Smoking

[thechrismyster]

pierogies? What’s that? Sounds good.

Polish food… like a ravioli or dumpling… usually filled with potatoes, saurkraut, cheese and potatoes… (or my Grandmother used to make them filled with apple and walnuts or prunes…mmmm)
These however, aren’t smothered in butter or onions or sour cream the way my family eats them.

i forgot… tons of sour cream too.

 

[thechrismyster]

now, on the advice of your cardiologist…

lets get back to the thread and the original question.

 

[Scottgun]

now, on the advice of your cardiologist…

lets get back to the thread and the original question.

Sorry. I just have to get in a drool “mmmmmm…Polishcious…”

 

[ElizabethPH]

Nice anecdote. But here’s mine. I have a 92 grandfather-in-law who smokes a cigar every day since early days and is in great health. Personal moderation is true freedom. Not Islamic/Puritan prohibitions against this and that. Smoking does not kill you. Smoking too much might kill you.

Once again, NO one has supplied an viable argument that smoking is sinful in and of itself.

I don’t know what you mean by ‘nice anecdote’ It’s the truth. . I don’t want to make an argument. And I don’t have to prove anything to you. You want to argue for smoking that’s fine. If you want to smoke that’s fine too…it’s a free country. I’ve got as much right to feel the way I do about it.

 

[ElizabethPH]

Do not be sorry. Assaulting someone’s freedom and then apologizing does not come across as sincere. Since the Church grants freedom of conscience in this, it is that freedom that is under assault. It is not the smoker, big tobacco or public health that is now being assaulted. It is freedom, even when it does not affect others, that is now being curtailed, at least in some areas.

If I have assaulted your freedom in any way I apologize. Just don’t assault mine by smoking around me.

 

[thechrismyster]

I don’t know what you mean by ‘nice anecdote’ It’s the truth. . I don’t want to make an argument. And I don’t have to prove anything to you. You want to argue for smoking that’s fine. If you want to smoke that’s fine too…it’s a free country. I’ve got as much right to feel the way I do about it.

I’m not fond of the arguments that deal with one example here or there. on any bell curve there are always statistical anomolies… but in general, smoking is most likely going to impact you in a negative way on a day to day basis with lower aerobic capacity (harder to walk fast) and making things like winter bronchitis and asthma a hundred times worse than a non smoker.

but i don’t think that in and of itself makes it sinful. it can lead you to act in a sinful way if your kids aren’t being fed because you needed your smokes… but the action of inhaling smoke is inherently moot.

 

[Scottgun]

I don’t know what you mean by ‘nice anecdote’ It’s the truth. . I don’t want to make an argument. And I don’t have to prove anything to you. You want to argue for smoking that’s fine. If you want to smoke that’s fine too…it’s a free country.

By anecdote I meant that you were using a personal story in order to give weight to your main point that smoking is somehow objectively wrong. I offered a counter anecdote to show that it is not. My response came off snarky and for that I apologize. I should have worded that better. Anecdotes are acceptable to use in a discussion, but they do not bear one way or another in the question of the morality of smoking considered in and of itself. As I have been saying, smoking is objectively morally neutral and it is the relative circumstances that make it right or wrong. Relative circumstances being who is smoking, how much they are smoking, under what conditions, etc.

I’ve got as much right to feel the way I do about it.

I agree if you mean that you find smoking personally distasteful and personally offensive. But you are implying if not directly asserting that smoking is wrong in and of itself. The Church does not teach that, so a Catholic should not assert that. The adage I’ve heard is, that which is permitted is not forbidden (I see similar problems when a hyper-providentialist Catholic tries to argue that Natural Family Planning is sinful). You also should not assume that any smoker is failing in the relative circumstances department because that would be rash judgement.

Scott

 

[Al_Masetti]

Not a sin. At all.

Ranks up there with eating french fries.

 

[ElizabethPH]

By anecdote I meant that you were using a personal story in order to give weight to your main point that smoking is somehow objectively wrong. I offered a counter anecdote to show that it is not. My response came off snarky and for that I apologize. I should have worded that better. Anecdotes are acceptable to use in a discussion, but they do not bear one way or another in the question of the morality of smoking considered in and of itself. As I have been saying, smoking is objectively morally neutral and it is the relative circumstances that make it right or wrong. Relative circumstances being who is smoking, how much they are smoking, under what conditions, etc.

I agree if you mean that you find smoking personally distasteful and personally offensive. But you are implying if not directly asserting that smoking is wrong in and of itself. The Church does not teach that, so a Catholic should not assert that. The adage I’ve heard is, that which is permitted is not forbidden (I see similar problems when a hyper-providentialist Catholic tries to argue that Natural Family Planning is sinful). You also should not assume that any smoker is failing in the relative circumstances department because that would be rash judgement.

Scott

Ok Scott like I said I don’t want to make an agrument. Because I’m not good at it; as obviously you are. And I concede. But I must say I don’t think I ever said smoking was wrong or sinful at all. I know that it is not a sin. I didn’t mean to judge anyone. For me it IS a personal thing, and I am more emotional about it then anything else. For every grandpa that has smoked his whole life and lived into his 90’s to tell about…there are many more that haven’t.

 

[Scottgun]

Ok Scott like I said I don’t want to make an agrument. Because I’m not good at it; as obviously you are. And I concede. But I must say I don’t think I ever said smoking was wrong or sinful at all. I know that it is not a sin. I didn’t mean to judge anyone. For me it IS a personal thing, and I am more emotional about it then anything else.

Fair enough. I’ll move on with only a minor quibble about the last part:

For every grandpa that has smoked his whole life and lived into his 90’s to tell about…there are many more that haven’t.

My point was that the grandpa didn’t impair his health or shorten his life because he limited his smoking. I fully agree that if someone has a tendency towards bad habit forming or compulsions, they should probably avoid smoking altogether.

 

[Aleii]

I just want to make sure that people aren’t going around saying that smoking is good, or, that smoking cigarettes doesn’t impair your health or *the people around smokers. *. You may say its an assault against your freedoms but no, smoking is not the same as eating french fries. Again… eating a twinkie/french fries next to your brother doesn’t hurt him. Smoking next to your brother does.

No one has offered any proof to say that the studies and resources I linked which show all cigarette smoking to be unhealthy, as faulty. I have provided a plethora of evidence to show that second hand cigarette smoke is proven to have negative effects to the smoker and those around the smoker. I hope those who decide to light up cigarettes at the very least not do it around elderly, ill, or children. That’s all I’m asking. While I am a lay person when it comes to theology and my view may be wrong, I am not a lay person when it comes to medicine. (and my view is that I’d lean towards smoking being wrong because many do not smoke alone and then get rid of the smoke. Many smoke cigarettes around others while knowing that second hand smoke harms bystanders. If you want to call smoking by itself not a sin, then fine, call it what you will, but circumstances that most people engage in while smoking cigarettes are unhealthy towards self and others. I even gave an example of how smoking in private leaves traces on your clothes which harm others)

Pnewton, I am not trying to say you are stupid, but just merely offering to interpret medical lingo to those who do may not know what it means. Besides, when you responded to the one study that I posted with only a sarcastic comment that wasn’t correct, I had to at least offer to explain why it was incorrect, just in case you, or some other poster/lurker really didn’t know.

Remember too cigars are different than cigarettes, and my posts are geared towards cigarettes as that is the most common form of smoking in the USA. People who smoke cigars often do not inhale as much as those who smoke cigarettes do. Research is also geared towards cigarettes far more than cigars.

 

[Norseman82]

i just had a plate of pierogies completely smothered in butter and onions followed by a dessert of almond babka completely smeared in more butter.

Actually, the proper plural is pierogi, the singular is pierog. Aside from that, do you have any leftovers?

Seriously, I know the CCC says that abuse of tobacco is a sin. However, if you’re entering the “heart attack years”, or if you are addicted to tobacco, or if you have a family history of heart attack or cancer, any tobacco use is risky and could be considered abuse.

 

[Al_Masetti]

All this hair-splitting is giving me a headache.

I need another drink.

 

[pnewton]

If I have assaulted your freedom in any way I apologize. Just don’t assault mine by smoking around me.

You are totally correct and I would not dream of it. I seldom smoke around others except as a guy thing sharing cigars and outside with my wife (sitting downwind). I totally respect the right for clean air. It is just that certain regulations today have exceed that by leaps. In Houston, restraunts and bars can not allow smoking even in totally seperate rooms on independent ventilation and air. I never have or will smoke in public like this, but it is a shame to tell private citizens how they can run their business to satisfy special interest groups.

I noticed you said you are not good at arguements. I may have had too much practice at this and I apologize. If you want a twist of irony, my wife runs smoking cessation groups. I have agreed to never smoke more than can substantiated as harmful. I have a strong incentive to take big breaks between cigars and have for years. I know addition is not inevitable. She will even occasionally on a beautiful night ask my to go outside and enjoy one.

I am sorry that you have had loss in your life and understand your passion. Many others have felt the same way. I just wish there could be a little more balance to the opinion of the anti-smoking lobby, without swinging the pendulum back too far.

 

[Scottgun]

No one has offered any proof to say that the studies and resources I linked which show all cigarette smoking to be unhealthy, as faulty.

Ok. I was intending to stick to the moral reasoning, but here:

data-yard.net/43/1057.pdf

Plus a load of articles here: forces.org/evidence/evid/second.htm

And my favorite challenge. Of the tens of thousands of people who supposedly die of second-hand smoke: Name Three

Not smoking around others who do not want it is a matter of courtesy, not a matter of life and death. Of course no one likes to talk about courtesy because it means that our personal pet peeves are not absolutes.

 

[pnewton]

I have provided a plethora of evidence to show that second hand cigarette smoke is proven to have negative effects to the smoker and those around the smoker. I hope those who decide to light up cigarettes at the very least not do it around elderly, ill, or children. That’s all I’m asking. While I am a lay person when it comes to theology and my view may be wrong, I am not a lay person when it comes to medicine. (and my view is that I’d lean towards smoking being wrong because many do not smoke alone and then get rid of the smoke.

I have another thought to interject in reference to the moral issue here. Even ir we were to assume that the SHS information is a little exaggerated or even unfounded, it still remains offensive to others. It is a sin against the love of neighbor to deliberately offend them, be it smoke or language. Smoking may be sinful in a given circumstance for this reason alone.

PS - I have never smoke around children, the ill or elderly. Like I said earlier, a little balance goes a long way to pleasing everybody.

 

[Aleii]

Since you focus on second hand smoke, I’m guessing you agree that smoking is bad for the smoker’s health?

Smoking is the single biggest preventable cause of death.

wpro.who.int/media_centre/fact_sheets/fs_20060530.htm

The Enstrom/Kabat study that was published by the BMJ has some serious allegations against it. It is widely criticized, including from the British Medical Association and the American Cancer Society. Criticisms include its funding from tobacco companies and its methodology/interpretation/lack of proper classification especially after 1972. One can not get a reliable picture of how much second hand smoke one receives in life based on the spousal cigarette use. As Chris mentioned above, doctors, coworkers, people in supermarkets, etc smoked. This and additional criticism is relayed in several different areas.

bupa.co.uk/health_information/html/health_news/270503smoke.html
cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=\ForeignBureaus\archive00305\FOR20030516d.html
ash.org.uk/html/passive/html/BMJ0503critique.html

An accompanying editorial (11) pointed out that a substantial, statistically significant increased risk of COPD could be found when both the male and female exposed groups are combined.

nelh.nhs.uk/hth/passive_smoking.asp

However, the study by Enstrom and Kabat has also been widely criticised. It was funded by the tobacco industry and supported by the Centre for Indoor Air Research (CIAR), a now-defunct group founded by, and financially dependent on, tobacco manufacturers. The methodology has also been questioned, on the grounds that it does not distinguish sufficiently clearly between people who were exposed to SHS and those who were not, and that it was based on a small subset of the American Cancer Society’s data. The Chief Medical Officer, Professor Sir Liam Donaldson, concluded that Enstrom and Kabat “carried out a study with a flawed methodology which led them to the wrong conclusions”

publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmhealth/485/48505.htm

The British Medical Association says

Second-hand tobacco smoke is the main source of indoor air pollution. For more than a decade, convincing scientific evidence has been available to demonstrate that exposure to second-hand smoke both harms health, and worsens existing health problems.

bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/Smokefree

Concerning your “name three” link, here’s a name: Heather Crowe.
ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20021010/second_hand_smoke021009?s_name=&no_ads=

He seems to be stating that under his conditions, names are only valid if they have won a court case?

Instead of taking the time to rebuke (with referenced facts) the 71 articles that Repace sends to Dave he instead makes fun of him crassly and points to 1 (Enstrom/Kabat) study which states ‘evidence’ that seems to agree with Dave on first glance. Dave is not speaking in a scientific manner, there is a lot of emotion there, and instead of presenting his argument utilizing facts and not opinions, he arguments drip with paranoia and self-agenda. How is calling another person names a good way to debate? Doesn’t seem like he is serious about getting the answers, only validation.

If you honestly believe that second hand smoke is not detrimental to others health, could you honestly say that you’d perfectly fine about smoking while holding an infant? If not, why, if you think that a smoker who directly takes in the smoke is hurting his health but someone who is sitting a couple feet away who breathes in that same smoke isn’t hurting their health? Why then, are smoking bans becoming more and more common in public places if there is no health detriment?

There’s a lot more to second hand smoke then the possibility of getting lung cancer/heart disease, as the World Health Organization elaborates:

Small children whose parents smoke at home have an increased risk of suffering lower tract respiratory infections and otitis media.6,7 Tobacco smoke pollution has also been linked to an increase in the number and severity of asthma episodes in asthmatic children.8 There is also evidence that tobacco smoke pollution increases the risk of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS).9

wpro.who.int/media_centre/fact_sheets/fs_20050420.htm

Second hand smoke won’t kill everyone, but it is not good for their body. So why take an action that will hurt another? emedicine.com/ped/topic2625.htm
cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_10_2X_Secondhand_Smoke-Clean_Indoor_Air.asp

 

[Aleii]

Forces.org is a website ‘defending’ the right to smoke, among other things. I have tried to include medical websites here as much as I can, instead of just posting from no-smoking websites, and right now simply don’t have the time to look into this one which has a big bias. Will see about looking more into it later on in the week if I can.

The message of FORCES is based on the values of liberty for every individual in his personal choices. In this, FORCES is aligned with those who fight the antismoking cartel, which is basically false and oppressive. However, FORCES goes well beyond this, as it intends to expose the paucity and the illogic of a way of thinking and of conducting medicine, politics and scientific research that is simply unethical, and that wastes great human and public resources and energy in non-essential and irrelevant endeavours.

 

[pnewton]

Why then, are smoking bans becoming more and more common in public places if there is no health detriment?

I have a quick answer to this point only. I think the actions that any political entity takes is not a good indication of anything except the political forces that come to bear, including lobbyist.

I think you have a real good point on occupational safety for employees of restraunts. I had forgotten this particular arguement and think it has validity. Non-smoking employees should not have to serve in a smoking environment. My town has a ban on all smoking in restraunts. Houston is now banning it in all restraunts and bars. Some of the Houston business owners have started closing up. This protects the workers, but leaves them unemployed. This is why I think a more balanced approach is needed.

One the other side, tobacco bars have started opening that are allowed to serve drinks and food, as long as the food sales do not exceed 50% of gross receipts.

 

[Scottgun]

Forces.org is a website ‘defending’ the right to smoke, among other things. I have tried to include medical websites here as much as I can, instead of just posting from no-smoking websites, and right now simply don’t have the time to look into this one which has a big bias. Will see about looking more into it later on in the week if I can.

This is why I didn’t want to go down this rabbit-trail. Everyone is just going to accuse the other side’s science of bias. Big Tobacco vs. Big Drug Companies that sell the patches and other “cures” for tobacco (these are the same guys that gloss over the links between cancer and birth control.) Read the Forces’ FAQ. They are not a smoker’s union nor a shill for tobacco companies. The simple fact is, a person is far more likely to get killed tooling around in their automobile than dying from smoking. Hence, once again we are back to the only point that matters: Smoking isn’t any kind of sin in and of itself and no one has produced anything to the contrary.

Scott