Down yonder, a reader asks:
Jimmy,
Do you think one could argue that cigars and cigarettes are immoral?
The Catechism states that Tobacco, used in moderation, is morally
licit. However, cigarettes and cigars aren’t just tobacco, but tobacco
laced with poison (literally).
For the record, let’s quote the Catechism on this matter:
CCC 2290
The virtue of temperance disposes us to avoid every kind of excess: the abuse
of food, alcohol, tobacco, or medicine. Those incur grave guilt who, by
drunkenness or a love of speed, endanger their own and others’ safety on the
road, at sea, or in the air.
This passage relates appears to recognize that the moderate use of tobacco (like the moderate use of the co-named items food, alcohol, or medicine) is morally licit under the virtue of temperance. (Certainly the Church has never suggested a general anti-tobacco policy to its members, despite hundreds of years of its common use in Christian circles.) The conclusion one would draw from the Catechism seems further confirmed by the fact that, regardless of the claims made regarding "addiction" and cigarettes, many people only occasionally smoke pipes and cigars and with no apparent ill effects (some even smoke cigarettes only occasionally).
It may not be politically correct to point this out, but it seems to be true.
Recognizing that, what about the claim that commercially-available tobaccos are "laced with poison."
To be blunt, this particular claim seems to be propaganda of the anti-smoking industry.
Whether or not something is a poison depends on the amount in which it is received. If you eat a pound of salt at one sitting, it will turn out to be quite toxic to your system. But salt itself is essential for life. Similarly, drink five gallons of alcohol in one sitting and you will most certainly die. But drink alcohol in moderate amounts and it actually improves health.
Quantity thus is everything. Any substance administered in sufficiently small quantities would seem to count–in those quantities–as a non-poison. No substance I know of would kill a person if present only in a single molecule.
If (per supposition, though recognizing that matters here are likely way over-inflated due to political correctness and bad science) contemporary tobacco products are "laced with [substances that in sufficient quantities become] poisons," this would mean that the amount of such products whose use would be moderate would grow smaller (but not vanish in an instant).
It therefore seems to me that the presence of chemicals in contemporary tobacco products that increases their potential toxicity thereby limits the amount of such products which can be moderately consumed, but it does not eliminate it.
In addition, I am quite suspicious about claims made in such regards. We have already seen that the claims regarding "second-hand smoke" are highly problematic, and so are many other clearly propagandistic communiques in this regard.
Here in California, for example, the anti-smoking industry aired TV commercials advertising the "fact" that cigarettes release X-number of "chemicals" into the air, as if cooking popcorn did not release a similar number of "chemicals" into the environment.
Did someone mention poison? *ears prick up*
“Whether or not something is a poison depends on the amount in which it is received.”
Paracelsus’ famous definition, “the dose makes the poison.”
What about illegal drugs? Would the use of any amount of, say, marijuana or cocaine be sinful?
Well, we are called to follow the law and lawful authorities.
Tar in my lungs == not good for me.
Even if the carcinogenic effects of second-hand smoke are dubious, there are still problems. There are 20+ million Americans with asthma (myself included), and for those people, breathing around smoke is very difficult. Isn’t it therefore charitable to consider our neighbors’ health concerns in the here-and-now?
But it is not morally licit to harm your neighbor. Smoking in public does just that, as roughly 20% of the population has asthma, and tobacco smoke is a highly irritating substance that most certainly can induce asthma attacks, episodes of chronic bronchitis, etc.
Another thing that has to be taken into account is the disposition of the individual. For instance, a few drinks for an average temperate drinker is not only harmless, but can, as Jimmy points out, be health-enhancing. But for the alcoholic, that first FIRST drink can be fatal, even if that person doesn’t get tanked at that particular setting, for alcoholism is a subtle malady, i.e. it can (and almost always does)set the stage for a more serious incident later on.
“The conclusion one would draw from the Catechism seems further confirmed by the fact that, regardless of the claims made regarding “addiction” and cigarettes, many people only occasionally smoke pipes and cigars and with no apparent ill effects (some even smoke cigarettes only occasionally).”
While many, if not most, cigarette smokers I know are habitual smokers, there is no evidence that cigarettes are addictive in the same way that narcotics and, to lesser degree, alcohol is.
I have never heard of anyone going into a grand maul seizure from nicotine withdrawl, but is does happen alot with those going through narcotics withdrawl and in alcohol withdrawl in the advanced stages of alcoholism.
That being said, I believe that cigarette smoking can be, and often is, a psychological habit that is difficult to break. But then again, so can sucking your thumb. The anti-smoking lobby has been effective in blurring the distinction between a habit and an addiction. Mind you, I am not downplaying the difficulty in quitting smoking. As an ex habitual smoker who smoked regularly from the age of twelve to twenty-five, giving up the cigarettes was no easy task. But I did it without any medical treatment. I didn’t even use any gums or patches, which I think are nothing more than marketing ploys, but that’s just one man’s opinion.
If I had been habitually doing narcotics for anything like thirteen years, I surely would have needed medical assistance to come off the drugs. Frankly, I don’t know of anyone who has even survived that kind of long-term drug use, except Keith Richard ;P
“In addition, I am quite suspicious about claims made in such regards. We have already seen that the claims regarding ‘second-hand smoke’ are highly problematic, and so are many other clearly propagandistic communiques in this regard.”
Here’s why I find all this hubbub about the serious health risks “second-hand” smoke untenable: it takes many years for the adverse health effects of even FIRST HAND SMOKE to materialize.
My father smoked 2 packs of cigarettes a day. He died at the age of 58, racked with emphysema and heart problems. I was 12 years old. While perhaps smoking isn’t as bad as drinking in excess, it can still cause tragedy.
Because our living room is quite small, my grandfather could cross it when I was a child — if he stopped to rest half-way owing to emphysema.
OTOH, that falls under the category “preserving one’s health.” The seriousness of the obligation depends on the extent of the impact.
And since tobacco is an anti-depressant, there are benefits to be reckoned in as well.
I second a lot of the comments made here. This is an issue I have struggled with. I have smoked variously (as you could probably tell from previous entries) and currently do. It concerns me in providing witness to others, because it is seen by many as wicked behavior.
As far as societal impact, I’m sympathetic to a degree. Ideally society would be accessible for everyone. Hopefully this would be true for asthmatics in restaurants and the wheelchair-bound in public establishments. Obviously banning smoking is less costly than installing wheelchair ramps and elevators everywhere. Having said that, we all suffer various afflictions(major and minor), and we need to recognize and accept burdens that are placed upon us. It is not prudent to burden others with our needs. Those that accept their afflictions we call blessed, and those that accept the burdens of others we call blessed.
Not only is moderate use not immoral, I wish more people would moderately enjoy alcohal and tobacco. Think about the ubiquity psychoactive prescription drugs, if more people knew how to unwind with the occasional cohiba and cognac, maybe we could cut down on the people who are perpetually medicated. As it is, a couple Catholic exceptions aside, I don’t know anyone my age who drinks without the state of absolute drunkedness as their goal, and the same goes for smoking, excess is the goal and that’s what renders the behaviour illicit.
The effects of second hand smoking are very rapid for me. Within a minute or so, my lungs begin to constrict due to inflamation, after some time, the secretions produced by my lungs in reaction to the irritation create bronchitis.
I’m not the only one. If you are so addicted to nicotine that you have to have it for the hour that you are in a restaurant, then please, use a patch, or nicotine-laced gum. If you are so addicted that you can’t work without nicotine, again, please use the same methods for supplying you with the god of your stomach (to reference St. Paul) and do not cause harm to your neighbor for the sake of your pleasures, which is rather obviously not licit.
Circuit Rider,
I would assume you’re not the only one. I would hazard that your reaction is not common though. You are being presumptious believing that your burden falls upon me. In Acts, the widows are told that if they can’t support themselves, they should goto their families; if they cannot support them, only then should they goto the Church. Paul is harsh with those that anger over the new Christians eating pork.
Having said this, I’m not excused from courtesy; I’m merely not obligated.
I am teetering the fence in regards to the morality of enjoying the smoke of an occasional pipe. It seems that moderation is the underlying theme in the use of tobacco, alcohal, and foods. One would not say that it is immoral for someone to attend a restraunt where they know they will be subject to second hand smoke (which is more dangerous than first hand), so it seems inconsistent to condemn the man who enjoys the occasional pipe. Say the pipe smoker conscously avoids areas of excessive and dense smoke, while the non-smoker gives little concern to the environments in which he subjects himself to. This would cause the non-smoker to take in more potentially harmful smoke than the occasional pipe smoker.
Do you think this is more of a personal conviction as opposed to a moral dogma? I appreciate your views on this subject.
Good Day.
Hola faretaste
mekodinosad