You are so right. It also goes to show how sheep-like people are and how they follow whatever is popular at the time. I guess the wisest thing to do is to look for things that have stood the test of time. I have a feeling real books will never go away, no matter how many ipads they make. I can’t stand reading off a screen. It’s especially awful on a sunny day when all you can see is your reflection on the screen! All these electronic gadgets seem to be “must-haves” to people right now, but actually I almost hope there is a health hazard to them so that they would be used more judiciously in the future.
And yet we have people who completely stigmatise people for being smokers.
When it takes such a long time to develop potential health issues, it brings so many other factors into play (i.e. food, alcohol, excercise, pollution, genetics, “luck”) that you just can’t be so sure in drawing links.
Sure, plenty of the people who suffered heart attacks or lung cancers were smokers.
But did anyone ever stop to consider that there might’ve been a family history, the person was among the lowest (a large percentage of smokers today are very poor to begin with) on the socio-economic scale, and they couldn’t afford frequent visits to their family doctor for checkups?
No. Instead, if the person died from a heat-attack or anything, tick the “smoker” box, and all of a sudden they died “because of smoking.”
Yes it’s very unfair and untrue.
Usually an xray of the lungs can show people the damage from smoking.
If cigarettes were a new product that someone just came up with in recent times, I strongly believe they would not be allowed to sell them to the public,the powers that be would NEVER OK something so deadly.
I also would not call smokers poor, even in KY, a regular pack of 20 cigarettes is around $5.00, so even a light smoker, smoking one pack a day, that is $150. per month!!
I have to disagree. If politicians were so concerned about our health, they would ban it already. Yet they don’t, and just baby-step along with it.
Yes, while it is costly, some people prioritize their funds towards their smoking habit. Demographically they are often the poorer people, who cannot afford the medical attention needed to stop.
However, I do question the “deadliness” of it, and have done a huge amount of research on my own behalf into this. Like so much these days, its greatly exaggerated. People use it to discredit others, without questioning their own lifestyle choices.
I read a great article yesterday from another Catholic site on the morality of smoking (in particular) and/or pleasures.
Laws about smoking and the dangers of it are kind of hypocritical imo, in recent times there has been a push to prevent smoking in and even around buildings, some places, you cant even smoke outside! So they are using the ‘deadliness’ or second hand smoke to get these laws passed, but they do nothing to regulate the sale or possession of cigarettes…??
On the other hand, recently lawmakers have aggressively went after all these fake marijuana substances sold in gas stations, they acted very quickly when the dangers about them were not really known, it is now illegal to sell them, have them, use them, and the dangers were not really known yet…?? But with cigarettes WE DO KNOW the dangers, they may not be as deadly as some claim, but they still push anti-smoking in certain areas LOL
I dont understand this, their actions are very hypocritical…I mean, they either care about our health or they dont…which is it? LOL
$5/month is a steal in one of the more anti-smoking cities - Chicago, LA, NYC a legal pack is $15-20!!
As to the cellphone scare - how about just using wired headphones if you are REALLY REALLY concerned. The tiny data that possibly points to radiation is directed toward the act of holding the headset to one’s head. Using wired headphones removes this minuscule possibility to near zero.
I haven’t smoked for 10 years now, but the “how much smoking costs” analogy is really lame. People can only buy one latte at Starbucks for about $5. Money is wasted on things people don’t need at all everyday.
I realize the Church doesn’t come down infallibly on every single issue (though, I admit, sometimes I whs it would come down on far more; would give me a greater feeling of security). However, it does come down on more general issues which might be able to be applied to specific situations like this one. These are the kinds of issues I’m trying to work out in this post and my other ones, if the Church hasn’t already come down on these issues.
Also, I have seen folks whom I believe to be really committed Christians come down on here as “too scrupulous” when they really only desire to live, as perfectly as they can, the life Christ would desire them to live. I myself have been accused of this a number of times before. After all, if we are to follow Christ’s teachings, are we not to follow them as closely as possible and seek in every way, shape and form to follow them in whatsoever we do and in every aspect of our lives?
Furthermore, “prudence”, I think, has become a kind of “catch-all” word and has become able to be so broadly applied that it has very often become useless. The term has become so relativized, IMO!
Under your thought process, though, we should probably not go out as we risk being mugged, or bitten by a dog, or being hit by vehicle, etc etc, all of which are higher risks than the chance of catching cancer from a cell phone.
At one time, smoking cigarettes was thought to be harmless, at one time Radium was a ‘cure-all’ for a number of things. It takes time for the dangers of products to be recognized, cell phones are no different, you cannot discount those 39 peer reviewed papers, they DO show some potential danger, but because of cell phone popularity, they are thrown under the rug, others claiming they are wrong, etc. the same thing happened back when cigarettes and Radium were widely popular, people laughed at those who thought it was dangerous.
You have a FAR greater chance of either being killed in a car wreck or developing heart disease then you would ever have developing brain cancer using a cell phone or obtaining lung cancer…irregardless of smoking or not.
Yet…there is no limit on car use. Just laws that state we must use seat belts.
There is also no limit on consuming unhealthy foods and no limit on not exercising. Just one state law that bans large sodas…or bans all “unhealthy” snacks from being sold in public school.
Nor would any politician get away with developing laws that would limit either.
The truth is…one could make an argument that cell phones have legitimate purpose in our lives.
A cell phone has saved far more lives then hindered.
I will take that “risk” every single day of my life if it means getting help for me or my babies when I need it.
Smoking, on the other hand, has no redeeming qualities. There is no legitimate purpose for one to smoke. It doesn’t enhance our lives and it certainly doesn’t save lives.
So what? The point I am making is that the OP has chosen probably one of the least risky things to ask about. Almost everything else in our lives carries far more risk than cell phones but she seems to be obsessed by phones.