Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Would any of you consider smoking a violation of the First Precept. I am finding it so hard to stop smoking, most days I smoke no more that 3 .... but I worry my 'second hand smoke' is harming others. When I smoke in public I try and blow smoke away from those I am with. I only really smoke around fellow smokers, but even with them I try and blow the smoke away from them. It is a hard one, but I would love to read your opinions.
No, not unless your intent is to hurt yourself or others; the precepts are all about intent.
While smoking itself may be harmful to your health, most people do so because they find it enjoyable and/or their mind/body craves it. Of course, it's not really good for you or those around you, but I don't think it violates the first precept if your not trying to intentionally cause harm (and it sounds like you're trying to do the opposite by blowing it away from others). This is coming from a Theravadin perspective, however, and other traditions may have different views about it.
If you know smoke is harmful to others, and you still put them in a position of inhaling your second hand smoke, then yes, I think it would be a violation of the Precept.
By that logic, so is eating a hamburger from McDonald's. I disagree with this position, though, because the emphasis is on intention.
From the Theravadin perspective, at least, if one isn't intentionally trying to do harm, then there's no breach of the precept as a breach requires: (1) a living being; (2) the perception of the living being as such; (3) the thought or volition of harming; (4) the appropriate effort; and (5) the actual harm of the being as a result of the action.
Is it better not to smoke? Sure. Is it a breach of the first precept to smoke? Not so much, in my opinion. Just my two cents.
Can you still claim that your intention is alright though, if you KNOW what you are doing is harming the health of people near you, is your intent really pure? Or are you just convincing yourself your intent is pure because you want what you want? Do you really have to be smoking in the presence of your newborn intending to harm them, to be knowingly, and wantonly causing them harm? Generally I agree with the intent being the most important part but there are some cases where it doesn't seem to fit for me.
If I have 4 beers knowing I have to drive my son somewhere, and then drive him knowing I shouldn't and cause an accident where he is hurt, then clearly me claiming my intent was not to harm him does not really cut it, as far as the precepts go, at least not for me. Intent, I think, has to at least somewhat go hand in hand with the expected consequences, and if you know them and know you could harm someone and do it anyhow, I don't think you have a good intention anymore, regardless of whether you intended for them to be harmed or not.
Would any of you consider smoking a violation of the First Precept. I am finding it so hard to stop smoking, most days I smoke no more that 3 .... but I worry my 'second hand smoke' is harming others. When I smoke in public I try and blow smoke away from those I am with. I only really smoke around fellow smokers, but even with them I try and blow the smoke away from them. It is a hard one, but I would love to read your opinions.
No, not unless your intent is to hurt yourself or others; the precepts are all about intent.
While smoking itself may be harmful to your health, most people do so because they find it enjoyable and/or their mind/body craves it. Of course, it's not really good for you or those around you, but I don't think it violates the first precept if your not trying to intentionally cause harm (and it sounds like you're trying to do the opposite by blowing it away from others). This is coming from a Theravadin perspective, however, and other traditions may have different views about it.
If you know smoke is harmful to others, and you still put them in a position of inhaling your second hand smoke, then yes, I think it would be a violation of the Precept.
By that logic, so is eating a hamburger from McDonald's. I disagree with this position, though, because the emphasis is on intention.
From the Theravadin perspective, at least, if one isn't intentionally trying to do harm, then there's no breach of the precept as a breach requires: (1) a living being; (2) the perception of the living being as such; (3) the thought or volition of harming; (4) the appropriate effort; and (5) the actual harm of the being as a result of the action.
Is it better not to smoke? Sure. Is it a breach of the first precept to smoke? Not so much, in my opinion. Just my two cents.
And by your logic (which is a legitimate point of view), you have also excused virtually every corporation which has polluted the landscape, built using asbestos, or passed on food products with contaminants. After all, none of those corporations had the intent to pollute, poison, or contaminate food. You have excused virtually every international leader who has started a war for territory, since it was not their intent to kill civilians. I could go on.
I think anyone with the courage to look, knows what makes them a slave and what it takes to be free. Such a list is limited only by it's fluidity. Can anyone here list any attachment that does not blind and bind one.
Can you still claim that your intention is alright though, if you KNOW what you are doing is harming the health of people near you, is your intent really pure? Or are you just convincing yourself your intent is pure because you want what you want?
No, because I no longer smoke, so it's not as if I'm just making excuses for it.
As for the first part, most people don't smoke because it's harmful, nor do they do so with the intention to cause harm to themselves of others. In this case, there may be harmful consequences; but in terms of the precepts, I don't think it qualifies as a breach.
That's just the way I see it, however, and it's really up to @minimayhen88 to decide how they choose to interpret the precepts and what constitutes a breach.
I agree, it's up to the person to determine where their intentions lie and how they fit into the precepts. I meant it more as myself and a general "you" than any other person in particular.
Would any of you consider smoking a violation of the First Precept. I am finding it so hard to stop smoking, most days I smoke no more that 3 .... but I worry my 'second hand smoke' is harming others. When I smoke in public I try and blow smoke away from those I am with. I only really smoke around fellow smokers, but even with them I try and blow the smoke away from them. It is a hard one, but I would love to read your opinions.
No, not unless your intent is to hurt yourself or others; the precepts are all about intent.
While smoking itself may be harmful to your health, most people do so because they find it enjoyable and/or their mind/body craves it. Of course, it's not really good for you or those around you, but I don't think it violates the first precept if your not trying to intentionally cause harm (and it sounds like you're trying to do the opposite by blowing it away from others). This is coming from a Theravadin perspective, however, and other traditions may have different views about it.
If you know smoke is harmful to others, and you still put them in a position of inhaling your second hand smoke, then yes, I think it would be a violation of the Precept.
By that logic, so is eating a hamburger from McDonald's. I disagree with this position, though, because the emphasis is on intention.
From the Theravadin perspective, at least, if one isn't intentionally trying to do harm, then there's no breach of the precept as a breach requires: (1) a living being; (2) the perception of the living being as such; (3) the thought or volition of harming; (4) the appropriate effort; and (5) the actual harm of the being as a result of the action.
Is it better not to smoke? Sure. Is it a breach of the first precept to smoke? Not so much, in my opinion. Just my two cents.
And by your logic (which is a legitimate point of view), you have also excused virtually every corporation which has polluted the landscape, built using asbestos, or passed on food products with contaminants. After all, none of those corporations had the intent to pollute, poison, or contaminate food. You have excused virtually every international leader who has started a war for territory, since it was not their intent to kill civilians. I could go on.
But I do understand your viewpoint.
I'm not trying to argue with you; I only responded because you quoted my response in your reply and I thought my rebuttal would be helpful for @minimayhen88.
As for the rest, I think most of your examples are straw men and false equivalences, but I'm not going to bother to argue them with you as I think they're irrelevant to the topic and I have laundry to fold. We can discuss it more in separate thread later if you'd like, though.
And by your logic (which is a legitimate point of view), you have also excused virtually every corporation which has polluted the landscape, built using asbestos, or passed on food products with contaminants. After all, none of those corporations had the intent to pollute, poison, or contaminate food. You have excused virtually every international leader who has started a war for territory, since it was not their intent to kill civilians. I could go on.
OK, laundry is folded, on to my objections from a Theravadin point of view (I suppose we can skip the new thread for the time being since I'll include the topic of the OP as well).
First, saying that a particular action doesn't violate a particular precept doesn't necessarily mean that the action in question is being excused or condoned. It just means that it doesn't technically violate a precept. Second, regardless of what SCOTUS says, corporations aren't people (i.e., living beings), therefore corporation don't have karma, can't violate precepts they can't take, etc.
Now that we got those two things out of the way, when it comes to people and the things they do in relations to the precepts, we have to consider each issue separately and look at certain key factors, like intention.
In the case of someone smoking but actively trying not to harm others by smoking away from others or blowing their smoke away from fellow smokers nearby, I'd say there's no intention to harm (indeed, the opposite), therefore no breach of the first precept. I also don't think it's a breach if someone doesn't have the perception that second-hand smoke is harmful, especially seeing as how some studies seem to suggest that it isn't, or at least that the dangers are severely overstated.
In the case of someone who starts a war and orders others to kill, even if it's ostensibly for territory, they're still ordering the killing of other living beings and it constitutes a breach. But if said person ordered their troops to stand guard and didn't authorize the use of deadly force, but the troops fire anyway, then there's no breach because the troops weren't acting according to their orders.
In a case where someone sells food that's unknowingly contaminated, well, it was done unintentionally and not a breach of the precept. Doesn't mean it's a good thing or that the person/company involved isn't liable in some way legally, but we're only talking about precepts here, not legality or desirability. If they do so knowingly (which means not doing anything to prevent it or limit exposure), then I'd say it's more likely a breach than not. The same applies to someone using asbestos.
All in all, I think we're talking about two different things, i.e., desirability, justifications, liability, etc. vs. breach of sila. I'm not suggesting that any of those things are desirable or trying to excuse them; but I am saying that each case is unique and the intention of the person makes all the difference.
And I simply disagree. When I was a school principal, one legal standard I had to meet was being informed of matters that affected the health (for example) of my student population. A very good example is if I was made aware of a staff member or a parent abusing a child, and did not report it, I would be breaking the law...and in my view...the Precept. No, it would not have been me causing the actual harm, and therefore not my intent. Nevertheless, I would bear responsibility. Of course, it appears that I look at the Precept differently than you. I look at it in terms of not harming human life. You may interpret it in a more lax manner, and that is your right. You may hold your standard; I'll hold mine.
Not if you live in a small town and they all allow smoking. My oldest has asthma, and when he was young, we basically couldn't eat out (and we lived in a city of 80,000) because they virtually all allowed smoking Even in a designated smoking area, the smoke affected him and we could not eat out at all. I am fully supportive of smoking bans, and have voted for every one that has come my way. I have nothing against smokers as people, but I have an issue with their need to smoke coming before my son's need to be out in public and be able to breathe. However, I would not expect the random public smoker to know my son has asthma and thus not smoke in public because of him. I know that's my responsibility. Because of that I wouldn't say everyone who smoked in public that harmed my son was breaking the precept (making the leap that they were all Buddhist, lol)
My grandma was a very heavy smoker for 65 years, 2 packs a day. She got sick and spent months in the hospital and hasn't smoked since (forced to quit, basically). She knew my son was asthmatic, and refused to stop smoking even for the short time we would visit. I therefore stopped visiting and when she asked why and I explained the problem, she basically said "Pfft, I don't believe that." So, in her case, yes I would say she broke a precept in choosing to smoke around my son whom she knew got very sick from it.
Of course, it appears that I look at the Precept differently than you. I look at it in terms of not harming human life. You may interpret it in a more lax manner, and that is your right.
While the first precept is primarily about refraining from killing living beings, I look at it in terms of not harming living beings as well; and I interpret it through the lens of the Theravadin Vinaya, which takes the position that a full violation of the precept involves five factors: (1) a living being; (2) the perception of the living being as such; (3) the thought or volition of harming; (4) the appropriate effort; and (5) the actual harm of the being as a result of the action.
I smoked for 40 years,. Never tried to stop. Never worried about weather or not it might violate a precept.
Then about 8 months ago I tried an electronic cig. mostly out of curiosity. I quit smoking right then and there. For me it was no big deal.
It is nice to be able to breath again and having no stinking smoke around is a big plus.
My habit (addiction) is mostly to the action of puffing. Although I have cut way down on the nicotine, I still use it. It is a stimulant similar to caffeine. I drink coffee and tea also.
An e-cig is basically flavored water which can be spiked with some strength of nicotine. It is vaporized and inhaled.
If you are interested here is a good site on Vaping. -
I smoked for 40 years,. Never tried to stop. Never worried about weather or not it might violate a precept.
Then about 8 months ago I tried an electronic cig. mostly out of curiosity. I quit smoking right then and there. For me it was no big deal.
It is nice to be able to breath again and having no stinking smoke around is a big plus.
My habit (addiction) is mostly to the action of puffing. Although I have cut way down on the nicotine, I still use it. It is a stimulant similar to caffeine. I drink coffee and tea also.
An e-cig is basically flavored water which can be spiked with some strength of nicotine. It is vaporized and inhaled.
If you are interested here is a good site on Vaping. -
I smoked for 40 years,. Never tried to stop. Never worried about weather or not it might violate a precept.
Then about 8 months ago I tried an electronic cig. mostly out of curiosity. I quit smoking right then and there. For me it was no big deal.
It is nice to be able to breath again and having no stinking smoke around is a big plus.
My habit (addiction) is mostly to the action of puffing. Although I have cut way down on the nicotine, I still use it. It is a stimulant similar to caffeine. I drink coffee and tea also.
An e-cig is basically flavored water which can be spiked with some strength of nicotine. It is vaporized and inhaled.
If you are interested here is a good site on Vaping. -
I agree with the smokings bans, too. It's a hassle to have to go out when the weather isn't good and you have to break away from your group, but I think it makes everywhere (particularly food places) nicer for everyone.
As far as I know, from research I'd done about 2-3 years ago (for a college paper)... there has never been any case of serious illness or death from second hand smoke, alone - ever. Now, I'm not saying someone with severe asthma won't be triggered by breathing in a significant amount of smoke lingering in the air around them, because more than likely they will... but there are no cases on record of serious, "chronic" illnesses or effects from second hand smoke in 'normal' environments such as restaurants, bars, or even homes where one or more person smokes around others who don't.
Again, if I lock you up in a 3x5 cell with no ventilation and I join you there while smoking 2 packs of cigs a day, for weeks at a time, yeah, you will have ill effects from my second hand smoke after a while. But under normal conditions, in normal households, with the normal amount of ventilation and air flow from doors and windows, this is not the case.
So in the end, second hand smoke is (IMO and the opinion of many medical people) not really a significant health issue; so that should be considered when it comes to relating it to the precepts and/or intent for "harming others".
My 2 cents.
BTW; I'm an ex-smoker, it will be 13 yrs in January. But I had always promised myself I would never turn into one of "those" ex-smokers! ;-)
As far as I know, from research I'd done about 2-3 years ago (for a college paper)... there has never been any case of serious illness or death from second hand smoke, alone - ever. Now, I'm not saying someone with severe asthma won't be triggered by breathing in a significant amount of smoke lingering in the air around them, because more than likely they will... but there are no cases on record of serious, "chronic" illnesses or effects from second hand smoke in 'normal' environments such as restaurants, bars, or even homes where one or more person smokes around others who don't.
So in the end, second hand smoke is (IMO and the opinion of many medical people) not really a significant health issue; so that should be considered when it comes to relating it to the precepts and/or intent for "harming others".
That is pretty much opposite of everything I've ever heard. Cigs are full of nasty chemicals, and if someone is living with a smoker, they're going to be breathing in all those same chemicals that make smoking so bad for your health. The same risk factors are going to be there whether it's first or second hand.
I smoked a little in college and my roommate as well as some friends also smoked. I never smoked heavily -- just a few a day and after awhile decided to quite. It wasn't worth the cost or risk to my health -- especially if I did end up addicted and smoking more heavily. Once I was out of a smoking environment I became very sensitive to smoke. It bothers me a lot now. I had an upstairs neighbor who smoked and when the air was running, it would filter down into my apartment, yuck! Thankfully he got himself evicted (he had a lot of issues going on) and that was that.
Whether or not it's harming the health of others depends on where a person is smoking. Some people are very polite about it, some people aren't. I also support smoking bans -- I realize it is up to the individual, but I don't think the nonsmoking public should be forced to be exposed to the smoke.
Just to keep things clear, my son doesn't have severe asthma. He hasn't used his rescue inhaler in probably close to 1 year, and even when he did it was for a cold. He will still have an immediate asthma attack as a reaction to cigarette smoke. In the case of my grandma, the smoke has permeated so far into the walls of the house, that to get the smell out when she dies, they will have to gut the house and replace the insulation, the drywall, the carpeting, and who knows what else. She may live in a house, but she has been home-bound for many years now, so there is no air flow in her house, no open windows, no open doors, for 6 months or so a year. It's horrible. I can't even explain how bad it is. You can smell the smoke eminating from her house when you stand outside, even though she quit almost a year ago.
How statistically significant it is (second hand smoke harm to other people) doesn't really matter to the people who HAVE been harmed from it. A lot of it depends how you read it, and what you consider harm to be. People have developed cancer from second hand smoke exposure. People who live with smokers are more susceptible to getting certain types of cancers. It contributes greatly to health problems in children of parents who smoke in the home, including ear infections and respiratory infections, and a greater likelihood for asthma in later years.
When the Mayo clinic tells me that second hand smoke, and smoke residue left on furniture and flooring etc is bad for kids and pets, I tend to believe them. You can't look at what is in cigarette smoke, and say that being exposed to it long term does not increase the risk of health problems from those who are stuck breathing it. While there are doctors, and yes even studies that disagree, that doesn't make it true. There are dozens and dozens of studies performed by all sorts of health agencies that show the dangers to second hand smoke.
But just as the case with about any disease, it's very difficult to show causation. When my grandma went in the hospital, we expected her to have lung cancer. She doesn't. She does have COPD and lungs that are the size of a 5 year old child's but no cancer. She did however have to have part of her colon removed, and while the doctors told here there was a strong correlation between smoking and colon problems, she refuses to believe that it's possible The correlation is strong, but no, it doesn't show causation.
My girlfriend used to smoke, but she did it on the balcony. I had a choice to not go out there and thus I do not resent any second-hand smoke. With a child or with such strong pollution as ^^ there is no choice.
When I smoke a pipe I would never do it indoors. Occasionally I have smoked on a long porch 15 feet from anyone else and so rarely that it would be 'in moderation' comparable to a campfire in rarity.
I don't understand why someone would smoke in public aside from smoking with food and alcohol which someone can get those paired together and have a strong addiction.
Personally I think a restaurant should be able to get a special license by paying a fee. It should be a money such that only a few smokers restaurants would exist. Thus the smoker can hang out and smoke, but the bulk of the restaurants, 70-80 % would not have the license.
In ND, where I used to live, we passed a smoking ban that include public places, bars, restaurants, bowling alleys. It left a few exceptions, like bars could create outdoors decks and such to smoke on, and places like cigar shops where the entire point was to go there and smoke. Few exceptions, and it worked out pretty well. This week they passed a new ban, that now bans smoking even on the outdoor decks and cigar shops. I personally think it goes too far, and while I've voted for every ban that's come my way, I don't think I would have voted for that one.
Protecting people from unreasonable exposure in public, is a good thing and an important thing. But adults still have the ability to decide, and with how limited smoking was, there was no reason that adults couldn't simply make the choice to not use the outdoor smoking area, or not frequent a smoke shop. The law passing basically all but puts some of these places out of business, which I find a bit ridiculous. There is a line, to me, between protecting other people from the harm of others, and protecting people from themselves. I'm not a fan of the latter.
As far as I know, from research I'd done about 2-3 years ago (for a college paper)... there has never been any case of serious illness or death from second hand smoke, alone - ever. Now, I'm not saying someone with severe asthma won't be triggered by breathing in a significant amount of smoke lingering in the air around them, because more than likely they will... but there are no cases on record of serious, "chronic" illnesses or effects from second hand smoke in 'normal' environments such as restaurants, bars, or even homes where one or more person smokes around others who don't.
Again, if I lock you up in a 3x5 cell with no ventilation and I join you there while smoking 2 packs of cigs a day, for weeks at a time, yeah, you will have ill effects from my second hand smoke after a while. But under normal conditions, in normal households, with the normal amount of ventilation and air flow from doors and windows, this is not the case.
So in the end, second hand smoke is (IMO and the opinion of many medical people) not really a significant health issue; so that should be considered when it comes to relating it to the precepts and/or intent for "harming others".
My 2 cents.
BTW; I'm an ex-smoker, it will be 13 yrs in January. But I had always promised myself I would never turn into one of "those" ex-smokers! ;-)
I've read that, too.
It's just the smell. I'm a smoker and I hate it, and I know that non smokers can really smell it and when you're trying to eat and stuff it's just really unpleasant.
I had a second hand smoke conversation with my family and they were like, we grew up and our parents smoked, people smoked in the office and it was always fine. Nobody got sick.
And then we look at our habits and how cancer rates are rising even though we don't have the same rights in terms of where we smoke anymore and the supposed correlation between second hand smoke and illness makes even less sense.
There is evidence (fairly new, they are doing lots of studies on it now) that genetically we aren't the same as our great grandparents and grandparents. The world we live in has so much effect on our cellular structure that we are more likely to contract any number of various diseases that our ancestors were not. And different things, affect different people. Just because my grandma has smoked 2 packed a day for 65 years and didn't get lung cancer doesn't mean the next guy wouldn't. My friend's mom died at 55 from smoking caused lung cancer. So, it just depends.
In Vancouver, folks can't even smoke in public parks or beaches. The few smokers you do see around often exhibit that same feral guilty look shared by other publicly shunned drug addicts.
It makes me wonder what other common actions of today, will only be done by the social lepers of tomorrow.
The only places in ND you can really smoke anymore are at your home/property and in casinos. Every thing else, all public places, are off-limits, including for e-cigs. The voters passed it with 67%.
In Vancouver, folks can't even smoke in public parks or beaches. The few smokers you do see around often exhibit that same feral guilty look shared by other publicly shunned drug addicts.
It makes me wonder what other common actions of today, will only be done by the social lepers of tomorrow.
@how, Exactly the same here in Australia where most public precincts are smoke free though it varies from state to state. Our tiniest state, Tasmania, has moved to ban the purchase of tobacco products to anyone born after 2000 and it is likely to ban smoking entirely in the near future.
Australia recently passed a landmark bill concerning unbranded tobacco packaging which was watched with interest in many other parts of the world. I've seen the new packaging which is basically a large photo of various cancerous parts of the body and tiny, tiny print.
There is no doubt that smokers are social pariahs here. I have a photo of my sister taken in the mid 70's, nursing her new born baby with a ciggie in one hand and it was not uncommon. Today we watch an ep of Mad Men and are amazed that there is smoking everywhere in every scene.
Social lepers of tomorrow? Great question. My guess is anything that puts pressure on public health funding (here at least) which would put obesity at the top of the list; or environmental behaviours and energy efficiency. What are speculative fiction authors writing about?
@lilymac61, that sounds quite draconian to fully ban it. I guess that tests if people can quit. I don't suppose there will be tobacco cartels selling contraband. I'm hoping for less restrictive drug laws rather than more. I do agree with cutting out public smoking / second hand smoke.
If I get you uncomfortable or sick then that should be stopped. But if I want to eat fast food or smoke or take mushrooms or whatever I should be allowed to do that. The state shouldn't be in the position of making my decisions unless I am impinging on another persons quality of life.
I believe in: choices, responsibilities, and consequences.
@vinylyn, you bet. However, I don't agree with society making decisions on whether I smoke either with the exception of when it affects the quality of anothers life.
I basically take the libertarian position regarding drugs. On safety nets, fire departments, no libertarian from me, but on the position of controlling what I can do to my body I just don't agree.
hello minimayhen88, i can understand your situation very well. but as per my understanding, smoking is against buddhism. buddhism consider smoking as a very sinful act. moreover it is very harmful to your health too.
It is good to care about whether or not your second-hand smoke harms others. Very good.
Here's the thing about smoking ... it is one of countless attachments that we all have. The benefit to resisting the attachment of smoking is that it gives you the opportunity to practice mindfulness. I'm not saying you need to quit smoking ... I'm sure there are other things that you can refrain from doing that would work just as well (anger, eating, etc). When we feel an urge to do something, instead of doing it, if we sit back and observe (apply mindfulness), we get a first-hand opportunity to observe how attachment leads to craving leads to suffering if we don't follow through. This is hugely and incredibly significant ... to see this is to see, first-hand, the truth of the Second Noble Truth (that suffering has a cause). At this point, it doesn't matter so much whether or not you actually light that cigarette (although the longer you do not light it, the more opportunity you have to learn). And this is the true benefit of the Precepts .. it's not so much the following of them that is the benefit .. it is the observation of our internal reactions when we follow them.
Buddhism is all about what we see and understand, and how these insights change us inside on a profound level. It is exactly that type of insight, applied, that allows one to stop smoking cold-turkey without aids or support.
As an aside ... my husband and I stopped being friends with a guy back in the 1970's when he became addicted to heroin. 20 years later, we ran across him and he told us a very interesting story about kicking his addiction to heroin: Every time he had tried to quit, his withdrawal symptoms were so bad that he had to go out and score a "fix". Finally, he got together 3 months worth of camping supplies/food/water, and had a friend drop him up in the Canadian north (okay, we live in Edmonton, Alberta ... it's not such a bad drive), out in the middle of nowhere. With instructions to come back in 3 months to pick him up. Friend then settled down for one hell of a withdrawal. And had .. not one single withdrawal symptom. With that information, I observed my own internal buildup of desperate craving, resulting in hissy-fits, when I tried to quit smoking. Funny, but all I had to do was say "I don't DO than anymore", firmly, meaning it, and I had nothing more than a slight fuzziheadedness for the first few days. Mind you, I went on a 6-day drive with a friend through the Rocky Mountains and every time I wanted a cigarette, I sucked on a water bottle instead. Not saying you need to quit .. but that quitting or even smoking ... both can be tools for mindfulness and growth. Your life IS your practice.
@FoibleFull, What if you deliberately choose to smoke? Just like someone deliberately eats a candy bar even though it causes craving? Where do you draw the line? Is sunshine craving? My teacher teaches the 2NT as ignorance and this is defined as turning away from experience. At the same time she does note that the kleshas arise due the sense pleasures in our liturgy.
I smoke a pipe I feel medicinally because I am on max doses of two antipsychotics + 2 other mental drugs. The smoking cuts through some of the body stuffiness (don't know how to explain). So I might have this body stuffiness and the smoke high (tiny because a pipe) lasts 5 minutes, but the breaking up of the stuffy body might last all afternoon or night.
The stuffy body feeling feels kind of like you want to move your leg so it feels better but then you move it and it doesn't; and there is nothing you can do to get feeling your body crisply.
wow, @lilymac61, they allow kids of 12 and up to purchase tobacco in Tasmania? Is that a typical age for Australia for that kind of purchase? In the US it is 18, which is the age we consider people to be legal adults. Even with that definition, you cannot purchase or use alcohol until you are 21 in the US.
The only places in ND you can really smoke anymore are at your home/property and in casinos. Every thing else, all public places, are off-limits, including for e-cigs. The voters passed it with 67%.
Including e-cigs?? WHY? Isn't that a bit over the line into Puritan-ville?
Their argument I believe was that there is not enough evidence out there yet that says e-cigs are not harmful to the health of others. Like I said, even though I approve of smoking bans, I wouldn't have voted for this one if I still lived there.
It seems to be a variety of reasons (though for ND specifically the lack of studies testing their safety as second-hand vapors is the reason given). Some of the other reasons by other places who are starting to ban them as well is quality control (almost all of them are made in China and have been tested to contain antifreeze and other things), that people use them to get around smoking bans, and that children/teenagers are more likely to try them because they don't believe them to be harmful. They are also banned on airplanes, amtrak and similar things like that and more states are moving to include them on already existing smoking bans
I don't know enough about them to have a personal opinion but I find it kind of amusing that I know so many people who claim to have quit smoking because they vape instead. Changing methods isn't quitting, to me.
I personally - right here and now - could murder a cigarette and I wouldn't give a fig about my health or anything.
That's addiction for ya!
I've been e-cigging it for about 18 months now, and now I've given that up.
I'm in the throes of nicotine withdrawals, and you get to a point where you can't really remember the reasons why you want to stop, and we crack and smoke/vape.
And if anyone of you gimps suggests I meditate and look at the withdrawal pangs I'll...
It's my understanding that the vapor still contains chemicals and carcinogens, but likely in less amounts than tradition cigarettes. They also haven't been regulated and the companies that make them haven't produced any studies on their safety. Even the companies themselves say "they aren't safe. They are just safer."
It's my understanding that the vapor still contains chemicals and carcinogens, but likely in less amounts than tradition cigarettes. They also haven't been regulated and the companies that make them haven't produced any studies on their safety. Even the companies themselves say "they aren't safe. They are just safer."
I don't think they really know, karasti, and a lot of the big pharmaceutical companies don't like it. Why? Because they want to sell their nicotine chewing gum and nicotine sprays and other nicotine replacement items.
As an ex smoker and an ex vapour - I can tell you that vaping is far less harmful; I can feel it. Yesterday I ran 17 miles bringing my weekly total to nearly 50 miles. I couldn't do that while I smoked, but I can while vaping.
But pharmaceutical companies have lots of money and no doubt they'll be involved in any legislation that's passed concerning e-cigarettes. And of course, government may want to regulate and tax it too.
Oh I know. That was my point, lol, that the reason they are including it in anti-smoking laws is because not enough is known about the health effects because few studies have been done, and those that have been, have been small. I don't know enough about it to have a personal opinion. I know many people who use them, they all love them, but every single last one of them also counts themselves as a smoker who quit. If you are still addicted to the nicotine, did you really quit? I'm not sure on that. It just seems to me a bit of trickery on oneself.
Maybe as a 10 year old I was just more insightful than many. But in October when we would rake the leaves and get them all in huge piles and set them afire, and I'd be standing where suddenly the breeze would blow the smoke in my direction and I would start coughing and choking and sneezing, I kinda made the assumption that leaf smoke was not a good thing to breathe in.
As I grew up and knew a number of people who had lung cancer or emphysema, and they would all blame other factors, rather than the 3-5 packs of cigarettes every day, I knew better.
And then there was the time that Bob Newhart was on Dean Martin's old variety show, and he did the phone skit with the folks back in England talking with Sir Walter Raleigh. One part of it went something like this. "What's that Walt? You have a new product to ship back to England? Tobacco? What is that? Leaves? What do you do with those leaves, Walt? ... You put them in your mouth and you set them on fire? Walt, you're kidding us. Right?"
Comments
From the Theravadin perspective, at least, if one isn't intentionally trying to do harm, then there's no breach of the precept as a breach requires: (1) a living being; (2) the perception of the living being as such; (3) the thought or volition of harming; (4) the appropriate effort; and (5) the actual harm of the being as a result of the action.
Is it better not to smoke? Sure. Is it a breach of the first precept to smoke? Not so much, in my opinion. Just my two cents.
If I have 4 beers knowing I have to drive my son somewhere, and then drive him knowing I shouldn't and cause an accident where he is hurt, then clearly me claiming my intent was not to harm him does not really cut it, as far as the precepts go, at least not for me. Intent, I think, has to at least somewhat go hand in hand with the expected consequences, and if you know them and know you could harm someone and do it anyhow, I don't think you have a good intention anymore, regardless of whether you intended for them to be harmed or not.
But I do understand your viewpoint.
Such a list is limited only by it's fluidity.
Can anyone here list any attachment that does not blind and bind one.
As for the first part, most people don't smoke because it's harmful, nor do they do so with the intention to cause harm to themselves of others. In this case, there may be harmful consequences; but in terms of the precepts, I don't think it qualifies as a breach.
That's just the way I see it, however, and it's really up to @minimayhen88 to decide how they choose to interpret the precepts and what constitutes a breach.
As for the rest, I think most of your examples are straw men and false equivalences, but I'm not going to bother to argue them with you as I think they're irrelevant to the topic and I have laundry to fold. We can discuss it more in separate thread later if you'd like, though.
First, saying that a particular action doesn't violate a particular precept doesn't necessarily mean that the action in question is being excused or condoned. It just means that it doesn't technically violate a precept. Second, regardless of what SCOTUS says, corporations aren't people (i.e., living beings), therefore corporation don't have karma, can't violate precepts they can't take, etc.
Now that we got those two things out of the way, when it comes to people and the things they do in relations to the precepts, we have to consider each issue separately and look at certain key factors, like intention.
In the case of someone smoking but actively trying not to harm others by smoking away from others or blowing their smoke away from fellow smokers nearby, I'd say there's no intention to harm (indeed, the opposite), therefore no breach of the first precept. I also don't think it's a breach if someone doesn't have the perception that second-hand smoke is harmful, especially seeing as how some studies seem to suggest that it isn't, or at least that the dangers are severely overstated.
In the case of someone who starts a war and orders others to kill, even if it's ostensibly for territory, they're still ordering the killing of other living beings and it constitutes a breach. But if said person ordered their troops to stand guard and didn't authorize the use of deadly force, but the troops fire anyway, then there's no breach because the troops weren't acting according to their orders.
In a case where someone sells food that's unknowingly contaminated, well, it was done unintentionally and not a breach of the precept. Doesn't mean it's a good thing or that the person/company involved isn't liable in some way legally, but we're only talking about precepts here, not legality or desirability. If they do so knowingly (which means not doing anything to prevent it or limit exposure), then I'd say it's more likely a breach than not. The same applies to someone using asbestos.
All in all, I think we're talking about two different things, i.e., desirability, justifications, liability, etc. vs. breach of sila. I'm not suggesting that any of those things are desirable or trying to excuse them; but I am saying that each case is unique and the intention of the person makes all the difference.
My grandma was a very heavy smoker for 65 years, 2 packs a day. She got sick and spent months in the hospital and hasn't smoked since (forced to quit, basically). She knew my son was asthmatic, and refused to stop smoking even for the short time we would visit. I therefore stopped visiting and when she asked why and I explained the problem, she basically said "Pfft, I don't believe that." So, in her case, yes I would say she broke a precept in choosing to smoke around my son whom she knew got very sick from it.
Then about 8 months ago I tried an electronic cig. mostly out of curiosity. I quit smoking right then and there. For me it was no big deal.
It is nice to be able to breath again and having no stinking smoke around is a big plus.
My habit (addiction) is mostly to the action of puffing. Although I have cut way down on the nicotine, I still use it. It is a stimulant similar to caffeine. I drink coffee and tea also.
An e-cig is basically flavored water which can be spiked with some strength of nicotine. It is vaporized and inhaled.
If you are interested here is a good site on Vaping. -
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/infozone/
Best Wishes
Then about 8 months ago I tried an electronic cig. mostly out of curiosity. I quit smoking right then and there. For me it was no big deal.
It is nice to be able to breath again and having no stinking smoke around is a big plus.
My habit (addiction) is mostly to the action of puffing. Although I have cut way down on the nicotine, I still use it. It is a stimulant similar to caffeine. I drink coffee and tea also.
An e-cig is basically flavored water which can be spiked with some strength of nicotine. It is vaporized and inhaled.
If you are interested here is a good site on Vaping. -
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/infozone/
Best Wishes
Then about 8 months ago I tried an electronic cig. mostly out of curiosity. I quit smoking right then and there. For me it was no big deal.
It is nice to be able to breath again and having no stinking smoke around is a big plus.
My habit (addiction) is mostly to the action of puffing. Although I have cut way down on the nicotine, I still use it. It is a stimulant similar to caffeine. I drink coffee and tea also.
An e-cig is basically flavored water which can be spiked with some strength of nicotine. It is vaporized and inhaled.
If you are interested here is a good site on Vaping. -
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/infozone/
Best Wishes
Now, I'm not saying someone with severe asthma won't be triggered by breathing in a significant amount of smoke lingering in the air around them, because more than likely they will... but there are no cases on record of serious, "chronic" illnesses or effects from second hand smoke in 'normal' environments such as restaurants, bars, or even homes where one or more person smokes around others who don't.
Again, if I lock you up in a 3x5 cell with no ventilation and I join you there while smoking 2 packs of cigs a day, for weeks at a time, yeah, you will have ill effects from my second hand smoke after a while. But under normal conditions, in normal households, with the normal amount of ventilation and air flow from doors and windows, this is not the case.
So in the end, second hand smoke is (IMO and the opinion of many medical people) not really a significant health issue; so that should be considered when it comes to relating it to the precepts and/or intent for "harming others".
My 2 cents.
BTW; I'm an ex-smoker, it will be 13 yrs in January. But I had always promised myself I would never turn into one of "those" ex-smokers! ;-)
I smoked a little in college and my roommate as well as some friends also smoked. I never smoked heavily -- just a few a day and after awhile decided to quite. It wasn't worth the cost or risk to my health -- especially if I did end up addicted and smoking more heavily. Once I was out of a smoking environment I became very sensitive to smoke. It bothers me a lot now. I had an upstairs neighbor who smoked and when the air was running, it would filter down into my apartment, yuck! Thankfully he got himself evicted (he had a lot of issues going on) and that was that.
Whether or not it's harming the health of others depends on where a person is smoking. Some people are very polite about it, some people aren't. I also support smoking bans -- I realize it is up to the individual, but I don't think the nonsmoking public should be forced to be exposed to the smoke.
How statistically significant it is (second hand smoke harm to other people) doesn't really matter to the people who HAVE been harmed from it. A lot of it depends how you read it, and what you consider harm to be. People have developed cancer from second hand smoke exposure. People who live with smokers are more susceptible to getting certain types of cancers. It contributes greatly to health problems in children of parents who smoke in the home, including ear infections and respiratory infections, and a greater likelihood for asthma in later years.
When the Mayo clinic tells me that second hand smoke, and smoke residue left on furniture and flooring etc is bad for kids and pets, I tend to believe them. You can't look at what is in cigarette smoke, and say that being exposed to it long term does not increase the risk of health problems from those who are stuck breathing it. While there are doctors, and yes even studies that disagree, that doesn't make it true. There are dozens and dozens of studies performed by all sorts of health agencies that show the dangers to second hand smoke.
But just as the case with about any disease, it's very difficult to show causation. When my grandma went in the hospital, we expected her to have lung cancer. She doesn't. She does have COPD and lungs that are the size of a 5 year old child's but no cancer. She did however have to have part of her colon removed, and while the doctors told here there was a strong correlation between smoking and colon problems, she refuses to believe that it's possible The correlation is strong, but no, it doesn't show causation.
When I smoke a pipe I would never do it indoors. Occasionally I have smoked on a long porch 15 feet from anyone else and so rarely that it would be 'in moderation' comparable to a campfire in rarity.
I don't understand why someone would smoke in public aside from smoking with food and alcohol which someone can get those paired together and have a strong addiction.
Personally I think a restaurant should be able to get a special license by paying a fee. It should be a money such that only a few smokers restaurants would exist. Thus the smoker can hang out and smoke, but the bulk of the restaurants, 70-80 % would not have the license.
Protecting people from unreasonable exposure in public, is a good thing and an important thing. But adults still have the ability to decide, and with how limited smoking was, there was no reason that adults couldn't simply make the choice to not use the outdoor smoking area, or not frequent a smoke shop. The law passing basically all but puts some of these places out of business, which I find a bit ridiculous. There is a line, to me, between protecting other people from the harm of others, and protecting people from themselves. I'm not a fan of the latter.
It's just the smell. I'm a smoker and I hate it, and I know that non smokers can really smell it and when you're trying to eat and stuff it's just really unpleasant.
I had a second hand smoke conversation with my family and they were like, we grew up and our parents smoked, people smoked in the office and it was always fine. Nobody got sick.
And then we look at our habits and how cancer rates are rising even though we don't have the same rights in terms of where we smoke anymore and the supposed correlation between second hand smoke and illness makes even less sense.
In Vancouver, folks can't even smoke in public parks or beaches. The few smokers you do see around often exhibit that same feral guilty look shared by other publicly shunned drug addicts.
It makes me wonder what other common actions of today, will only be done by the social lepers of tomorrow.
Australia recently passed a landmark bill concerning unbranded tobacco packaging which was watched with interest in many other parts of the world. I've seen the new packaging which is basically a large photo of various cancerous parts of the body and tiny, tiny print.
There is no doubt that smokers are social pariahs here. I have a photo of my sister taken in the mid 70's, nursing her new born baby with a ciggie in one hand and it was not uncommon. Today we watch an ep of Mad Men and are amazed that there is smoking everywhere in every scene.
Social lepers of tomorrow? Great question. My guess is anything that puts pressure on public health funding (here at least) which would put obesity at the top of the list; or environmental behaviours and energy efficiency. What are speculative fiction authors writing about?
If I get you uncomfortable or sick then that should be stopped. But if I want to eat fast food or smoke or take mushrooms or whatever I should be allowed to do that. The state shouldn't be in the position of making my decisions unless I am impinging on another persons quality of life.
I believe in: choices, responsibilities, and consequences.
I basically take the libertarian position regarding drugs. On safety nets, fire departments, no libertarian from me, but on the position of controlling what I can do to my body I just don't agree.
i can understand your situation very well. but as per my understanding, smoking is against buddhism. buddhism consider smoking as a very sinful act. moreover it is very harmful to your health too.
Here's the thing about smoking ... it is one of countless attachments that we all have. The benefit to resisting the attachment of smoking is that it gives you the opportunity to practice mindfulness. I'm not saying you need to quit smoking ... I'm sure there are other things that you can refrain from doing that would work just as well (anger, eating, etc).
When we feel an urge to do something, instead of doing it, if we sit back and observe (apply mindfulness), we get a first-hand opportunity to observe how attachment leads to craving leads to suffering if we don't follow through. This is hugely and incredibly significant ... to see this is to see, first-hand, the truth of the Second Noble Truth (that suffering has a cause). At this point, it doesn't matter so much whether or not you actually light that cigarette (although the longer you do not light it, the more opportunity you have to learn).
And this is the true benefit of the Precepts .. it's not so much the following of them that is the benefit .. it is the observation of our internal reactions when we follow them.
Buddhism is all about what we see and understand, and how these insights change us inside on a profound level. It is exactly that type of insight, applied, that allows one to stop smoking cold-turkey without aids or support.
As an aside ... my husband and I stopped being friends with a guy back in the 1970's when he became addicted to heroin. 20 years later, we ran across him and he told us a very interesting story about kicking his addiction to heroin:
Every time he had tried to quit, his withdrawal symptoms were so bad that he had to go out and score a "fix".
Finally, he got together 3 months worth of camping supplies/food/water, and had a friend drop him up in the Canadian north (okay, we live in Edmonton, Alberta ... it's not such a bad drive), out in the middle of nowhere. With instructions to come back in 3 months to pick him up. Friend then settled down for one hell of a withdrawal. And had .. not one single withdrawal symptom.
With that information, I observed my own internal buildup of desperate craving, resulting in hissy-fits, when I tried to quit smoking. Funny, but all I had to do was say "I don't DO than anymore", firmly, meaning it, and I had nothing more than a slight fuzziheadedness for the first few days. Mind you, I went on a 6-day drive with a friend through the Rocky Mountains and every time I wanted a cigarette, I sucked on a water bottle instead.
Not saying you need to quit .. but that quitting or even smoking ... both can be tools for mindfulness and growth. Your life IS your practice.
I smoke a pipe I feel medicinally because I am on max doses of two antipsychotics + 2 other mental drugs. The smoking cuts through some of the body stuffiness (don't know how to explain). So I might have this body stuffiness and the smoke high (tiny because a pipe) lasts 5 minutes, but the breaking up of the stuffy body might last all afternoon or night.
The stuffy body feeling feels kind of like you want to move your leg so it feels better but then you move it and it doesn't; and there is nothing you can do to get feeling your body crisply.
Isn't that a bit over the line into Puritan-ville?
I don't know enough about them to have a personal opinion but I find it kind of amusing that I know so many people who claim to have quit smoking because they vape instead. Changing methods isn't quitting, to me.
If I had to stand outside inthe cold for a water vapor smoke I'd rather just have a real one
That's addiction for ya!
I've been e-cigging it for about 18 months now, and now I've given that up.
I'm in the throes of nicotine withdrawals, and you get to a point where you can't really remember the reasons why you want to stop, and we crack and smoke/vape.
And if anyone of you gimps suggests I meditate and look at the withdrawal pangs I'll...
I'll leave you a rude comment!!!!
As an ex smoker and an ex vapour - I can tell you that vaping is far less harmful; I can feel it. Yesterday I ran 17 miles bringing my weekly total to nearly 50 miles. I couldn't do that while I smoked, but I can while vaping.
But pharmaceutical companies have lots of money and no doubt they'll be involved in any legislation that's passed concerning e-cigarettes. And of course, government may want to regulate and tax it too.
As I grew up and knew a number of people who had lung cancer or emphysema, and they would all blame other factors, rather than the 3-5 packs of cigarettes every day, I knew better.
And then there was the time that Bob Newhart was on Dean Martin's old variety show, and he did the phone skit with the folks back in England talking with Sir Walter Raleigh. One part of it went something like this. "What's that Walt? You have a new product to ship back to England? Tobacco? What is that? Leaves? What do you do with those leaves, Walt? ... You put them in your mouth and you set them on fire? Walt, you're kidding us. Right?"