Recently read: since smoking is hazardous to your health, when yo do, are you sinning against the Fith Commandment?

When you do in presence of others the smoke may put the other's health in danger, are you again in sin?

Enrique

-- Enrique Ortiz (eaortiz@yahoo.com), March 07, 2005

Answers

Response to Somking, a sin?

-- bump--

-- Enrique Ortiz (eaortiz@yahoo.com), March 07, 2005.

"since smoking is hazardous to your health, when you do, are you sinning against the Fith Commandment?"

if doint things that are bad for thouhg, though that is not the intention of the act, the so must eating in McDonalds be a sin. walking the fume-filled streets.

"When you do in presence of others the smoke may put the other's health in danger, are you again in sin?"

driving a 4x4? using disposable nappies? living any kind of modern life?

i personally think this is political correctness taking over religion.

valid questions - please make no mistake - but should we really lose sleep over this?

suspect that the many of the popes smoked - and would have had smokers coughs, therefore aware that smoking is hardly good for you.....

ditto snuff.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 07, 2005.

Enrique, the guiding principles are two:
1. CCC 2290 The virtue of temperance disposes us to avoid every kind of excess: the abuse of food, alcohol, tobacco, or medicine.
2. The Church defers to scientific research to determine certain things.

The Catechism seems to envision a use of tobacco that is not an "abuse" thereof. Therefore, I would not assume that all smoking is sinful. I believe that some popes have smoked.
However, IF there comes a time when science will incontrovertibly determine that ingesting "second-hand smoke" is deleterious to others' health, then someone who is aware of that finding would have a moral duty not to endanger others.

Ian, I'd bet that most of the people reading this thread have never heard of "nappies." For their benefit, I will mention that they are what people in the U.S. call "diapers."

-- (Crux@fidelis.com), March 07, 2005.

thanks Crux!!!

they're v bad for the environment, in all continents, and in all incontinence.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 07, 2005.

I don't smoke !! First: because of my & your health !! And second: it's wasted money for nothing !!

I hope the following link is ok ?? If not , I'm sorry , and it may be deleted !!!! http://www.cin.org/deca.html

Salute & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), March 07, 2005.

“The Catechism seems to envision a use of tobacco that is not an "abuse" thereof.” I’d say it is being overly cautious. (Remember it was written over 20 years ago.) Not every puff on a cigarette may be an “abuse”, but every puff does damage to the health of the smoker and to others. Unlike food, alcohol, or many other drugs, there is NO “safe level of use” for tobacco.

“Therefore, I would not assume that all smoking is sinful.” Of course smokers are under the influence of a powerful addiction and many find it difficult to stop despite their best intentions. But if someone were to deliberately begin smoking today knowing that even a the smallest amount of it damages his own and others' health and recklessly endangers theur lives, I would say that would be a sin, in the same general category as driving while drunk, recklessly endangering your own and others’ health and life. The fact that the injury/death occurs many years later does not affect the causality.

“I believe that some popes have smoked.” A. I am not aware of any, and it seems unlikely, seeing that tobacco only became popular in Italy in the late 16th century, and all the popes since then have been men who were not at all given to sensual indulgence. B. If any popes did smoke, they probably were not aware (of the extent and certainty) that all smoking damages their own and others’ health, thus going against the obligations not to harm our own bodies, and not to injure others. B. Popes are not sinless. ”IF there comes a time when science will incontrovertibly determine that ingesting "second-hand smoke" is deleterious to others' health, then someone who is aware of that finding would have a moral duty not to endanger others.” That time came some years ago. The only “scientists” who deny this are those in the pay of the tobacco companies.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), March 08, 2005.

steve,

by that same rote, hold your breath. oxygen is a corrosive which ages your cells with every moment of contact. every amount of food you eat contains toxins which force your liver to work to extract them. one hundred percent of everything we do is generally unhealthy in some way, shape, or form.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), March 08, 2005.

On the other hand, the benefits of oxygen and food clearly outweigh the risks. Addictions in general are not in one's best interest, even when that which you are addicted to is not directly destructive to one's physical health.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 08, 2005.

i agree whole heartedly about addictions, paul m, but the thing i reject is the idea that one puff of a cigarette is potentially harmful ergo all smoking is a sin. personally, i try to avoid all forms of addiction so smoking is right of my list too, but i cant see fault with someone who occasionally engages in responsible tabacco use.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), March 08, 2005.

So paul h, how many puffs/cigarettes/packets do you think one has to use before it is no longer “responsible”? Despite the disinformation furiously pumped out by the tobacco industry, all medical scientists agree – there is NO “safe” or “responsible” level or type of tobacco use. If you don't believe me ask any government health department.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), March 08, 2005.

Steve, an important thing to do if you are going to engage in apologetics is to avoid hyperbole or making statements that you have no way to back up. It is better to remain silent than to say something with an air of self-assurance even though you aren't really sure about it.

Speaking of the Catechism: I’d say it is being overly cautious. (Remember it was written over 20 years ago.)

How can I "remember" something that is not true? The first edition of the Catechism came out in French in 1992 (in English in 1995). The final edition, with many modifications, came out in Latin in 1997. Those are hardly "20 years ago." The sentence I quoted (about smoking) could have been changed as late as 1997, but was not.

Not every puff on a cigarette may be an “abuse”, but every puff does damage to the health of the smoker and to others.

While most experts agree that a lot of smoking "does damage," it should be pretty obvious that to say that "every puff does damage" is an exagerration. No proof of such an extreme statement exists. You would help your credibility by avoiding saying things like this.

Unlike food, alcohol, or many other drugs, there is NO “safe level of use” for tobacco.

Here you have made a flat-out, declarative, (alleged) statement of fact, speaking as though it had come from scientific research done by you. You would help your reputation for fairness and thoughtfulness by instead saying something like, "From what I have read, I've come to have the opinion that there is no safe level of use for tobacco."

I was just reminded that the pope recently banned smoking inside the buildings of Vatican City State. I believe that, if he believed smoking always to be harmful (and/or sinful), he would have banned it throughout the Vatican, even outdoors.

“I believe that some popes have smoked.” A. I am not aware of any, and it seems unlikely ...

Since you had nothing substantive to add, you should have omitted this. In other words, "don't talk just to hear yourself talk." Skip what is without value. Readers really don't care that you are "not aware of any" popes who smoked. Readers would care if you could have said, "Yes, there was Pope So-and-So and Pope So-and-So" or if you could have said, "No. I have read a firm statement from the Vatican to the effect that no pope has ever been a smoker." In fact, a little checking reveals that Pope John XXIII smoked cigars. I also feel almost certain that I have heard or read that at least one of the popes of the 19th or 20th century smoked cigarettes.

”IF there comes a time when science will incontrovertibly determine that ingesting "second-hand smoke" is deleterious to others' health, then someone who is aware of that finding would have a moral duty not to endanger others.” That time came some years ago. The only “scientists” who deny this are those in the pay of the tobacco companies.

First, it is only your opinion that an "incontrovertibly" determination "came some years ago." Second, you have no mind- reading ability to be able to say whether scientists who believe something "are in the pay of tobacco companies." As I said, if you are going to be an apologist, you need to speak more judiciously and to stay silent more often.

-- (Crux@fidelis.com), March 08, 2005.

Crux, you need to take your own advice and stop making sweeping assertions which you can't back up. Mea culpa on the publication date of the Catechism, it was 13 years ago, not 20. It makes no differnce to my point. Its statement on smoking is overly cautious, a fact which remains understandable as it was less than 13 years ago that the published evidence became overwhelming that every puff of tobacco smoke damages the health and endangers the life of the smoker and others. YES this is an established fact. Yes, I am really, really sure about it. No it is not an exaggeration. No it is not just an opinion. I invited you to check out ANY authoritative source, but instead all you give is unsupported denials of the fact I stated (while ironically accusing ME of making unsupported and rash assertions! LOL!). No the tiny minority of “scientists” who still dispute that even small amounts of smoking damage health have been SHOWN to be in the pay of tobacco companies. These “scientists” don’t “believe” the pro-smoking propaganda they spout.

Here’s a few quotes from real scientists and health authorities for you. I can give you hundreds more if you like.

http://www.cancerpage.com/news/article.asp?id=7561

“There have been over 19 major reviews of the medical and scientific evidence that have confirmed that there is no safe level of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. The medical and scientific evidence is conclusive and continues to accumulate. Passive smoking is a proven cause of lung cancer in non-smokers, and is an important cause of heart disease and asthma. Over 600 published medical research reports link passive smoking to lung cancer and other respiratory diseases in non-smokers. Asthmatics, those with existing heart conditions and children suffer greater health problems from exposure to environmental tobacco smoke”

http://www.phaa.net.au/Advocacy_Issues/tcca.htm

“there is no safe level of tobacco use” Scott J. Leischow, Ph.D. Chief, Tobacco Control Research Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), March 09, 2005.

I think so too.

The 2nd hand smoke build-up on the left is ludicrous. Nobody has to like smoke in the building, but claiming it kills is only a myth.

Smoking is NEVER a sin. It can reach the level of a vice; but not every vice is a sin. God knows some vices are more like the CROSS a victim has to carry in this life. Like a stutter, or being a dwarf, a tiny man. It can't be helped!

Helplessness is a cross. Cigarettes comfort many poor souls when they're uncomfortable. They're harmful, we know. But when a soul has been addicted to tobacco over a long time; he/she is helpless to give them up.

Christian charity is best served by realising how others feel. It's better to be compassionate while passing out our free advice to cigarette addicts. They might be in heaven LONG before we enter there. Give them a charitable pass.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 09, 2005.

Steve,

"Its statement on smoking is overly cautious"

It is? The catechism's statement is in the context of "abuse" by "excess", and is all within the same breath as food, alcohol, and medicine.

Your quote, "19 major reviews [...] Over 600 published medical research reports" is invalid in this discussion because said quote is in reference to second hand smoke, and the smoker can easily take steps to avoid putting others at risk.

Now, if you can find some research that shows where a heralthy person who has one puff per day/week/month/or year, etc. puts their health at risk, then you have a valid premise with which to build an argument.

I am by far no lover of cigarettes; but it is certainly not a sin.

Eugene,

"Smoking is NEVER a sin."

Very simply, you are wrong. ANY excess is sinful, especially when it puts your health at risk.

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), March 09, 2005.

Yes, Father. I erred on the side of reason and I agree with you about excess.

Just a day ago I remarked on my own amazement; regarding the Holy Cure of Ars;

That he is a saint and faultless compared to me, I know very well. Yet it hit hard at my faith in God: --About the Cure of Ars denying absolution to penitents because they had been dancing during a celebration, or wouldn't give up their love of dancing ? ? ? The entire parish!

Even so-- I LOVE Saint John Vianney. I say a faithful Catholic can't disobey his pastor, IMHO. --If this is my faith, do I have ''excessive'' faith?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 09, 2005.

I can’t believe I’m having to spell out from first principlesd what should be obviuos. No Eugene, it is not a “myth” that smoke kills. Its victims run in the millions. Ironically you lecture me on having compassion for addicts while our friend David excoriates me for having TOO MUCH compassion for them. A smoker’s responsibility for his harmful acts can be greatly diminished (NOT completely removed) by his existing addiction, social pressure and advertising.

“the smoker can easily take steps to avoid putting others at risk.” Not “easily”. He could live by himself, never have kids or associate with them, only ever smoke outdoors in a gale and scrupulously shower and wash his clothes after every cigarette, but there would still be some damage to others. And you’re totally forgetting the damage he does to HIMSELF.

“Now, if you can find some research that shows where a healthy person who has one puff per day/week/month/or year, etc. puts their health at risk, then you have a valid premise with which to build an argument.” Read the links I gave you. And there are heaps of others out there.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), March 09, 2005.

Steve:
Maybe my assertion was disorganized. ''The 2nd hand smoke build-up on the left'' is ludicrous. SECOND HAND is not a proven killer. It irritates many people; but death from irritation is likelier to occurr from damp or cold.

''Nobody has to like SECOND HAND smoke in the building, but claiming it kills is only a myth.'' --It may ''kill'' one out of ten thousand, such as an asthmatic. Maybe a waitress in the crowded cocktail lounge trapped with many pounds of contaminants every day. (That's no myth.)

But by and large, all this about 2nd-hand DEATH is agenda-driven by anti-tobacco fanatics.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 09, 2005.

Mea culpa on the publication date of the Catechism, it was 13 years ago, not 20.

Steve, by saying this, even after reading my message, you show yourself to be a most unreliable person, still given over to terrible exagerration. I clearly explained that the CCC text could have been changed up to its final publication in 1997. That was less than 8 years ago, not 13 years ago. Thus, your "mea culpa" rings hollow. Apparently, your tendency toward pride is so great that you cannot bear the humiliation of fully admitting an error.

Smoking is NEVER a sin. It can reach the level of a vice; but not every vice is a sin.

Sorry, but this is incorrect. You must be thinking of a word other than "vice" -- perhaps "addiction." In Catholic parlance, every "vice" is sinful by definition, since a "vice" is a habit of sin. A vice is not anything like a "cross" or a "stutter," which a person bears without any fault at all. A vice should be rooted out. It can be helped.

-- (Crux@fidelis.com), March 09, 2005.

I said smoking sometimes reaches the ''level'' of a vice. To add a disclaimer like this isn't deceit. You should accept the next sentence with its grain of salt, having understood such a qualifying phrase. Don't be such a pedant, come off the high horse. ''Rooted out, indeed?''

I wish every smoker could root out his love for cigarettes. I once loved them and was addicted. They were terrific! By the grace of God, I kicked them. Members of my family smoked too much, and two of them died of cancer. Does this mean they sinned? I don't think so; when they acquired the bad habit, it wasn't seen as an evil. They died long after they couldn't help smoking. Their nervous systems required it so badly. May God keep them in the company of his angels and saints. Amen.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 09, 2005.

I don't know about it being a sin per se, but it is a dangerous and stupid thing to do.

Second-hand smoke makes me ill. Can't tell you how many times I walk out of restaurants because of the smoke. I think that parents who smoke around their children should arrested for child endangerment.

I also think that smokers should be able to legally shift ALL the costs of their illnesses directly to the tobacco companies to pay and leave the common taxpayer out of it. I also feel that way about alcohol, including all drunk driving lawsuits. In other words, also pull them out of the health insurance pools, too. Smoking and alcohol are lifestyle choices--let those companies who profit pick up the pieces.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), March 09, 2005.

I think that parents who smoke around their children should arrested for child endangerment.

theres going to be alot of poor kids raised by only one parent or an orphanage. how about instead of arresting people we educate them?

I also think that smokers should be able to legally shift ALL the costs of their illnesses directly to the tobacco companies to pay and leave the common taxpayer out of it. I also feel that way about alcohol, including all drunk driving lawsuits. In other words, also pull them out of the health insurance pools, too. Smoking and alcohol are lifestyle choices--let those companies who profit pick up the pieces.

or how about instead of taxpayers and health insurance having to pay the lawsuits OR the companies which are likewise not responsible, we have the people who participate in such activities pay for all ramifications themselves. for example, right now if you smoke you pay a higher health insurance (in some cases). this covers the difference. If you drink and drive then your insurance pays (because thats what you pay into insurance for) but then you get cancelled.

why blame the companies, GT? tabacco companies are FORCED to label their product as being toxic. alcohol companies are FORCED to launch ad compains discouraging drunk driving. if people are still dumb enough to engage in these activities it is precisely because our society takes the responsibility from those most responsible (the people) and places all financial burden on those who have very little to do with it. apply the consequences where they are needed, not where they will do little or no good by fostering irresponsibility on the part of the people.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), March 09, 2005.

There's plenty of education and help already out there, some of it free even--people don't avail themselves of it. You can lead a horse to water, etc.

The education has to start when they're young--when I was in school, someone came out with a smoker's lung in formaldehyde, along with if I remember correctly, a "smoking" machine with some sort of wadding in it where it showed how quickly smoke got absorbed into the lungs as the cigarettes were "inhaled". I don't know how anyone would want to smoke after seeing that lung--it was hideous to look at. I don't think they do that these days.

And, you can't go after people who are already poor (although they always seem to have money for alcohol and cigarettes....) for money they don't have. They already don't carry health insurance because they can't afford it anyway--alcohol and cigarettes cost too much.

That's why I said shift the costs to the companies. Let them raise the price of their goods, and set aside that small extra charge to cover the healthcare and drunk driving lawsuits of their faithful customers--think of it as an insurance plan.... If the companies don't want to do this, they can go out of business for all I care. Or the government could shut them down, but there goes all the extra tax revenue....

Not all single-parent households are bad, and as for orphanages, that I don't know. I don't think they have to be bad, like any other institution, it depends on how they're run. I think a lot of kids these days go to "kinship foster care" anyway.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), March 09, 2005.

“Mea culpa on the publication date of the Catechism, it was 13 years ago, not 20." Steve, by saying this, even after reading my message, you show yourself to be a most unreliable person, still given over to terrible exagerration. I clearly explained that the CCC text could have been changed up to its final publication in 1997. That was less than 8 years ago, not 13 years ago. Thus, your "mea culpa" rings hollow. Apparently, your tendency toward pride is so great that you cannot bear the humiliation of fully admitting an error.”

Mea maxima culpa, it was probably less than even 8 years ago that the published evidence became overwhelming that every puff of tobacco smoke damages the health and endangers the life of the smoker and others. I hope I have now sufficiently abased my sinful pride to your satisfaction, Crux. Maybe now you can attend to the log in your own eye.

“Or the government could shut them down, but there goes all the extra tax revenue....”

This would be a problem for the govt's budget only in the short term. After a few years the massive savings on reduced hospital and medical care would far more than make up for the lost tax revenue. Of course most govts couldn’t and wouldn’t shut them down overnight, but they should gradually increase the taxes and restrictions on them. One important thing they could do now is to ban brand names and claims such as “low-tar”, “mild” etc, and have them all merely labelled “Cigarettes”.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), March 09, 2005.

oh sure, steve, except for the fact that that is a discriminatory business practice. at what cost do we sell freedom? obviously where moral wrong is concerned we must draw the line... but what about here in smoking, where the company clearly states that their product is dangerous?

further, yes, GT, i realize that some people who abuse cigarettes do not pay medical insurance. perhaps this is callous of me, but let them either bear the consequences of their actions or rely on the charity of others to pay for it. i dont see any reason that the government OR the companies should have to pay for the mistakes of people who dont take the time to think responsibly. forcing companies to pay more out for consequences is only going to raise prices but won't do a whole lot to curb abuses of the system. what WILL work is forcing people to deal with the ramifications of their own actions rather than teaching them that it is okay to shirk responsibility off onto others.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), March 09, 2005.

“except for the fact that that is a discriminatory business practice.” Oh, come on paul, you’re smarter than that. “Discrimination” per se isn’t wrong. The govt discriminates all the time. It puts all sorts of restrictions on the labelling, packaging and availability of all sorts of drugs and foods. This isn’t “selling our freedom.”

“obviously where moral wrong is concerned we must draw the line... but what about here in smoking, where the company clearly states that their product is dangerous?” The companies put those warnings on the labels ONLY because govts force them to. The companies fought tooth and nail to avoid those warnings, to dilute their force and effect and to minimize them as much as possible, because they knew the warnings would reduce sales. Surely you realize this?

“i dont see any reason that the government OR the companies should have to pay for the mistakes of people who dont take the time to think responsibly.”

The only reason the companies supply the product is to profit from irresponsible people. And just as we get casinos to help pay for treatment and prevention of gambling addiction, so we should get tobacco companies to help pay for the treatment and prevention of tobacco addiction.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), March 09, 2005.

Well, the cigarette/alcohol prices going up don't affect those of us who don't smoke or drink, which is as it should be. Same with the gambling. And that's true, the companies (at least in our area, even the lotto games carry warnings) would NEVER have posted any type of warnings without the government forcing them to. Taxpayers every day pay for others' poor decisions, and you expect them to further contribute to charities too? I think not.

There's no reason that the government couldn't help the farmers for a short time to retool and plant other crops, like corn for methanol, or soybeans, even industrial hemp, or use those fields for solar or windfarms.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), March 09, 2005.

"There's no reason that the government couldn't help the farmers for a short time to retool and plant other crops, like corn for methanol, or soybeans, even industrial hemp, or use those fields for solar or windfarms."

Instead of the big cask crops, why not plant food to feed the starving?

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), March 09, 2005.

For other countries, or ours? Wouldn't it be more cost-effective to take the skills and technology to where there's a problem? What plants? Here's one choice, and since I believe that tobacco is grown mainly in the South, this plant would fit right in:

http://www.cytechweb.net/~deekay/saw/kudzu.htm

The recipes look interesting, at any rate.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), March 10, 2005.

"For other countries, or ours?"

The starving are the starving; no matter where they live it is our duty to feed them.

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), March 10, 2005.

I don't think that there are starving (not in the way we normally think of the word) people in the US, you have welfare, food stamps, food banks, etc. There are people who won't take dried beans from the food banks if there is any kind of easy convenience food. That's partly an education issue (some people don't know how to cook), and partly a be grateful you have something to eat--I can't imagine turning down any food at all, even stuff I normally don't care for if I were truly hungry. Food stamps, sad to say, allow you to buy too much junk food--it's pretty sad also when you see that some of the pizza places accept them also. There's no excuse for that.

To me, the best way to help people is to help them help themselves. As long as you just hand stuff out (whatever the stuff is), people will continue to be dependent.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), March 10, 2005.

Smoking is a sin because deliberately after knowing there are no beneficial effects on your body, but just destructive, you simply use it as an stimulant. If you are slave/addicted to these things, then Christ has still no absolute domination over you. (Rom:6:12-16). Our body is God's temple (not our own), and if we destroy God's temple God will destroy us.

-- Leslie John (lesliemon@hotmail.com), March 10, 2005.

GT, pizza isn’t “junk”. You could have quite a healthy and balanced diet living on the pizzas and salads sold by most pizza places. And the way they discount, you could achieve it more cheaply and quickly (allowing more time to look for a job etc) than by buying and cooking lentils, beans etc.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), March 10, 2005.

None of the big-name take-out pizza places sell salad, unless that's a regional thing. And, it is no big deal to cook beans, ever hear of a crock pot?

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), March 10, 2005.

GT, you must live in a deprived area. The fast-growing Cici's chain and many Pizza Huts have salad bars.

Don't be such a pedant, come off the high horse. "Rooted out, indeed?" (Eugene)

Don't YOU be such an anti-intellectual. Come out of your gutter. Settling for mediocrity is lukewarmness, and you will be spat out of the mouth of Our Lord for that. Yes, every vice (sinful habit) should be "rooted out."

Speaking of vices ... You vile hypocrite. Just like me, you seek daily to help people learn things, to overcome their ignorance or to get rid of the errors they hold. Doing this is not "pedantry." If you dare to call me "pedant" (as you have done several times) then call yourself the same -- IN SPADES. Hypocrisy is one of your "vices," which must be "rooted out." Next, work on self- righteousness.

I hope I have now sufficiently abased my sinful pride to your satisfaction, Crux. Maybe now you can attend to the log in your own eye.

You would have "abased" it "sufficiently," if you had resisted the temptation to add that obnoxious remark at the end. Smarting off to me, though, resulted in your not "abasing" yourself at all. Sigh! Some egotists need more time to learn ...

-- (Crux@fidelis.com), March 11, 2005.

Never heard of Cici's, haven't been to a Pizza Hut in ages--didn't know you could use foodstamps for fully-cooked restaurant food? Papa Murphy's take-and-bake accepts foodstamps--maybe because the food is only half-way prepared? To me, that is the government allowing people to continue to make bad choices and be dependent.

As to how healthy pizza is, it really depends on how it's prepared, and what's in/on it. At some of the really upscale restaurants, it probably is healthy, especially if you have a vegan pizza. I know school lunch pizza isn't!

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), March 11, 2005.

GT, look at this map: http://www.cicispizza.com/cicis/cicis4.html

-- (Crux@fidelis.com), March 11, 2005.

GT, pizza isn’t “junk”. You could have quite a healthy and balanced diet living on the pizzas and salads sold by most pizza places

this is incorrect, actually, steve. i had to take a friend to the hospital with intense stomach pains that we thought might even be an appendicitis (sp?). the actual prognosis? doc said that said friend's four day long diet of nothing but vegetarian pizza had stopped up the system and recommended NOT eating pizza very often.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), March 11, 2005.

Thanks, Crux--none anywhere near me!

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), March 12, 2005.

“doc said that said friend's four day long diet of nothing but vegetarian pizza had stopped up the system.”

I’d definitely get a second opinion on this one, as there doesn’t seem any rational physiological basis for this statement. Admittedly some pizzas are better than others, but all vegetarian pizza should contain lots of complex carbohydrates and fibre which should keep “the system” open. It certainly wouldn’t cause “intense stomach pains”.

Crux, you seem to have written the book on egotism.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), March 13, 2005.