FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums
Why claim that smoking is not a sin? - Printable Version

+- FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Church (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=2)
+--- Forum: Catholicism (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+--- Thread: Why claim that smoking is not a sin? (/showthread.php?tid=42231)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28


Re: Why claim that smoking is not a sin? - JayneK - 02-14-2011

(02-14-2011, 09:42 PM)Martinus Wrote: Yeah, I meant 'has better things to do than study all the latest medical evidence', not spiritual apathy.

It is not necessary to study all the latest medical evidence.  There are medical authorities such as the Surgeon General who study these things and advise the public.  All these medical authorities come out very clearly saying that smoking is harmful.  It is reasonable to make moral judgments with the assumption that smoking is harmful.



Re: Why claim that smoking is not a sin? - Bakuryokuso - 02-14-2011

yeah and in a typical physical checkup a regular doctor would ask if you smoke and most I reckon would tell you to stop. If you questioned there advice they could fairly easily refer you to documented reasons why


Re: Why claim that smoking is not a sin? - JayneK - 02-14-2011

(02-14-2011, 09:54 PM)Martinus Wrote: I agree, in a sense, with what you said. But I'd add that the person somking would have to be reasonably sure the the actual act of smoking they're engaging in is causing them a sufficient amount of harm that they know they really shouldn't be doing it. And I'd say that doesn't apply in at least most cases.

I'm not sure about other countries but here in Canada every cigarette carton is required by law to carry a warning that it is harmful.  I think that we can reasonably expect people to know that smoking is harmful.


Re: Why claim that smoking is not a sin? - Martinus - 02-14-2011

(02-14-2011, 09:57 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(02-14-2011, 09:42 PM)Martinus Wrote: Yeah, I meant 'has better things to do than study all the latest medical evidence', not spiritual apathy.

It is not necessary to study all the latest medical evidence.  There are medical authorities such as the Surgeon General who study these things and advise the public.  All these medical authorities come out very clearly saying that smoking is harmful.  It is reasonable to make moral judgments with the assumption that smoking is harmful.

I suppose I would say it isn't unreasonable to make moral judgements based on that, but I don't think you'd be required to base them on that iether. I mean, you could look into it deeper and see what the Surgeon General says more exactly. I'm sure he would say there's a great difference between, for example, one cigarette a day and 40. That's just common sense. I don't think the knowledge that the Surgeon General considers it 'harmful' in general is enough, in itself, to morally affect any decision you make to smoke.


Re: Why claim that smoking is not a sin? - Martinus - 02-14-2011

(02-14-2011, 10:01 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(02-14-2011, 09:54 PM)Martinus Wrote: I agree, in a sense, with what you said. But I'd add that the person somking would have to be reasonably sure the the actual act of smoking they're engaging in is causing them a sufficient amount of harm that they know they really shouldn't be doing it. And I'd say that doesn't apply in at least most cases.

I'm not sure about other countries but here in Canada every cigarette carton is required by law to carry a warning that it is harmful.  I think that we can reasonably expect people to know that smoking is harmful.

Again, yes, but I don't think it's enough to affect the morality of the decision to actually take a cigarette out of that packet and smoke it. The messages, at least here (in the UK) are very general.

They're going to start putting such messages on alchohol soon, and I bet they'll be just as general (and sensational, even). 'Drinking kills' 'Drinking can seriously harm your liver' 'Drinking while pregnant harms your baby' etc. There's no way the fact that someone had read those messages (unless they took them too seriously, in which case there could be an issue of conscience) would morally affect the person's decision to have a drink.


Re: Why claim that smoking is not a sin? - Bakuryokuso - 02-14-2011

yeah the govt forced the tobacco co's to put huge full-colour photographs and cancer-ridden rotting gums and lungs on their packs. And the tobacco companies at the time pushed back said it would be too hard to print photgraphs of that high quality, etc. But there they are.

Also in quebec pharmacies cant sell cigarettes since it's against the hippocratic oath of not harming your patients.

And corner stores have to hide all cig packs behind covers and the covers have warning posters on them about not smoking around your kids and all that


Re: Why claim that smoking is not a sin? - Martinus - 02-14-2011

(02-14-2011, 09:59 PM)Bakuryokuso Wrote: yeah and in a typical physical checkup a regular doctor would ask if you smoke and most I reckon would tell you to stop. If you questioned there advice they could fairly easily refer you to documented reasons why

Yeah, same would happen if you told the doctor you don't eat five portions of fruit and vegetables every day. Again, it wouldn't make anything morally binding I don't think. If the doctor had something more specific to say, like 'based on these tests I've just done on you' or 'based on the complaints you're telling me about, you should give up somking because it seems to be seriously harming you', that would be a different story. If he's just speaking in general about the problems it can lead to, I don't think it's the same thing.


Re: Why claim that smoking is not a sin? - Bakuryokuso - 02-14-2011

yeah for sure if the doctor says stop smoking cos you have asthma or lay off the krispy kreme cos your morbidly obese its a different story


Re: Why claim that smoking is not a sin? - Martinus - 02-14-2011

(02-14-2011, 10:19 PM)Bakuryokuso Wrote: yeah the govt forced the tobacco co's to put huge full-colour photographs and cancer-ridden rotting gums and lungs on their packs. And the tobacco companies at the time pushed back said it would be too hard to print photgraphs of that high quality, etc. But there they are.

Also in quebec pharmacies cant sell cigarettes since it's against the hippocratic oath of not harming your patients.

And corner stores have to hide all cig packs behind covers and the covers have warning posters on them about not smoking around your kids and all that

OK, yeah they do the whole pictures thing here now, as well. If anyting though, I'd say that has the oppostie effect on the morality of the decision than you would seem to be saying. They're just so over the top it's ridiculous. Any normal, reasonable person looking at those pictures would think 'Oh yeah, sure, that's going to happen to me if I take one of these out of the pack and light it up. Give me a break...' They'd do better to be a good deal less sensasionalist about it.


Re: Why claim that smoking is not a sin? - Bakuryokuso - 02-14-2011

well definitely the govt will need to research to see which measures have proved most effective, or ineffective. Right now theyre focusing on reducing the amount of contraband cigs