Smoking a Sin??

[Esperanto99]

My father attended Catholic grade school in the 1950s. He spoke of a priest/teacher who smoked during class, and threw the butts from the second-floor window onto the roof of the adjoining one-story section of the building. As a punishment, the priest would order a troublemaking student to climb out onto the roof and pick up a certain number of butts, or all of them.

 

[agname]

Faithful 2 Rome:

Smoking too much can possibly lead to cancer…we cant say it WILL… like anything else… genetics and moderation play key roles in everything. Eating too many candy bars and eating too much ice cream can possibly lead to diabetes… that damages the body as well… so unless you know the person walking pass you eating a candy bar is eating too much leading them to an illness, you shouldnt be judging that cause you see someone smoking a cigarette is a committing a sin either. Heck… lets get even more crazy… whats gonna harm you faster…second hand smoke in a restaurant… or someone eating a candy bar, tossing a candy bar wrapper on a wet curb, and you sliding on it (cause it was on the foil side down) and tripping into oncoming traffic?

Whats moderation? I’d say true moderation of tobacco…whether cigarettes, cigars, pipes… would be to enjoy a smoke twice a day… once after lunch and again after dinner… maybe even one in the morning with your coffee… (which by the way, contains CAFFEINE…as does TEA… that is a drug as well… if I go more than 3 hours into my day without a cup of java, I get a serious headache… so does that mean I allowed myself to become addicted to a drug, and now NEED IT, and I sin? BAH!)… That would stretch a pack of smokes well passed a week! Smoking a pack a day IS excessive, but I aint gonna start worrying about whos sinning with tobacco…theres bigger problems in the world. I enjoy an occasional cigar… and until the church SPECIFICALLY states something DIRECTLY about SMOKING, and not allowing for so much interpretation into that Canon, I will never believe I am sinning by smoking an occasional stogie…

We can’t say arsenic will kill you every time either.

What’s in a cigarette?

There are more than 4,000 chemicals in a cigarette. Nicotine, tar and carbon monoxide are well known. Nicotine is the addictive drug that keeps you coming back for more. Tar is the black, sticky substance that damages your lungs. Carbon monoxide is the gas that hitches a ride on your red blood cells and takes the place of some of the oxygen in your bloodstream.

Some of the other chemicals found in cigarettes (and some of their other uses) are:

ammonia (house hold cleaning agent)
acetone (nail polish remover)
naphthalene (mothballs)
methanol (rocket fuel)
formaldehyde (which preserves the dead)
phenol (disinfectant)
hydrogen cyanide
metals (76 metals including arsenic, cadmium, nickel)
radioactive compounds (polonium-210 & potassium-40)
acetic acid (vinegar)
toluene (industrial solvent)
pesticides

 

[agname]

This is interesting…

Tobacco tests could have forced cigarette ban
By Geesche Jacobsen
November 19, 2003

A senior scientist with the federal Health Department advised against testing tobacco additives because tests might have forced the Government to ban cigarettes, a leaked memo reveals.

Instead, he recommended sticking to the department’s line that additives posed no additional risks above those posed by tar, nicotine and carbon monoxide. The internal departmental document, obtained by the Herald, was written in mid-1995 when the Government was under pressure from anti-smoking groups to commission studies into the dangers of tobacco additives.

The Herald disclosed two weeks ago that an Australian cigarette company had known for more than 20 years its tobacco contained high levels of DDT and other dangerous pesticides.

The document, written by a Health Department official, records a conversation with the government scientist.

In it, the scientist said testing how dangerous tobacco additives were would be a waste of resources. If the tests were conducted, the Government “may end up being forced to ban cigarettes”, he added.

In the 1980s the Government decided not to regulate cigarettes, even though the sale of other dangerous drugs and poisons was restricted, the scientist said.

Simon Chapman, of Sydney University’s School of Public Health, has called on the Government to regulate cigarettes in the same way it regulates food and drugs.

If a company added a new emulsifier to a yoghurt it would have to conduct safety tests and get government approval, yet tobacco companies could add anything they wanted to cigarettes without testing and without fully informing the consumer, Professor Chapman said.

Tobacco additives influenced how nicotine worked on the brain and included agents that affected a cigarette’s taste, smell and smoke. Some were believed to make the product more addictive or more palatable to children, while others were believed to be dangerous.

Professor Chapman said the department should have commissioned more research. “One would hope that bureaucrats were giving independent advice based on their scientific expertise rather than being people who would basically read and anticipate the Government’s political line,” he said.

When contacted for comment, the scientist quoted in the memo referred the Herald to a Health Department spokeswoman, Kay McNiece. She said the Government could not establish the authenticity of the document and that the scientist “had no recollection of the conversation”.

She added: “Whether people know what’s in cigarettes or not, there’s not one Australian who wouldn’t know that smoking can do damage and smoking continuously can kill you.”

The Government had spent much time, effort and money informing the public about the dangers of smoking, she said.

The departmental website does list tobacco additives, but Professor Chapman said the lists were incomplete. Ms McNiece said efforts were being made to improve them.

But the Government would not ban cigarettes, she said. “We don’t believe that prohibition would work.”

Professor Chapman said it was unimaginable that cigarettes, which contributed almost $5 billion in taxes to government coffers, would be banned.

 

[agname]

Saints aren’t sinless…no one is.

Actually…there are a few (ie sinless individuals)…but, I can count them on one hand.

 

[SHEMP]

John_Henry:

I smoke a pipe as a relaxing way to chill out, read, spend time outside, socialize etc (in this way, it is very much like alcohol). I doubt heroin is used for those purposes, but instead it is used to blow one’s mind out of consciousness, to escape from the realities of life.

I don’t think that people who use heroin use it to “blow one’s mind out of consciousness” any more than people who use tobacco use it to destroy lung tissue, oral mucosa, and coronary arteries.

I knew people who used pot and cocaine. They used it to chill out, spend time outside, and socialize etc. It seemed that if they were able to control themselves then this was not particularly bad.

 

[SHEMP]

Mandi:

Smoking and drugs are 2 different things. Compare drugs to alcohol if you like but definintly not smoking. Both drugs and alcohol affect the brain, they alter the senses, smoking does not. Although one could say that drugs and drinking in themselves are not a sin. What they do is lead you to sin, so people this is putting yourself in the way of occassion to sin, this is where the sin is!! Agreed - Government Law and Gods Law - two different things!!!

I beg to differ. Smoking has direct effects on brain tissue. It also has indirect effects on brain tissue. The hardest part about quitting smoking is the psychological dependence. For those of you who smoke and think it is ok, then try this. Stop for six months to prove that you have control of your body! If you cannot then you are dependent on the nicotine (drug) and this could be defined as smoking in excess!!

 

[rfk]

I’ll jump in on two different fronts, Catholic morality and secular politics.

Start off with many of the “facts” quoted about smoking are in error. It amazes me the way people love to demonize smoking.

First, more than 50% of all people who have ever smoked in this country have quit.

Second, ex-smokers who quit for five years have no statistically greater risk of dying from smoking-related causes than someone who has never smoked. After seven years, their lung tissue is indistinguishable from someone who has never smoked.

So, there is an ipso facto argument that many people were evidently able to enjoy smoking for a while without causing their death or serious health problems. Dare I say “moderation”?

The demonizers act as if anyone who smokes is killing themselves. What risk level is acceptable to someone’s prudential judgment? If 40% of the adult population smokes, and over 50% of all smokers have quit, then that tells me over 80% of adults have smoked at one time in their life. If 20% of deaths are smoking related, then there are a lot of people who do not die from smoking. If merely putting yourself at risk is the sin, does that mean that a Catholic cannot go climb Mount Everest? I think the death rate there is pretty high. What about skydiving? Acrobatic flying?

How about helicopter skiing? I was in a helicopter crash while skiing in British Columbia. Was that a grave sin to risk my life?

DominvsVobiscvm:

This is one of those things that’s simply a matter of conscience. No Catholic has the right to say to another that it’s sinful.

I also didn’t see anyone in the thread claiming to be another’s confessor.

Now, I’ll also say that I do not smoke. My Mother is currently dying of emphysema, and continuing to smoke while on oxygen. It is a nasty, dirty habit. But I also believe in liberty, I believe in free will, and I don’t believe I have the right to condemn her.

While on the liberty angle, they are currently in the process of passing a law in my city against any smoking in a public place. It amazes me how the left has grabbed onto banning and demonizing smoking under any and all pretexts.

It seems like it is the ONLY behavior they are willing to regulate. Any sex anyone wants with any person under any circumstance is fine! Keep the government out of the bedroom! Give my underage daughter an abortion without my knowledge or consent! Let me burn flags, protest, and say anything I want! Hand out condoms to eighth graders! Legalize marijuana for “medical” purposes! Let me divorce for “no fault” whatsoever!

It seems like the left supports “freedom” and “rights” in every possible instance that goes against traditional morality, but by God they are going to squash those evil smokers!

 

[agname]

rfk:

I’ll jump in on two different fronts, Catholic morality and secular politics.

Start off with many of the “facts” quoted about smoking are in error. It amazes me the way people love to demonize smoking.

First, more than 50% of all people who have ever smoked in this country have quit.

Second, ex-smokers who quit for five years have no statistically greater risk of dying from smoking-related causes than someone who has never smoked. After seven years, their lung tissue is indistinguishable from someone who has never smoked.

So, there is an ipso facto argument that many people were evidently able to enjoy smoking for a while without causing their death or serious health problems. Dare I say “moderation”?

The demonizers act as if anyone who smokes is killing themselves. What risk level is acceptable to someone’s prudential judgment? If 40% of the adult population smokes, and over 50% of all smokers have quit, then that tells me over 80% of adults have smoked at one time in their life. If 20% of deaths are smoking related, then there are a lot of people who do not die from smoking. If merely putting yourself at risk is the sin, does that mean that a Catholic cannot go climb Mount Everest? I think the death rate there is pretty high. What about skydiving? Acrobatic flying?

How about helicopter skiing? I was in a helicopter crash while skiing in British Columbia. Was that a grave sin to risk my life?

I also didn’t see anyone in the thread claiming to be another’s confessor.

Now, I’ll also say that I do not smoke. My Mother is currently dying of emphysema, and continuing to smoke while on oxygen. It is a nasty, dirty habit. But I also believe in liberty, I believe in free will, and I don’t believe I have the right to condemn her.

While on the liberty angle, they are currently in the process of passing a law in my city against any smoking in a public place. It amazes me how the left has grabbed onto banning and demonizing smoking under any and all pretexts.

It seems like it is the ONLY behavior they are willing to regulate. Any sex anyone wants with any person under any circumstance is fine! Keep the government out of the bedroom! Give my underage daughter an abortion without my knowledge or consent! Let me burn flags, protest, and say anything I want! Hand out condoms to eighth graders! Legalize marijuana for “medical” purposes! Let me divorce for “no fault” whatsoever!

It seems like the left supports “freedom” and “rights” in every possible instance that goes against traditional morality, but by God they are going to squash those evil smokers!

Rfk…please quote the sources of your statistics. Mine are from the CDC (in regards to lung disease…smoking, etc) and various medical journals…British Medical Journal…New England Journal of Medicine, etc.

Also, a report released on May 16, 1988 by United States Surgeon General C. Everett Koop stated that the “addictive” properties of nicotine are very similar to those of heroin and cocaine.

 

[dcs]

The Church teaches that the moderate use of tobacco is not sinful. Ergo, it is not sinful, statistics from the CDC and personal anecdotes notwithstanding.

Who am I supposed to believe on this issue? The Church or the CDC? St. Pius X or Fr. Corapi? Please, it’s not even close.

 

[agname]

“How about helicopter skiing? I was in a helicopter crash while skiing in British Columbia. Was that a grave sin to risk my life?”

Actually, (I believe in the Catechism)…it says that extreme sports…can be considered sinful.

 

[agname]

dcs:

The Church teaches that the moderate use of tobacco is not sinful. Ergo, it is not sinful, statistics from the CDC and personal anecdotes notwithstanding.

Who am I supposed to believe on this issue? The Church or the CDC? St. Pius X or Fr. Corapi? Please, it’s not even close.

Again…it raises…the subject of ambiguity…and not being informed. I believe the Church will change its stance on tobacco eventually.

We can get in the old Galileo debate.

As far as politics…I believe one of two things will happen. Either…

1. Smoking will be banned…(we already see the enforcement of no smoking in public places, etc.)

or…

1. Smoking will remain legal…and pot will be legalized too.

 

[SHEMP]

rfk:

First, more than 50% of all people who have ever smoked in this country have quit.

Thats funny. I always tell may patients that loosing weight and quiting smoking are the too easiest things to do. I cannot quote any studies but I am sure that more than 50% of obese people have lost weight. But almost all regain that weight.

Did your study tell you how many went back to smoking?

If you look at smoking cessation studies there are usually pretty good short term results. The slope of the curve steadily rises over the long term however. They rarely publish the long term curves since the company that is marketing its smoking cessation drug does not want people to know that they will likely restart their smoking.

I have no problem with leaving this to a matter of conscience but many smokers are in denial about their habit and addiction. It is not until I see them with their lung cancer that they tell me how they wish they weren’t so stupid.

 

[agname]

It’s interesting that no one has brought up that in 1992 the Environmental Protection Agency placed passive smoke on its list of major carcinogens, making it subject to federal workplace and other regulations…this is why in 40+ states…it’s illegal to smoke in certain places. Though…I do believe I touched on it earlier…very briefly.

 

[Sherlock]

To be honest, all of this smacks of puritanism. I have always found that excessive concern about health is in itself unhealthy, and often indicates a desire to control death—which, of course, we cannot avoid.

I know of many, many people who have smoked all of their adult lives and yet reached advanced old age. Obviously it does not kill 100%, but is perhaps altered by other factors relating to overall health.That it gave them pleasure and relaxation is fine with me, although it’s not my cup of tea (coffee being my cup of tea). I know of no smoker who deliberately smoked so he could destroy his lungs—now that would be a sin.

If moderate smoking does not interfere with a person’s Christian life, then I will not judge them. Obsession with tobacco, either fer it or agin’ it, is, I think, a better candidate for serious sin.

Chesterton, in addition to enjoying tobacco, was also very overweight. Aquinas was overweight too. Now, being overweight is almost always unhealthy—are obese people guilty of committing a mortal sin when they eat fatty foods?

I’ll go with the Catechism on this one, thank you very much.

Not a puritan, but a Catholic,

Sherlock

 

[agname]

Sherlock:

To be honest, all of this smacks of puritanism. I have always found that excessive concern about health is in itself unhealthy, and often indicates a desire to control death—which, of course, we cannot avoid.

I know of many, many people who have smoked all of their adult lives and yet reached advanced old age. Obviously it does not kill 100%, but is perhaps altered by other factors relating to overall health.That it gave them pleasure and relaxation is fine with me, although it’s not my cup of tea (coffee being my cup of tea). I know of no smoker who deliberately smoked so he could destroy his lungs—now that would be a sin.

If moderate smoking does not interfere with a person’s Christian life, then I will not judge them. Obsession with tobacco, either fer it or agin’ it, is, I think, a better candidate for serious sin.

Chesterton, in addition to enjoying tobacco, was also very overweight. Aquinas was overweight too. Now, being overweight is almost always unhealthy—are obese people guilty of committing a mortal sin when they eat fatty foods?

I’ll go with the Catechism on this one, thank you very much.

Not a puritan, but a Catholic,

Sherlock

That’s usually what smokers fall back on…when they can’t support their argument…they try desperately
to say it’s “Puritanism.” It’s the political equivalent…of calling someone…who shows that homosexuality is abnormal and shouldn’t be allowed certain special rights…“homophobic.”

We already know moderate smoking destroys lung tissue. We know the reason why people smoke…is because of the high…and most of the time…they’re addicted to nicotine.

In regards to…

“If moderate smoking does not interfere with a person’s Christian life, then I will not judge them…”

Should individuals smoke around their children and others? If they know smoking is harmful…but disregard the well-being of others?

Considering…

2288 “Life and physical health are precious gifts entrusted to us by God. We must take reasonable care of them…taking into accounts the needs of others and the common good.”

and

2269 “Unintentional killing is not morally imputable. But one is not exonerated from grave offense if, without proportionate reasons, he has acted in a way that brings about someone’s death, even without the intention to do so.”

Second…moderation…then other drugs should be fine…such as heroin, cocaine, and pot. I know numerous individuals who use them…in moderation…Shemp has noticed this as well.

These are just things to ponder.

 

[SHEMP]

Sherlock:

To be honest, all of this smacks of puritanism. I have always found that excessive concern about health is in itself unhealthy, and often indicates a desire to control death—which, of course, we cannot avoid.

I couldn’t agree with you more but this often gets turned around. I see many young people who were not afraid of death. And then they get the big one. In fact the religious are the worst. I am amazed that 80 to 90 year old priests and nuns tend to have the most difficult time dealing with their impending death. But I digress. It is amazing that when these people who were not afraid of death get cancer or some other fatal disease, they often regret their past. I counsel them to not dwell on the past and to look to the present and the future but they cannot. Some of these people were the most vocal. When they smoked they would say things about how they will never regret smoking because they love it so much. And then they get cancer at a younger age then they would have liked. Boy do they change. “How could I have been so stupid”.

And its not just cancer. Its premature heart disease and lung disease. I realize that we should not run from suffering. It is sure hard to convince someone who is home bound with lung disease at age 50 that they should not regret their smoking habit.

So go ahead. Roll the dice! Keep me in business!

 

[Sherlock]

Shemp,

Your post has me somewhat confused: you wrote: “I couldn’t agree with you more but this often gets turned around.”

Um, what gets turned around? People’s attitudes about their past unhealthy habits when they are confronted with death or illness as a result? This is certainly true, but it doesn’t have anything to do with what I wrote. What I wrote was that an obsession with health was unhealthy in and of itself. Oftentimes it is indicative of a deeper psychological problem, or perhaps a fear of death and a desire to control others. It is not surprising to me that obsession with bodily health is so prevalent in our increasingly secular society: moral decay?—not a problem. Overweight? Smoking?—now THOSE are unforgivable!!

Chesterton said something to the effect of (can’t remember the exact quote) that when you don’t follow the big laws, you get lots of little ones. I think that is applicable here…

You wrote: “So go ahead. Roll the dice! Keep me in business!” What are you referring to? I don’t know your business, so I don’t know what you’re talking about. I’m not a smoker, if that’s what you mean. I’m just not very tolerant of intolerance in this area. And, as I said, I’ll follow the Cathechism’s guidance on this one.

 

[Sherlock]

Agname,

You wrote: “That’s usually what smokers fall back on…when they can’t support their argument…they try desperately
to say it’s “Puritanism.” It’s the political equivalent…of calling someone…who shows that homosexuality is abnormal and shouldn’t be allowed certain special rights…“homophobic.””

I’m not a smoker—why do you assume that I am? Also, it seems to me that your beef is with the Catechism, which thankfully doesn’t subscribe to your particular cause. I can think of some Baptist denominations that might suit your control needs more than the Catholic Church does.

Why is this such an obsession with you?

 

[dcs]

agname:

Again…it raises…the subject of ambiguity…and not being informed. I believe the Church will change its stance on tobacco eventually.

Don’t hold your breath.

We can get in the old Galileo debate.

What does Galileo have to do with smoking?

1. Smoking will remain legal…and pot will be legalized too.

Good. It’s high time.

 

[dcs]

agname:

That’s usually what smokers fall back on…when they can’t support their argument…they try desperately
to say it’s “Puritanism.” It’s the political equivalent…of calling someone…who shows that homosexuality is abnormal and shouldn’t be allowed certain special rights…“homophobic.”

Homosexual behavior is intrinsically evil and is a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance. You cannot possibly compare smoking to buggery.

Second…moderation…then other drugs should be fine…such as heroin, cocaine, and pot. I know numerous individuals who use them…in moderation…Shemp has noticed this as well.

As far as pot is concerned, I don’t think it is any more dangerous than alcohol and it ought to be legal for both medical and recreational purposes. (Of course we are bound to obey the law as it stands now since the law itself is not unjust – unless perhaps you’re a cancer patient.)

Tobacco isn’t remotely like heroin or cocaine. People don’t leave their kids in hot cars with the windows rolled up to go and smoke a cigarette.