Why claim that smoking is not a sin?
#21
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/796120/posts

The risks of smoking are greatly exaggerated
TheRecord.com ^ | 20 November 2002 | ERIC BOYD

Posted on Tuesday, November 26, 2002 7:58:07 AM by SheLion

Too much is made of the 4,000 chemicals in tobacco smoke. We're told these chemicals are so harmful that they are responsible for the deaths of millions worldwide. Untold in this "war on tobacco" is that each of the plants we consume consists of an equally daunting thousands of chemicals many of which are recognized poisons or suspected cancer-causing agents.

Cayenne peppers, carrots and strawberries each contain six suspected carcinogens; onions, grapefruit and tomato each contain five -- some the same as the seven suspected carcinogens found in tobacco.

High-heat cooking creates yet more dietary carcinogens from otherwise harmless chemical constituents.

Sure, these plant chemicals are measured in infinitesimal amounts. An independent study calculated 222,000 smoking cigarettes would be needed to reach unacceptable levels of benzo(a)pyrene. One million smoking cigarettes would be needed to produce unacceptable levels of toluene. To reach these estimated danger levels, the cigarettes must be smoked simultaneously and completely in a sealed 20-square-foot room with a nine-foot ceiling.

Many other chemicals in tobacco smoke can also be found in normal diets. Smoking 3,000 packages of cigarettes would supply the same amount of arsenic as a nutritious 200 gram serving of sole.

Half a bottle of now healthy wine can supply 32 times the amount of lead as one pack of cigarettes. The same amount of cadmium obtained from smoking eight packs of cigarettes can be enjoyed in half a pound of crab.

That's one problem with the anti-smoking crusade. The risks of smoking are greatly exaggerated. So are the costs.

An in-depth analysis of 400,000 U.S. smoking-related deaths by National Institute of Health mathematician Rosalind Marimont and senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute Robert Levy identified a disturbing number of flaws in the methodology used to estimate these deaths. Incorrectly classifying some diseases as smoking-related and choosing the wrong standard of comparison each overstated deaths by more than 65 per cent.

Failure to control for confounding variables such as diet and exercise turned estimates more into a computerized shell game than reliable estimates of deaths.

Marimont and Levy also found no adjustments were made to the costs of smoking resulting from the benefits of smoking -- reduced Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease, less obesity, depression and breast cancer.

If it were possible to estimate 45,000 smoking-related Canadian deaths as some health activists imagine -- and Marimont, Levy and other respected researchers think it is not -- then applying an identical methodology to other lifestyle choices would yield 57,000 Canadian deaths due to lack of exercise and 73,000 Canadian deaths blamed on poor diets.

If both the chemical constituents of tobacco smoke and the numbers of smoking-related deaths are overstated -- and clearly they are -- how can we trust the claim that tobacco smoke is harmful to non-smokers?

The 1993 bellwether study by the Environmental Protection Agency that selectively combined the results of a number of previous studies and found a small increase in lung cancer risk in those exposed to environmental tobacco smoke has been roundly criticized as severely flawed by fellow researchers and ultimately found invalid in a court of law.

In 1998, the World Health Organization reported a small, but not statistically significant, increase in the risk of lung cancer in non-smoking women married to smokers.

Despite these invalidating deficiencies, the Environmental Protection Agency and World Health Organization both concluded tobacco smoke causes lung cancer in non-smokers.

One wonders whether the same conclusions would have been announced if scientific fraud were a criminal offence.

When confronted with the scientific uncertainty, the inconsistency of results and the incredible misrepresentation of present-day knowledge, those seeking to abolish tobacco invoke a radical interpretation of the Precautionary Principle: "Where potential adverse effects are not fully understood, the activity should not proceed."

This unreasonable exploitation of the ever-present risks of living infiltrates our schools to indoctrinate trusting and eager minds with the irrational fears of today. Instead of opening minds to the wondrous complexities of living, it opens the door to peer ridicule and intolerance while cultivating the trendy cynics of tomorrow.

If we continue down this dangerous path of control and prohibition based on an unreliable or remote chance of harm, how many personal freedoms will remain seven generations from now?

Eric Boyd of Waterloo has management experience across a wide range of sectors.
Reply
#22
(02-12-2011, 06:26 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(02-12-2011, 06:01 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote: I enjoy a cigarette especially after I'm done eating.

A worthy undertaking for any Christian.

I actually miss smoking, especially after having eaten. I have tried to quit for the umpteenth time 1 year ago. I guess I'll give those e-cigarettes a try one of these days.

The e-cigs can still cause heart disease, among other problems.

I have nothing morally against smoking nicotine products in any form, by the way. I do so on occasion myself.
Reply
#23
Neopagan puritanism is invading every aspect of our lives. Resist. Have a smoke.
Reply
#24
It's already been said but I'll say it too in my own way - sometimes I actually make sense - and sometimes things re-worded makes sense to others.

The key to this topic is moderation. Smoking in moderation is not sinful just as drinking in moderation is not sinful although both have health risks. Over indulging in anything (smoking, drinking, eating) is gluttony and can be either venial or mortal depending on circumstances. Chain smoking is an addiction and an addiction to anything is not good and is sinful. However, as Fr. Rippberger's sermons masterfully illustrates, even chain smoking can be beneficial to someone who is suffering from a physical or mental ailment which might benefit from nicotine - and yes, there are health benefits to smoking just as their is with drinking.

Tobacco is not intrinsically evil - nor is smoking it provided moderation is kept. Please listen to Fr. Rippberger's sermon on the subject already posted as he states it with the clarity of a traditional Priest relying on a deeply Thomistic viewpoint.

Everything has risks. You have a high chance of developing a brain tumor from radiation from a cell phone, getting in your car runs a very high risk of getting into a fatal accident, having an office job requiring a lot of sitting and inactivity means heart problems and hemorrhoids. Everything has risks - God does not require us to live in a bubble - that would be even more detrimental to the soul.



Reply
#25
I've been puffing a bit as of late, after staying off of them for 4 months. And I do confess it as a sin.

No priest has ever focused on it.

But, Father Corapi did make the point that it goes against the 5th Commandment. And as Jayne says, we did not know before that they could kill you.

Why do you ask, Jayne? Thinking of taking up the habit, or quitting.
Reply
#26
(02-12-2011, 05:41 PM)Habitual_Ritual Wrote: I guess GK Chesterton must in the deepest circle  of Hell:

Chesterton wrote before it was known just how harmful smoking is.
Reply
#27
(02-12-2011, 07:20 PM)Adam Wayne Wrote: I've been puffing a bit as of late, after staying off of them for 4 months. And I do confess it as a sin.

No priest has ever focused on it.

But, Father Corapi did make the point that it goes against the 5th Commandment. And as Jayne says, we did not know before that they could kill you.

Why do you ask, Jayne? Thinking of taking up the habit, or quitting.

I'm asking because of the way Vetus mentioned it in the other thread.  It came across to me as assuming "of course everybody knows that smoking is not a sin"  and that just seemed so strange to me.  I see nothing obvious about the idea that smoking is not a sin.  Traditionally "thou shalt not kill" has been understood to forbid actions that endanger oneself and others and I do not see how, knowing what we do now, this would not include smoking.

It is a matter of intellectual interest to me but does not affect me personally.  I have never smoked, never intend to smoke and am not tempted to smoke. 
Reply
#28
(02-12-2011, 06:34 PM)Petertherock Wrote: We also know that the "dangers" of smoking are severely over stated.

I don't know that.  I know that the World Health Agency, Surgeon General and American Medical Association describe it as very harmful. 
Reply
#29
The answer is found in that short sermon posted above. Here it is again:

http://www.sensustraditionis.org/webaudi...moking.mp3

It will shock adherents of the neopagan cult of the body.
Reply
#30
(02-12-2011, 07:52 PM)Jitpring Wrote: The answer is found in that short sermon posted above. Here it is again:

http://www.sensustraditionis.org/webaudi...moking.mp3

It will shock adherents of the neopagan cult of the body.

This priest reiterates the traditional principle that smoking is sinful to the extent that it harms one's health.  If it is slightly harmful it is a venial sin.  If it is very harmful it is a mortal sin.  His argument is based on questioning the consensus of medical authorities that smoking is harmful.  He lists some conditions for which nicotine is beneficial.  When he speaks of moral theology he speaks within his area of expertise.  I agreed with everything he said about this. His conclusions about health contradict the experts in that field.  Therefore I do not consider his opinion to carry much weight.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)