiculous. But I can’t help being amused by the posters who know, admit, and still defend smoking even tho there is astounding evidence it directly kills. Unbelievable!!! So I take the bait and keep looking to see what new curveball they will throw. I think we all enjoy arguing. Otherwise we wouldn’t be on this site at all. It’s kinda fun, but It’s gotten to the point where cigarettes are equated with hamburgers and red jellybeans and abortion and diet soda and artificial sweetners and alcohol. I give up. You win. Go ahead, smoke all you can while you still can. I am 100% behind you. In fact, I think some of you should smoke more.

 

[frogman80]

snoopy:

Normally I would have by now gotten to the point where I would ignore this thread because it is gotten so ridiculous. But I can’t help being amused by the posters who know, admit, and still defend smoking even tho there is astounding evidence it directly kills. Unbelievable!!! So I take the bait and keep looking to see what new curveball they will throw. I think we all enjoy arguing. Otherwise we wouldn’t be on this site at all. It’s kinda fun, but It’s gotten to the point where cigarettes are equated with hamburgers and red jellybeans and abortion and diet soda and artificial sweetners and alcohol. I give up. You win. Go ahead, smoke all you can while you still can. I am 100% behind you. In fact, I think some of you should smoke more.

You lack the charity to try to understand the points people are trying to make. Here… we were taking the time to try to explain things… while you are just here to incite argument.

So I will try again… instead stomping on tobacco, and asking for a complete ban… teach people to act responsible. Teach them about moderation and temperance. That is part of what it means to be charitable.

 

[snoopy]

frogman80:

You lack the charity to try to understand the points people are trying to make. Here… we were taking the time to try to explain things… while you are just here to incite argument.

So I will try again… instead stomping on tobacco, and asking for a complete ban… teach people to act responsible. Teach them about moderation and temperance. That is part of what it means to be charitable.

Wrong, Frogman. I am here to plant a seed about quitting smoking, but it appears I have hit a brick wall. And that’s ok. As my beloved 100 year old grandmother used to say. “We all have to take our own hides to market”. If you want to smoke–then smoke.

 

[stanley123]

frogman80:

You lack the charity to try to understand the points people are trying to make. Here… we were taking the time to try to explain things… while you are just here to incite argument.

So I will try again… instead stomping on tobacco, and asking for a complete ban… teach people to act responsible. Teach them about moderation and temperance. That is part of what it means to be charitable.

Good advice.

 

[snoopy]

mumto5:

And what about second hand smoking? We know the risks to others so how can it not be a sin to expose your children, spouse or others to cigarette smoke? At the least it is very selfish and selfishness is a sin.

Right on!!!

 

[thistle]

The original poster asked if smoking was wrong or not (against the teaching of the Church) but there has been a lot of digression during the thread.
In the past smoking was never considered a sin because nobody realised how badly it could affect a person’s health. Nowadays that is not the case. Smoking became a sin after it was clear through overwhelming medical evidence that it can damage your health and even kill you and through warnings on packs and other commercials nobody can say they are unaware of this. That means smokers know that what they do can adversely affect their health. Some argue several saints smoked. So what? That was in the past. Some say you see priests smoking. So what? They have the same human failings and imperfections as we all do.
EXCESSIVE smoking is considered a mortal sin (Fifth Commandment).

 

[Oliviad]

To not aim for Perfection shows a lack of Faith, Hope, and Love. If one loves GOD, they will start aiming at what they know is best, even before they feel confident they can hit the bull’s eye. If they contemplate GOD’s Love for us, they can gather Hope that Faith can enable them to accomplish the aims of True Love. If GOD is loved and hoped upon, one can cross the line, by Faith, from dead works to the Works of Faith. If like the Apostles at first, one has trouble doing the things he hopes to do, let him say as that one man for whom the Apostles at least had begun to seek Faith for, but were as of yet too unexercised in their Faith to immediately avail for:
“LORD, I believe, only help my unbelief.”
Is smoking meritorious? If not, it is not the bull’s eye of our Faith. The one not seeking to appropriate True Faith is drowning, rather than walking on water. “Be perfect as your FATHER in the Heavens is perfect”, we are commanded by HIM WHO also promised: “MY Grace is sufficient for you”. That the question of smoking’s sinfulness has come up, is this not a troubling of a conscience toward betterment unto the full potential of Faith, Hope, and Love? While I would not condemn a smoker, I do encourage all with vices of deficiency to heed the Church’s Teaching that we all have free wills to reach the heights of the Faith with Its Rewards that reflect the greatest, most truly Catholic hearts. I certainly do not say this without myself applying Faith.

 

[David_Zampino]

mumto5:

And what about second hand smoking? We know the risks to others so how can it not be a sin to expose your children, spouse or others to cigarette smoke? At the least it is very selfish and selfishness is a sin.

Second-hand smoke can be a great annoyance. For some, an irritant, and for some an actual allergy.

BUT . . .

The pseudo-science which claims that thousands die each year from second-hand smoke has been essentially manufactured and manipulated.

It would be extremely selfish to deliberately expose those who do not wish to be exposed. But to preach this as a matter of science just doesn’t hold water.

cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv21n4/lies.pdf

 

[David_Zampino]

thistle:

The original poster asked if smoking was wrong or not (against the teaching of the Church) but there has been a lot of digression during the thread.

Agreed!

thistle:

In the past smoking was never considered a sin because nobody realised how badly it could affect a person’s health. Nowadays that is not the case. Smoking became a sin after it was clear through overwhelming medical evidence that it can damage your health and even kill you and through warnings on packs and other commercials nobody can say they are unaware of this.

Nope. The medical science – and the REAL studies – not the ones for which the conclusions were assumed before the studies began – show EXCESSIVE smoking is hazardous to the health, esp. with regard to lung cancer and related diseases.

Many things RELATED to smoking can be sinful – deliberately exposing someone to smoke who does not wish such exposure is selfishness; smoking to excess; etc. BUT . . . nowhere has occasinal or moderate use of tobacco products been deemed a sin by the Vatican or by competent magisterial authorities.

Again, I have never smoked a cigarette in my life, and have no desire to do so; and I only very occasionally use a pipe or a cigar. I’m not trying to justify bad habits or excessive behavior. But one of the excessive behaviors I do oppose is the over-zealousness and political correctness of the anti-tobacco prohibitionists.

Respectfully submitted,

 

[David_Zampino]

frogman80:

You lack the charity to try to understand the points people are trying to make. Here… we were taking the time to try to explain things… while you are just here to incite argument.

So I will try again… instead stomping on tobacco, and asking for a complete ban… teach people to act responsible. Teach them about moderation and temperance. That is part of what it means to be charitable.

I completely agree. I couldn’t have put it better myself – and you are using more charity than I have been able to muster.

Blessings.

 

[snoopy]

David Zampino:

Second-hand smoke can be a great annoyance. For some, an irritant, and for some an actual allergy.

BUT . . .

The pseudo-science which claims that thousands die each year from second-hand smoke has been essentially manufactured and manipulated.

It would be extremely selfish to deliberately expose those who do not wish to be exposed. But to preach this as a matter of science just doesn’t hold water.

cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv21n4/lies.pdf

This report is almost 8 years old!!! And–where did it come from? RJ Reynolds, or Phillip Morris? Forgive my scepticism, but this will definately go in the round file.Or you could provide something current and indicate where it came from.

 

[David_Zampino]

snoopy:

This report is almost 8 years old!!! And–where did it come from? RJ Reynolds, or Phillip Morris? Forgive my scepticism, but this will definately go in the round file.Or you could provide something current and indicate where it came from.

Suit yourself. But, for the record, the Cato institute is a highly regarded professional think tank and the resumes of the two authors was impressive. Neither the institute nor the authors are shills for the tobacco industry. If you have difficulty with their mathematics, demonstrate where the mathematics is faulty.

 

[stanley123]

thistle:

Smoking became a sin after it was clear through overwhelming medical evidence that it can damage your health …

But what about other things that cause cancer such as was mentioned above, namely, red dye in candy, eating a hamburger, drinking alcoholic beverages, etc.?
BTW, I haven’t heard a sermon on this type of sin.

 

[wcknight]

thistle:

The original poster asked if smoking was wrong or not (against the teaching of the Church) but there has been a lot of digression during the thread.
In the past smoking was never considered a sin because nobody realised how badly it could affect a person’s health. Nowadays that is not the case. Smoking became a sin after it was clear through overwhelming medical evidence that it can damage your health and even kill you and through warnings on packs and other commercials nobody can say they are unaware of this. That means smokers know that what they do can adversely affect their health. Some argue several saints smoked. So what? That was in the past. Some say you see priests smoking. So what? They have the same human failings and imperfections as we all do.
EXCESSIVE smoking is considered a mortal sin (Fifth Commandment).

I would agree that excessive smoking is sinful. BUT I have never heard that it is considered a mortal sin.

Has there been some proclamation regarding this or is this a best guess ???

 

[David_Zampino]

snoopy:

This report is almost 8 years old!!! And–where did it come from? RJ Reynolds, or Phillip Morris? . .

Actually, you make a very good point here. I would certainly mistrust a “scientific” report issuing directly from one of the tobacco companies. No question about it.

This being said, I am also skeptical about reports from ***EITHER ***side of ***any ***controversial scientific issue if one side has a serious financial stake in the outcome. And frankly, this would include groups like the American Cancer Society; the American Heart Association, etc.

This is why I found the particular article I linked to be compelling. To my knowledge, the Cato Institute has no financial interest in ***EITHER ***side of the debate.

It’s slightly off topic, but I recall the firestorm generated by the American Heart Association when the then Surgeon General, Dr. C. Everett Koop insisted that heredity was a significant, if not the primary, factor in certain types of heart disease. His medical judgement didn’t “square” with their fund-raising appeals. Now, of course, I believe that most medical professionals recognize the hereditary factor in certain forms of heart disease.

 

[frogman80]

frogman80:

St. Joseph of Cupertino - Snuff - His was the first case in which the use of tobacco was an issue during canonization process. His advocate successfully argued that snuff-taking was an aid to holiness.

From Article on Tobacco:

In 1686, during debates concerning the proposed canonisation of a Franciscan monk named Father Joseph Desa of Cupertino, moral concerns were raised about his use of snuff. These objections to his piety were dismissed on the grounds that, rather than his habit being a vice it was, in fact, a means of keeping alert during prayers and suppressing carnal lust. The conclusion was that the use of snuff should not stand in the way of his canonisation.