Smoking

[missionseeker]

I have a friend who thought the same thing as you do, aalpha. He's now struggling to break his addiction. It's not that smoking is "a sin" but it very well can be a near occasion of sin (of course by that time it is too late and you're at the point of vice...) He watched his dad die of lung cancer two years ago. So I think that while what you say is technically true (that it's not a sin to smoke socially) It can still be very dangerous.

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='missionseeker' date='21 October 2009 - 03:09 PM' timestamp='1256152167' post='1989108']
I have a friend who thought the same thing as you do, aalpha. He's now struggling to break his addiction. It's not that smoking is "a sin" but it very well can be a near occasion of sin (of course by that time it is too late and you're at the point of vice...) He watched his dad die of lung cancer two years ago. So I think that while what you say is technically true (that it's not a sin to smoke socially) It can still be very dangerous.
[/quote]

Fair enough. I do have a friend who is addicted, but he had no intention of avoiding addiction when he started smoking (he was having stress issues). Maybe my friends are the exception to the rule, but a have a lot who honestly smoke in moderation.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='aalpha1989' date='21 October 2009 - 01:59 PM' timestamp='1256151570' post='1989105']
One cigarette could give you cancer? I actually laughed out loud... I know you said miniscule, but still... can't happen.
...
It is accurate to compare one cigarette to one slice of cake. Both are technically "bad" for you... if you indulged yourself in either immoderately you'd die from resulting health complications... but it is not a sin to indulge yourself every once in a while.
[/quote]

The cancer risks of smoking are not like eating a slice of cake. The cardiovascular risks of cancer are like cake because of the slow long term changes to the vessel walls.

The cancer risk from smoking in my opinion is more like the risk of death due to driving a car. Chances are you get in your car every morning and you'll come home safe at night. But there's just as much of a chance of being horrible killed in a nasty car accident the first day you get your new car as there is dying in a car accident 10 years later. Driving is not an 'additive' risk. Driving a few times can kill you or you could drive a million times and never have a wreck. You could smoke one cigarette and mess up several genes in a single cell and get cancer or you could smoke your whole life and never mess up those genes. The risk of knocking out any individual gene is not additive. If you spend enough time in a car you are probably gonna get in a wreck, but it is not an additive risk.

[Veridicus]

Addiction can be a difficult thing to define and admit.

[Marie-Therese]

[quote name='aalpha1989' date='21 October 2009 - 02:19 PM' timestamp='1256149158' post='1989083']
The thing is, you have to have been chain smoking for all twenty years. If you stop your lungs start to regenerate and you're totally fine. Smoking definitely decreases lung capacity, but that is really the only noticable symptom, and even that goes away when you quit.
[/quote]


[quote name='aalpha1989' date='21 October 2009 - 02:26 PM' timestamp='1256149597' post='1989089']
When I said this I was referring to lung cancer, among other things. Lung cancer cannot and will not develop if one smokes in moderation.
[/quote]


Sorry, aalpha, but this is incorrect. I'm speaking as an oncology RN so I feel pretty comfortable addressing this.

Your first point, that your lungs totally regenerate after years of smoking, is incorrect. While the effects of long term smoking do diminish after quitting, it takes some time for that to happen. One example...after quitting smoking (even if you smoked for a short time), it takes 15 years for a prior smoker's risk of cardiovascular disease to equal that of a nonsmoker. That doesn't even address the lung issues.

"Lung cancer cannot and will not develop if one smokes in moderation." Severely misguided. Cancer is Russian Roulette when it comes to smoking. Some people smoke their whole lives and never develop cancer. Some develop lung cancer simply from secondhand smoke exposure. It is determined by whether the carcinogenic chemicals contained in the smoke are able to effect a cellular mutation in even a single cell. Once that mutation is accomplished and the mutated cells replicate, well, that's cancer.

My father died of lung cancer at age 51. I am, unfortunately, extremely knowledgeable on that topic, and not out of choice. I've treated countless patients with endless hours of chemo, and I've held the hands of patients as they died during their hospice care. The truth is, even casual smoking carries a risk. Each individual has to evaluate their personal health and family history and then determine whether they feel that the risk is warranted.

My 2 cents.

[CatherineM]

[quote name='aalpha1989' date='21 October 2009 - 01:26 PM' timestamp='1256149597' post='1989089']
When I said this I was referring to lung cancer, among other things. Lung cancer cannot and will not develop if one smokes in moderation.
[/quote]
My mom smoked less than 1/2 a pack a day. Most people didn't even know she smoked. 5 years after she quit, she got lung cancer. I suppose the whole thing might have been just a unnecessary surgery backed by the anti-smoking lobby. She ended up with a wicked scar and a tattoo. They tattooed her chest so the radiation treatment could focus in on the same spot each time.

[cmotherofpirl]

Smoking is a vice that endangers yourself, your spouse, your children, your future children and any poor unfortunate soul that has the misfortune to be near you.


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090212210721.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090209205156.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090910142425.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090203120721.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081229105037.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081205113932.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090408140214.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081103111625.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090504151456.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090623090400.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090611194336.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081113181432.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091015112136.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090407074951.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090121144103.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081105081950.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090401101729.htm

[Veridicus]

[quote name='Marie-Therese' date='21 October 2009 - 02:44 PM' timestamp='1256154264' post='1989115']
"Lung cancer cannot and will not develop if one smokes in moderation." Severely misguided. Cancer is Russian Roulette when it comes to smoking. Some people smoke their whole lives and never develop cancer. Some develop lung cancer simply from secondhand smoke exposure. It is determined by whether the carcinogenic chemicals contained in the smoke are able to effect a cellular mutation in even a single cell. Once that mutation is accomplished and the mutated cells replicate, well, that's cancer.
[/quote]

I'm a second year medical studen and this is the point I have been trying to make.

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='Marie-Therese' date='21 October 2009 - 03:44 PM' timestamp='1256154264' post='1989115']
Sorry, aalpha, but this is incorrect. I'm speaking as an oncology RN so I feel pretty comfortable addressing this.

Your first point, that your lungs totally regenerate after years of smoking, is incorrect. While the effects of long term smoking do diminish after quitting, it takes some time for that to happen. One example...after quitting smoking (even if you smoked for a short time), it takes 15 years for a prior smoker's risk of cardiovascular disease to equal that of a nonsmoker. That doesn't even address the lung issues.
[/quote]

I didn't mean it happened instantly, only that it does happen.

[quote]
"Lung cancer cannot and will not develop if one smokes in moderation." Severely misguided. Cancer is Russian Roulette when it comes to smoking. Some people smoke their whole lives and never develop cancer. Some develop lung cancer simply from secondhand smoke exposure. It is determined by whether the carcinogenic chemicals contained in the smoke are able to effect a cellular mutation in even a single cell. Once that mutation is accomplished and the mutated cells replicate, well, that's cancer.

My father died of lung cancer at age 51. I am, unfortunately, extremely knowledgeable on that topic, and not out of choice. I've treated countless patients with endless hours of chemo, and I've held the hands of patients as they died during their hospice care. The truth is, even casual smoking carries a risk. Each individual has to evaluate their personal health and family history and then determine whether they feel that the risk is warranted.

My 2 cents.
[/quote]

If you are creating true health risks you are not smoking in moderation. Moderation means not too much, not too little. If casual smoking carries a true health risk, casual smoking is wrong. However, I have never used the word casual, because it doesn't really mean anything. I use the word moderate because the statement "Moderate smoking is moral" is a true one, even if you believe that smoking is always wrong. Moderation is the mean between the excess and the defect, Aristotle argues, even if you can't imagine an excess (as with love), or a defect (hate). So moderate smoking is moral (Aquinas also follows Aristotle's definition, only he Christianizes it). We have only to discover what amount of smoking is truly moderate, whether it be a pack a day or none at all.

My position on specific amounts is below.


[quote name='CatherineM' date='21 October 2009 - 04:17 PM' timestamp='1256156255' post='1989123']
My mom smoked less than 1/2 a pack a day. Most people didn't even know she smoked. 5 years after she quit, she got lung cancer. I suppose the whole thing might have been just a unnecessary surgery backed by the anti-smoking lobby. She ended up with a wicked scar and a tattoo. They tattooed her chest so the radiation treatment could focus in on the same spot each time.
[/quote]

This would not be moderation. Less than 1/2 a pack a day is still almost 10 cigarettes a day, which I would never call moderate. My friend who is addicted smokes about that. Moderation would be a couple a week at most, and even that would be a lot if it was done consistently.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='aalpha1989' date='21 October 2009 - 12:59 PM' timestamp='1256151570' post='1989105'] To quote G.K. Chesterton..."Americans are the people who describe their use of alcohol and tobacco as vices."[/quote]
"Idolatry is committed, not merely by setting up false gods, but also by setting up false devils; by making men afraid of war or alcohol, or economic law, when they should be afraid of spiritual corruption and cowardice." --G.K. Chesterton

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='Lil Red' date='21 October 2009 - 04:52 PM' timestamp='1256158320' post='1989152']
"Idolatry is committed, not merely by setting up false gods, but also by setting up false devils; by making men afraid of war or alcohol, or economic law, when they should be afraid of spiritual corruption and cowardice." --G.K. Chesterton
[/quote]

I'm not really sure if you meant to support me or respond against me (I'm assuming you meant to support me), but I love this Chesterton quote. I stole it from someone on phatmass and it was my facebook status a couple weeks ago.

[Jaime]

[quote name='lost_in_this_world' date='21 October 2009 - 10:34 AM' timestamp='1256135695' post='1988964']
I started smoking and I don't want to. but its not that easy in the culinary world and everyone smokes where I am.
[/quote]

you are all assuming she's smoking cigarettes.

[picchick]

Actually I am going off of what Alpha is saying really.

I like the smell of pipes and cigars (if they are good) but I know that there is a risk there too.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='aalpha1989' date='21 October 2009 - 02:53 PM' timestamp='1256158409' post='1989153']
I'm not really sure if you meant to support me or respond against me (I'm assuming you meant to support me), but I love this Chesterton quote. I stole it from someone on phatmass and it was my facebook status a couple weeks ago.
[/quote]
+J.M.J.+

supporting you

it's on my "about me" page

[ardillacid]

[quote name='picchick' date='21 October 2009 - 02:37 PM' timestamp='1256150259' post='1989096']
No matter how you look at it, smoking is not good for your body.
[/quote]
Hookah and pipes are good for the soul

[CatherineM]

[quote name='aalpha1989' date='21 October 2009 - 03:51 PM' timestamp='1256158305' post='1989150']

This would not be moderation. Less than 1/2 a pack a day is still almost 10 cigarettes a day, which I would never call moderate. My friend who is addicted smokes about that. Moderation would be a couple a week at most, and even that would be a lot if it was done consistently.
[/quote]
I have never met anyone who only smoked a couple a week, so I guess we are arguing from vastly different experience.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='aalpha1989' date='21 October 2009 - 05:51 PM' timestamp='1256158305' post='1989150']
I didn't mean it happened instantly, only that it does happen.



If you are creating true health risks you are not smoking in moderation. Moderation means not too much, not too little. If casual smoking carries a true health risk, casual smoking is wrong. However, I have never used the word casual, because it doesn't really mean anything. I use the word moderate because the statement "Moderate smoking is moral" is a true one, even if you believe that smoking is always wrong. Moderation is the mean between the excess and the defect, Aristotle argues, even if you can't imagine an excess (as with love), or a defect (hate). So moderate smoking is moral (Aquinas also follows Aristotle's definition, only he Christianizes it). We have only to discover what amount of smoking is truly moderate, whether it be a pack a day or none at all.

My position on specific amounts is below.




This would not be moderation. Less than 1/2 a pack a day is still almost 10 cigarettes a day, which I would never call moderate. My friend who is addicted smokes about that. Moderation would be a couple a week at most, and even that would be a lot if it was done consistently.
[/quote]
Smoking is a voluntary addiction that impacts the victim and anyone in contact with their smoke.
It is wrong to inflict one's addiction on other people.
People don't smoke one or two or week,the stuff is purposely designed to create addiction with more than 3000 chemical additives.

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='lost_in_this_world' date='21 October 2009 - 10:34 AM' timestamp='1256135695' post='1988964']
I started smoking and I don't want to. but its not that easy in the culinary world and everyone smokes where I am.
[/quote]

Prayers for you from an ex-smoker. I quit just over 3 weeks ago.

A few recommendations: Chantix/Champix to help you quit. It's a medicine that works by blocking the part of your brain that nicotine goes to. It was a wonderful help to me in quitting the habit after two years. Do talk with your doctor about taking this, though, because there are a lot of contraindications/warnings on it, and there might be better things for you. But, I can honestly say that this drug saved my life.

Another suggestion: pray to St. Maximilian Kolbe. He's the patron of people who struggle with addictions, because he was martyred by lethal injection in a Nazi concentration camp. Here's a link to a novena to him:

http://sobercatholic.blogspot.com/2008/08/st-maximilian-kolbe-novena-for.html

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='21 October 2009 - 02:53 PM' timestamp='1256158439' post='1989154']
you are all assuming she's smoking cigarettes.
[/quote]

Crack? cause that would be bad.

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='21 October 2009 - 05:02 PM' timestamp='1256158970' post='1989163']
Smoking is a voluntary addiction that impacts the victim and anyone in contact with their smoke.
It is wrong to inflict one's addiction on other people.
People don't smoke one or two or week,the stuff is purposely designed to create addiction with more than 3000 chemical additives.
[/quote]

Guess I'm just making my friends up then:mellow:. I know a lot of people who smoke no more than two a week. It is common in college to smoke socially and then to stop soon after graduation. I don't have a problem with that.

Almost everything we injest has chemical additives. Those big words aren't really that scary. Unless you eat rocks.

I agree that IF someone is addicted, it is a voluntary addiction. Second hand smoke is a non-factor. You aren't going to die because you walk by someone smoking on the sidewalk, or even because you have a conversation with someone who is smoking. If you live with someone who smokes insanely immoderate amounts, then it may be an issue; but according to moderation, that amount of smoking would be sinful anyway. Anyone who was smoking in moderation could not hurt themselves or anyone else by their smoking, by definition.

If smoking was truly inflicting an addiction on other people that statement would be true as well, but you aren't going to make someone addicted to nicotine because you smoke moderately around them. If you truly smoke in moderation, it's impossible for you to develop an addiction. You will not become addicted because you have one or two a week.

Honestly, I think caffeine does more to promote high blood pressure than nicotine... not inherently. Obviously nicotine is inherently worse, but caffeine is used to excess much more frequently than nicotine is, because of the stigma that goes with smoking.


Just for the record, I think cigarettes are disgusting and have a hard time empathizing with those who do have nicotine addictions. I just don't have a problem with moderate smoking. Pipe tobacco is the way to go.