AO, back off. Ever had to deal with an alcoholic...that can cause cancer too, you know. Some who craves that drink despite the fact they are already dying from the abuse?

You are stupid if you drink then. Stupid if you ever sear your steak too. Abusus non tollit usum. Nor does it make it stupid to use something in a nonabusive manner.

And yes I have cared for someone dying of lung cancer. But I have also had family members die from alcohol. Doesn't mean I don't enjoy a brandy and cigar once and a while, or am stupid for doing so.

No one needs to drink alcohol either. That doesn't make it a sin (simpliciter) to drink alcohol.

Please cite the source that says smoking is inherently sinful.

Whenever people criticize me for smoking cigars by pointing out that the body is "the temple of God," I just answer (tongue-in-cheek): What is a temple without insence?

My contention is that it is, as Mother said, stupid. I do not question their right to do something stupid.

And yes, my father was an alcoholic, so I know how stupid that is too!

Two wrongs do not make smoking right!

What about people who die in car accidents. Is it sinful to drive?

No, but some drivers - the way they drive is also stupid!

So abusing acohol is stupid. Using it rightly is quite the opposite. In fact, it can be a lack of the virtue of sobriety to not drink at all.

To abuse tobacco might be called stupid then too. But to use it rightly is not. And there is a moderate use of tobacco.

Even were it "stupid" per se, how stupid is it to demonize people who smoke. Let us pretend, contrary to fact, that it was always addictive. How against charity to demonize such people rather than empathize! Even in a purely pragmatic level, just demonization and "scare tactics" are not effective ways of smoking prevention. If you care at all and believed (praeter doctrinam Ecclesiae) that it were a sin or at least always bad (if it is always stupid to do, then it is a sin btw...Mother Angelica was no moral theologian I think!), you would bother to actually find effective ways of discouraging it. Instead you ridicule the person of smokers.

Okay.

TAX IT! Heavily!

Or better yet, you could just mind your own business. What business is it of yours whether someone use tobacco? None. So instead of trying to take the splinter out of your neighbor's eye, you should focus on taking the log out of your own.


You remind me of HL Mencken's definition of a Puritan 'someone who lies awake at night terrified that someone, somewhere might be having a good time.'

You know what, sure, smoking increases the risk of cancer. You know what else though? Even if you don't smoke, you still have about a 2/3 chance of getting cancer some time in your life. And if cancer doesn't kill you, hear disease probably will. Sooner or later, you're going to die of SOMETHING.

On the other hand NOT smoking increases your risk of getting Alzheimer's disease. I used to work in a nursing home, I've seen people in the last stages of cancer, it ain't pretty.

But you know what? I've also seen people in the last stages of Alzheimer's. Alzheimer's is even worse than cancer. At least people with cancer are cognizant, they know their own name, they have all their life memories, they recognize their family and friends, none of this is true of people with Alzheimer's. And...when you have cancer are you are near the end, you have time to say goodbye to your friends and family, and you have time to prepare your soul for death by having one last confession before you die. People with Alzheimer's have none of these luxuries.

I do not hesitate to say that if I was given the choice...die of cancer or die of Alzheimer's I would choose cancer every single time....

And if it comes down to a choice....increase my risk of cancer while decreasing my risk of Alzheimer's, or decrease my risk of cancer while increasing my risk of Alzheimer's.....I would choose the former every time.

As I said, I never question their right to smoke, or attempt to justify their actions, but if their actions impact the health system, they should pay their way!

You jumped in with a mind your own business. Good words.

No was, including you, has said anything about paying for the health system. So way to bring up a previously unmentioned tangential point, that is also false.

1. Don't pretend that has anything to do with anything that has been said on this thread.

2. Actually, it doesn't cost the health system more to have smokers. So way to imply a falsehood as part of a random argument you are pretending has anything to do with the thread

Doesn't almost everybody's actions have an effect on their health?

I mean, your same argument also applies to people with AIDS and other STD's, hey, they brought it on themselves by their own choices, why should their treatments be paid for by everyone else? Let them pay their own way.

And people who get into car accidents....hey, they chose to drive, let them pay their own way.

And people addicted to drugs and alcohol, they made their choice, they want rehab let them pay their own way.

And fat people...hey they chose not to exercise, they get heart disease let them pay their own way.

This actually is kind of logic behind the HHS contraception mandate, 'hey, you got free birth control, there's no excuse for you to get pregnant, if you get pregnant now, you're on your own'.

But is it the job of the medical profession to save lives, or is it their job to make moral judgments about which lives are worth saving?

Absolutely, but I'm not sure how relevant that statement is.


You can exercise, eat a healthy diet ...

or you can smoke, drink to excess, and eat at McDonalds.

Some things are positive, and some things are stupid!

Smoking moderately is not stupid, nor is eating at McDonalds once and a while

If were always stupid it would be sinful

I agreed with Mundi a while back in the thread. Smoking is not inherently sinful. I happen to smoke almost a pack a day. I am addicted and it risks my health. I think what I'm doing is sinful.

By that logic drinking even the smallest amount of beer causes damage immediately, using the smallest amount of lipstick does as well

This is just pure demaguery. The same lies of the Surgeon General that says second hand smoke is just as dangerous as smoking a cigarette and one cigarrette just as dangerous as many...they claimed that blatant lie once before.

The second hand smoke lie is so ridiculous if you think logically for 5 seconds...they say that second hand smoke is worse than first hand smoke, and they say that smoking is inherently addictive for every person who smokes.....so....how come no one is addicted to second hand smoke? I've never once heard anybody say 'man I need a fix, please smoke this cigarette so I can get that second hand smoke fix I need.'

I never thought of that...:).

Okay. Have it your way. It must be sinful, because it sure is stupid

hehehe

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJMsFGH4eoQ