Smoking Cigarettes

[TheBear]

Is it moral and ethical?

 

[Clarphimous]

I wouldn't think so. At least not from a Christian point of view. Here's a quick list of reasons why.

1) harm to self -- body/temple
2) addiction
3) secondhand smoke

 

[praying]

Is it moral and ethical?

I don't think it is a moral or ethical issue, but it is a disgusting habit.

 

[JamieGraham]

1) harm to self -- body/temple
2) addiction
3) secondhand smoke

I agree - these things are what differentiate - such as the relation to your gift of life, preservation of your temple and cause no harm to others knowingly....AND addiciton does put a separation betwen you and God as addicts put the addicition first at all costs. Including first with God.

 

[Lynden1000]

Is it moral and ethical?

I think it's *amoral*. It can be potentially dangerous to one's self and others, like driving a car. And, like driving a car, the government imposes restrictions on our use in order to reduce the danger to society.

 

[Lilly of the Valley]

If you are saved, then it is an issue due to the things others have said. If you aren't saved, then I don't know if it's unethical, but possibly due to the harm you cause to others. More die from second hand than the actual smokers.

 

[GAPCanadianChristian]

Is it moral and ethical?

Neither... just dumb... and smelly

 

[DieHappy]

I don't think it's immoral. Addiction to anything is a sin because you are putting something before God. That includes coffee, and how many of us have to admit to that one?
But, if you are not addicted then what would the problem be? It's legal. I have never seen a study done on a group of people that smoke 1 or 2 cigarettes a day, but I bet it would show that there is no risk. Media hype aside, there is little to no link between second hand smoke and cancer.
So, if it's legal and you are not addicted, then I think it's fine.

 

[kimber1]

bear are you spamming to change the subjects round these parts?

 

[justanobserver]

its an expensive and nasty habit to have. but ethical or moral? on;y the smoker can answer that. I quit because I got tired of spending the money (plus I use to drink and smoking was part of that life) and smelling like an ashtray.

added it up one day:

the savings of no longer drinking and smoking - between 250 - 300 bucks a month but that was me.

 

[xAtheistx]

That's not true; it doesn't just affect the smoker. Second hand smoke kills, buddy.

So it's about as moral and ethical as murder. Except it costs money.

It bothers me when people smoke. Meh.

 

[Rygel]

It depends.

If you live in a country with socialized medicine and are receiving medical care that is either fully or partially funded by taxpayers, then yes it is immoral, because you are in essence afflicting yourself with easily preventable maladies, which your fellow citizens are then essentially forced to pay.

If you pay your own medical bills, then I don't care.

If you show common decency and ask people if they mind if you smoke, then I don't have a problem.

If you subject others to your smoke without being courteous, then you deserve to be called out onto the dueling field.

 

[Athene]

It's a horrible habit, it makes you smell and your teeth turn yellow, and if you want to smoke you shouldn't do it anywhere near a non-smoker because I for one don't want the crap your inhaling in my lungs.

 

[momalle1]

It's a horrible habit, it makes you smell and your teeth turn yellow, and if you want to smoke you shouldn't do it anywhere near a non-smoker because I for one don't want the crap your inhaling in my lungs.

So it would be safe to assume that you don't own a motor vehicle, use any gasoline powered public transportation, use electricity provided by a utility company or have public water pumped into your home? All of these things produce emmisions that everyone has to inhale into their lungs.

 

[Athene]

So it would be safe to assume that you don't own a motor vehicle, use any gasoline powered public transportation, use electricity provided by a utility company or have public water pumped into your home? All of these things produce emmisions that everyone has to inhale into their lungs.

I don't shut you in the garage with my car and leave it running, I don't tie you inside the chimney of a powerplant, I don't squeeze you down the water pipes in my home so why should I have to put up with crap you emit when you smoke.

 

[Illuminatus]

Are you on a vice kick, Bear?

 

[momalle1]

I don't shut you in the garage with my car and leave it running, I don't tie you inside the chimney of a powerplant, I don't squeeze you down the water pipes in my home so why should I have to put up with crap you emit when you smoke.

So smokers are tieing you up and making you inhale their second hand smoke?

 

[Maxwell511]

Smoking is moral cos it makes you repulsive to the opposite sex and reduces the risk of the heinous act of sex before marraige. Same with drinking and pot.

 

[DieHappy]

Second hand smoke, by the time it reaches across the room to you, is so diffused that it is nearly harmless. Certainly less so than car fumes, pesticides, and lawn chemicals. The EPA mangled epidemiology so badly that the report they wrote is laughed at by anyone who can actually read it. They still could only come up with a relative risk of 1.8 and the 95% confidence crossed 1.0, making it insignificant. Yet, on the "strength" of that report, they try to ban smoking. The worst part about this is that just one year prior the EPA commisioned a study to see if living near power lines increased cancer. The relative risk was 2.8 with a 95% confidence of 1.8. They said that those numbers weren't high enough for government action to be justified! The first studies on abortion had RRs of 2.3 and 2.6 linking abortion to cervical cancer and breast cancer, yet they were decried by abortion advocates and the media. Since there were no errors found in them, dozens of other studies were immediately commisioned to try to disprove the link.

The second hand smoke scare is propaganda aided by the medical profession. Rather than explain first hand dangers, it's easier to use junk science to just ban it.

 

[Arnold_Philips]

A fire on one end and a fool on the other.

Plus, Big Tobacco donates overwhelmingly Republican, and I don't want to support that kind of habit.