Cigarettes and church teaching 'excessive use'

I agree, it is 2017, everyone knows cigarettes are deadly, there is no question about it anymore…however, they are still legal and anyone over 18 can buy as many as they like, every day if they choose to do so…

On one hand, our lawmakers crack down tough on prescription drugs and other things that are remotely dangerous, all to protect health and safety of the people they claim, but cigarettes are the exception I guess?!

Id say it has more to do with how much revenue they bring in for our govt, and that white washes their danger to a point the Govt actually protects the tobacco companies so they can continue selling, but then again, Im sure the prescription drug people did not like having their narcotic cash cows clamped down upon by new Govt laws, ensuring much less people can buy them, so…?

Cigarette smoking is essentially suicide imo, just done extremely slowly. Anyone who smokes for years has the same white lines in their fingernails as people who die from other types of poisoning.

It is amazing to me, in 2017 that I have never once heard ONE lawmaker or politician suggest cracking down on tobacco, but Its almost weekly I read about suggestions for cracking down on street drugs or other dangerous substances using laws or regulations, and they all say it is to protect our health and safety…doesnt make sense?! LOL

I remember when I went to Rome in 2009 on a Holy Week pilgrimage. I encountered a lot of smoking priests and deacons and devout laity…when I went to this one Opus Dei function just outside of Rome with their Prelate, the courtyard was a big cloud of smoke for all intents and purposes. While this is something to be proud of as North Americans, I don’t think the rest of the world yet shares our general disdain for tobacco.

I have to agree there is lots of cultural influence when it comes to tobacco.

If smoking is sinful because it may harm others is perfume as well? Is incense? I have bad allergies. Perfume often causes problems for me. Incense isn’t a problem for me but it can be for others. Is a lady who wears perfume therefore sinning? Is the priest when uses incense?

What about cat or dog owners. I’m also allergic to cats and dogs. Is it immoral to own these creatures because they cause me harm?

I do think smoking has harmful effects but I think a lot of the so called science presented is nonsense. I don’t particularly like smoking but I don’t think a few breathes of second hand smoke is so harmful it is a sin. If it is then the exhaust coming out of everyone’s cars is far worse a sin. I think people are applying a unique principle to smoking simply because less people smoke. If we said they had to give up their cars they’d quickly abandon the principle that no amount of harm is acceptable.

Its funny. Here in BC, tobacco is one of the only PC recognized “sins”. Tobacco smokers are like lepers. They have (and rightfully so) restricted it in parks, on beaches, at bus stops, and of course in all public buildings. On the other hand, pot smoking is almost universally embraced…and smelled on beaches, in parks, etc…without any action by anyone.

Are these really serious health risks, and risks which cannot be easily avoided? Smoking is first and foremost morally questionable in light of what it does to the smoker. He cannot avoid the risk once he decides to smoke.

What about cat or dog owners. I’m also allergic to cats and dogs. Is it immoral to own these creatures because they cause me harm?

There are millions of cats and dogs, some no doubt living in your neighbourhood. Perhaps you’ve been inconvenienced, but has your health been dealt a serious blow? How are you dealing with the risk?

I do think smoking has harmful effects but I think a lot of the so called science presented is nonsense.

I’m guessing you’re not a scientist with any particular insight here?

I don’t particularly like smoking but I don’t think a few breathes of second hand smoke is so harmful it is a sin. If it is then the exhaust coming out of everyone’s cars is far worse a sin. I think people are applying a unique principle to smoking simply because less people smoke. If we said they had to give up their cars they’d quickly abandon the principle that no amount of harm is acceptable.

The moral situations here would seem to rely on a balance of consequences consideration. Certainly my mother concluded she needed to (permanently) give up smoking when grandchildren were on the way. And she did. Hard to argue that was not a morally justified decision, and to her great credit.

What is a serious health risk? For cigarettes the standard used now is any harm. My point was if you apply that to other things then perfume, incense, dogs, cats, and most especially cars need to be done away with.

And as far as avoidance as a solution goes society doesn’t promote that for smoking. Society outlaws it. It doesn’t tell you if you don’t like cigarettes to not go where cigarettes are smoked. It threatens anyone who smokes in most places with fines.

I am able to distinguish a material difference in the health risks to me of cigarette smoking vs. exposure to other things. Were one of them to represent a level of risk comparable to smoking, I’d feel obliged to take appropriate precautionary measures. And if a particular perfume were to be of comparable risk, I imagine we’d expect the authorities to ban it or similar. Common sense is applied. Peanuts are a grave risk to some. For young children, the schools ban the product. But adults can generally take measures to avoid that risk. But how am I to avoid the risk of secondary smoke when dining at a restaurant - I can’t. Nor can I avoid the risks of perfume - so the degree of risk now comes into play.

And as far as avoidance as a solution goes society doesn’t promote that for smoking. Society outlaws it. It doesn’t tell you if you don’t like cigarettes to not go where cigarettes are smoked. It threatens anyone who smokes in most places with fines.

Where I live, avoidance of smoking is extensively promoted. Children are taught the risks in schools. Most forms of tobacco product advertising are banned. Packaging carries prominent warning labels. Smoking in enclosed public spaces is banned - and yes one can be fined for breaking the law - though that is relatively rare because the soundness of the laws are broadly supported.

Thats the strange thing about cigarettes today, everyone knows how deadly they are…yet they remain 100% legal, but when it comes to other things that are found to be deadly the govt takes action very quickly to regulate them, claiming they are doing so to protect the public…narcotic prescription drugs being a recent one, the DEA stepped in and helped create new regulations once the problem got worse, Im sure the pharma companies did not like these new laws as it reduced their sales of these products.

Cigarettes and tobacco seem to be totally exempt from this kind of thing, but I have no idea why this is the case, if its not about money, what else could it be?

That is along the lines I’m thinking. That people smoke for the short-lived effects without really caring to inhale much smoke. It is kinda like a superstition. If they believe their nerves are better and their temporary relief with smoking I am inclined to say they have stronger faith than I do. I also use stick incense in praying and for some effect, but charcoal burning makes carcinogens too so you just have to be careful. I do not associate it to my healing.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.