Don’t lose sight or the life and death struggle in this cigarette thing. I have seen people I used to talk to in person pass away from tobacco addiction. It is a sad thought that some monks may be doing the same.
1 Like
You know, the best way to look at addiction is that it is a disease of craving. Addiction specialists treat addiction like it is a disease. It is not a moral failure. Have you overcome Samsara yet? Whether you are trying or not, Compassion should be given by the Buddhist, and the same to our tobacco using friends. However, we should heal harmful behavior.
1 Like
For me, it’s interesting to observe, what is acceptable in “normal” circles (at least in my country). Smoking (tobacco and other leaves) is demonized, but drinking is not. Personally I’ve never seen someone have a few cigarettes and get aggressive with me, or drive dangerously… Smoking doesn’t have much potential to affect me unless I am close by.
2 Likes
Yeah, same where I’m from — smoking is considered bad but drinking is fine and even expected in some circles.
I guess the way I see it is that drinking is more “bimodal” in effects than drinking — smoking is worse in light/moderate amounts than drinking, but drinking is worse than smoking in large amounts because it damages both the mind and the body.
1 Like
Perhaps because humans have an instinctive grasp of the risk odds involved? Tobacco is one of the easiest drugs to get hooked on.
7 Likes
In the Amazonian shamanic tradition, tobacco is used as a medicinal plant as well as a mild entheogen. The species of tobacco used is Nicotiana Rustica, called mapacho, which contains 9 times more nicotine (as well as many other alkaloids, including harmala alkaloids which can produce mild visions) than the Nicotiana Tabacum , the common tobacco sold all over the world.
In fact, their spiritual tradition treats tobacco as a master medicine, on par itself with something powerfully consciousness altering like ayahuasca. The method of administration is generally smoking it like cigars, i.e. unlike cigarettes, it is not inhaled into the lungs and I believe it reaches the blood stream sublingually, or soaking it in water and drinking or insufflating the water. The powdered tobacco can also be insufflated through a tube. It should be mentioned that due to the higher nicotine content, you would generally smoke only a few of the cigars a day, and then mostly in a ritual setting. The effect is somewhat paradoxical and interesting, it seems to increase alertness and relaxation at the same time. When shamans are in a dieta, which is something like their version of a meditation retreat, they smoke mapacho to both stay connected to the spiritual realm throughout the day, as well as to reduce hunger, which has its own spiritual benefits.
I’ve read elsewhere that a big appeal of smoking normal cigarettes comes from the fact that the commercial tobacco is coated in molasses (sugar). Sugar already gives a huge dopamine (a major neurotransmitter implicated in both addictive substances and behaviours) hit to the brain when eaten. It is probably orders of magnitude more powerful when delivered instantly to the brain through lungs through vaporising it and is probably carcinogenic delivered to the lungs in this burnt form. In addition to all the other chemicals used to treat commercial cigarettes, it’s probably no surprise that smoking is so unhealthy.
In the Andes, they also chew coca leaves, or make a tea from them and class them as medicine. The effect is mild, to me a cup of coffee is several times stronger than the coca tea, and yet the extracted and purified alkaloid cocaine, is an extremely addictive and harmful substance. Coffee might be more deadly than cocaine if purified:
Just 1 teaspoon of the caffeine powder contains about the same amount of caffeine as 28 cups of regular coffee, the FDA said. In fact, 2 teaspoons of powdered caffeine would kill most adults.
Some teachers I believe have either banned or discouraged coffee in their monasteries.
My point is that maybe all these substances are not necessarily harmful or immoral to use in themselves, but what commercial interests and cultural forces have done with them has made some socially acceptable, some not, some addictive and dangerous, others not. For example, sugar is a unique substance in that it is a ‘food drug’. I.e. it has both nutritional and consciousness changing effects. The Buddha treated it as a tonic (I think you need to have a reason to consume sugar on its own as a monastic), but these days we consume it on a far larger scale casually and the harmful effects are well documented.
It is quite possible that advanced monks like Ajahn Chah smoked and found it beneficial to some extent. Think of the context, a peaceful meditative life in a hot, steamy tropical jungle, quite similar to the Amazonian shamans. The context is also quite different to how tobacco is consumed in today’s modern culture, mostly while consuming alcohol in loud noisy bars, or maybe at home, watching violence on television. But maybe the benefits weren’t THAT great, so that on being pointed out the health dangers, or the fact that cigarettes started to be used as money, it was trivial to dispense with it.
A thought experiment: All these substances seem to be about dopamine, the neurotransmitter of pleasure, motivation and addiction. What would happen if you renounced so much, for example as a monk, that all the things that used to give you dopamine before were forbidden or curtailed. You would probably be quite miserable. The mind needs pleasure to live it seems. But then, what would it be like if you could train yourself to get a dopamine hit every time you inhale or exhale? What if you could train this faculty to such an extraordinary degree so that just one inhale sends the mind into ecstasy? Would you then be a breath addict? Could this pleasure be made illegal, or sold, or taxed? Further to this line of reasoning, it seems that all our pleasures when reached make us content and peaceful for a moment or so, and then we are off looking for the next activity or substance to give us another boost. But if you were maxing out your dopamine allowance every breath or so, maybe then the neurotransmitters of joy (natural opioids, oxytocin etc.) would start to get released and accumulated again to such an extraordinary degree that the mind might experience a truly supernormal state.
2 Likes
It seems like societies, like the Native Americans who didn’t add in specifically addictive chemicals to the already addictive tobacco and instead used it moderately, with even some kind of Spiritual or Ancestral motive in mind, has more success in it not overcoming them in such a deadly addiction as we see in today’s world due to the materialistic purposes of tobacco. If it weren’t sold in stores, and one had to cultivate it themselves, only bringing it to Ancestral Gatherings and using it moderately even then, perhaps it would not have the same ill effects. But America is not that world anymore, because of violence, colonialism, greed, jealousy and destruction, the Peaceful Way of the Native American has been close to wiped out. But there is still hope, we have the Dhamma, and it is specifically designed to wisely and also, Peacefully, bring the practitioner into a state or Emancipation from all ill things. Taking it seriously means taking your health seriously, and in today’s world it just isn’t feasible to smoke. It is much better to practice Buddhism with a clean body and mind. I believe progress is made much faster that way. Namaste.
While not classified as a drug, let’s not forget sugar 
Tin-Kiri tea anyone 
4 Likes
This could be an intermediate understanding but reasonable.
The Buddha’s ruling is saññama (restraint), refer to Mangala Sutta, in matters of intoxication.
Even passive smoking can be considered as smoking, but restraint is a mental quality which is directed towards relinquishing. Restraint takes us to destination ultimate, the speed may vary, the journey can get difficult or easy.
In my understanding, a mindset geared to ‘restraint’ is properly oriented.
Let me put in bold letters.
SAÑÑAMA (RESTRAINT).
2 Likes
These are capital letters, often considered to be like shouting on the internet. You can use bold by clicking on the bold symbol in the tool bar of the composition screen.
Surely, it’s important to give the specific meaning and full context here,:
majjapānā ca saṁyamo
avoiding *alcoholic drinks
This thread is about the monk’s rules and the precepts in regards to the inhalation of smoke.
The answer given at the outset by an expert explained that the Buddha did not ban smoking and made allowances for medicinal use.
People are of course free to add their own views and to have their own standards of personal conduct, concerns about health, addiction, contemporary context and so on. But we also need to understand and accept what the literature actually says.
Vinaya is technical and complex. It is a legal system on top of an ethical framework. It’s easy —as some people have in this thread— to come to incorrect conclusions about how to view the rules.
If we don’t agree that’s fine and we should certainly practice how we believe is right, but I’m not sure that we should change the rules to suit our wishes!
It's been an interesting discussion to read.
Other areas of concern for Buddhists to think about in terms of smoke is that incense and scented candles, commonly found in buddhist centres, are known to be bad for the health, both in terms of carcinogens and also for allergy sufferers. Some centres have gone fragrance free for this reason. Friends of mine had to leave their centres because the community refused to give up incense.
The relationship between medicine and intoxication has been mentioned several times in this thread in regards to smoking. Thinking of medicines, many legal and prescription drugs have an intoxicating effect. Misuse of prescription drugs is a huge problem, such as addiction to opioids and painkillers, overuse of sleeping pills, reliance on anxiety medication, and adderall addiction, these are issues all around the world.
I remember the movie, Requiem for a Dream, contrasted the stories of illegal drug addiction with legal drug addiction and it was quite instructive. I also remember my youthful confusion that a few puffs on a joint was considered a scandal that could destroy a president but getting completely inebriated on alcohol was fine and often encouraged 
So just because something is allowable doesn’t mean that it should be misused, whether inhaling smoke or curing a back ache.
In terms of medicinal requisites, Buddhist monks and nuns are advised at the time of ordination to be content and make do with fermented urine as medicine. Anyone up for the challenge of clearing out the medicine cabinet and going back to basics? 
13 Likes
What the Buddha left us is sufficient for a full Dhamma, as well as correct Vinaya rules. People just need to take all of the rules into consideration, and be honest and truthful. We all honestly know that smoking cigarettes is not medicinal 
. But that’s okay. I have deep Buddhist friends that smoke cigarettes, and some are very High up there in Realization, it is just that circumstance and the nicotine cravings are still holding them down. I wish they would quit smoking and go clean! But when being a serious Emissary to the material world, some people give up their health in order to maintain a line of helping worldly people, and in turn take up some of their habits. It is possible to do such a thing in a detached way [i.e. smoke cigarettes without attachment], but it is not the best solution to do such a thing in the first place [, it’s better not to smoke]. I have seen Buddhists light themselves on fire to protest wars and totalitarian regemes. Suddenly a cigarette doesn’t seem so bad. But I feel both the latter and the former are unhealthy modes of karma. Some people would rather be free of craving and addiction fully, and let go of the harm of such situations, and dwell in Peace in this human form.
It’s not as black and white as it may seem. It’s unfortunately not surprising that a question about the morality/legality of smoking quickly turned into a health discussion.
Its interesting to play around with lung cancer risk assessment tools like this one. There’s no doubt that smoking is bad. But you have to really try to get the 16-year cancer risk assessment comfortably into double digits. At which point it no longer represents the scenario of occasional smoking in monasteries. Of course any assessment tool is only as good as the research backing it, but it gives some information.
It’s also worthwhile to keep in mind that the people behind anti smoking campaigns are regular people not arahants. Which means that like most of us, they have the wrong view that if you arrange things juuust right, you can prevent bad things from happening. This is evident when some of these campaigners basically imply that you won’t die young if you don’t smoke 
They may not actually believe it to be so, but their words often betray a distortion of perspective.
All this is to say that there may not be reason to think that smoking has significant moral implication from a health standpoint.
Please Bhante, I really don’t wish to insist on this any further, but, with all due respect, I feel like this is a misrepresentation of the explanation that was put forward above.
The expert was arguing for smoking without medical reasons. See here:
This is based on an interpretation that disregards origin stories and ignores the work of Analayo and Brahmali (https://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg.de/pdf/5-personen/analayo/vinayacomy.pdf) which shows that origin stories play a crucial part in the definition of a large number of rules in the Khandhaka and therefore cannot be dismissed.
It is an interpretation that is based on an opinion on why the narratives shouldn’t matter, and it is shown to be inadequate by textual analysis instead.
Exactly.
Clearly, smoking is allowed for medical reasons in the Vinaya, nobody is arguing against that.
But the issue is a lot more nuanced than some conclude.
For example: the level of sickness needed, the substance allowed to be smoked etc… these are all present in the narratives. Ignoring them is what gives rise to all these misunderstandings and according to scholars it’s uncalled for.
4 Likes
Thanks Akaliko Bhante.
The binary resolution (do, don’t do) more than often breaks down.
Saññama (Restraint) Dhamma desana is the Buddha’s genius message for all.
I feel the moral implication comes mostly from second-hand smoke. I posted statistics from the WHO claiming that 7 million people die each year from direct tobacco use, and another 1.2 million non-smokers die from being exposed to second-hand smoke. 1 out of every 7 people who die from tobacco smoke, never smoked it themselves… for every 6 smokers who die from their own habit, 1 non-smoker dies because of someone else’s smoking habit. I see a whole lot of moral implication right there. Some might call it negligent homicide, manslaughter, or even murder - perhaps even premeditated murder since smokers are aware that their habit can kill others through second-hand smoke.
The moral implications of second-hand smoke can be reduced by being responsible (not smoking indoors, near other people, etc), but I’m not sure they can be eliminated altogether. Some smoke molecules will always get into the air, and make their way into someone else’s lungs. How many smoke molecules does it take to cause cancer, lung/heart problems, birth defects, etc? Is that a choice we are willing to make for another person?
2 Likes
I have never smoked in my life, nor used nicotine in any form, and I really have to disagree with you here. This is just black and white allopathic thinking reinforced by well-meaning propaganda campaigns.
Cigarettes have a risk / benefit profile that, by modern standards, does not warrant their use for diagnosable ailments, particularly in a context where strictly better alternatives (nicotine patches / gums) are available.
However, in the vinaya context, “medicine” means a substance that can improve health even in a context where the ailment might not match a diagnosable syndrome or disease, regardless of the harms. Many vinaya medicines are literally just poisons - “purgatives” thought to have some chance of helping you recover from an illness by “cleaning out” your GI tract. These have far worse risk / benefit profiles than cigarettes, and were largely cut out of allopathic medicine far before we gave up on cigarettes.
Cigarettes do factually have small health benefits - they deliver nicotine into your system, and nicotine improves focus, increases alertness, suppresses the appetite, calms the mind, and steadies the body (among other things). Trouble concentrating, difficulty staying up on little sleep, hunger in the afternoon and pre-dawn, mental and bodily restlessness are all health complaints that I (a layperson) can easily see arising in a good monastic.
These benefits are just vastly outweighed by the risk - increased risk of cancers, infections, damage to the lungs, and other health problems. Modern western people absolutely should not smoke and I support all efforts to reduce smoking.
But Monks take on health risks all the time. For example, monastic garb is bad for your health. Living among poisonous snakes and malaria carrying mosquitos, protective clothing would be very helpful. But it is not allowed. Monks also have little control over their diet, often leading to diabetes.
And most monks live in poor countries. Especially when we get into the history of persons like Ajahn Mun, who died nearly fourty years before the nicotine patch was first invented. I just think it is very inappropriate to generalize from our personal context and perspective and cast a judgment across very different times and places and say, “smoking cigarettes is not medicinal. So and so are breaking the precepts”.
1 Like
I believe no special need to mention holy people who were smokers. Truly that’s useful to balance the obsessions regarding the “purity of the body”, although finally not very relevant to discern the problem. Because then, we could imagine if holy people like Ajahn Mun had some addiction problem, and this would be just our own imagination.
I understand the problem is when seeing many people who think impossible that the human being can choose freely those toxics which are acceptable in his life, and those to avoid.
Note that we are not living but we are dying each day. We should live surrounded and consuming many toxics. And also enslavered by many addictions, some are visible while others not. The more visible addictions can become an easy object of control and also of obsessions.
Other times we can see a social moral bypass over other addiction. In example to Instagram and similar things, despite it have very serious consequences for the mind health (and also physical, suicides, etc). Meanwhile, be obsessed or not, everybody we eat toxics in food, we breath dangerous chemicals. Every day. An endless list, with impossible control to realize some “purity” of the body.
In this panorama out of control, one should build the own recipes to keep the body working with enough health. Although then we see the arising of obsessions to this or that, and the wish to force others to do this or that. Some people experience an strong dislike in front the smoke arising from a vegetable combustion. Other people can experience an strong dislike in front the production of stupid ideas and words arising from a mind combustion.
If we should imagine an strong dislike arising in holy people like A.Munh, probably we could bet for the second type of production. Although probably it could be wrong if the equanimity was well rooted in him.
The moment we live is a perfect field to feed the hysteria on health. Korean philosopher Byung-Chul Han points some interesting words on this:
"The virus is a mirror. It shows what society we live in. We live in a survival society that is ultimately based on fear of death. Today survival is absolute, as if we were in a permanent state of war. All the forces of life are being used to prolong life. A society of survival loses all sense of the good life. Enjoyment is also sacrificed for health that is raised to an end in itself. The rigour of the no-smoking paradigm testifies to the hysteria of survival. The more life is one of survival, the more fear you have of death. The pandemic brings death, which we have carefully suppressed and outsourced, visible again. The constant presence of death in mass media makes people nervous.
The hysteria of survival makes society so inhumane. Your neighbour is a potential virus carrier, someone to stay away from. Older people have to die alone in their nursing homes because nobody is allowed to visit them because of the risk of infection. Is prolonging life by a few months better than dying alone? In our hysteria of survival, we completely forget what a good life is. For survival, we willingly sacrifice everything that makes life worth living: sociability, community and proximity. In view of the pandemic, the radical restriction of fundamental rights is unquestionably accepted."
2 Likes
I find it extraordinary that that a simple direct question can generate so much discussion.
Q). Is Smoking considered a breach of precepts for monks and lay persons?
A). No.
Right. Let’s talk about something interesting (and, yes I am aware that smoking is bad for health but the question didn’t ask that).
… even better let’s talk about something that will help us deepen our practice.
(just my personal opinion)
5 Likes
Oh. Is that what it was about? 
If you’re smoking, then you’ve got a medical condition (not a ‘habit’). That medical condition is called something like ‘substance use disorder’. In my experience it is vital that those who suffer (withdrawal is a big and debilitating problem) are allowed to ease the distress caused by their condition by ‘using’ until they are eventually fully cured by other means.
1 Like
Consulting Google dictionary for the definition for “habit” we find:
a settled or regular tendency or practice, especially one that is hard to give up.
(BTW, I’m not trying to be snarky by calling attention to the definition. I literally had to look it up to make sure I was using the term correctly since English is not my first language).
So, in my opinion, it’s safe to conclude that it’s correct to categorize smoking regularly as a “habit”.
I don’t mean anything derogatory by it and the definition itself doesn’t seem to carry that sense.
Just like greed, hatred and delusion are “habits”.
Those other means are called Dhamma, Noble Eightfold Path and meditation practice. Especially for monastics.
There’s no indication as far as I’m aware that the Buddha gave allowances for regular drinkers to keep drinking. Or for those prone to greed, hatred and delusion to keep getting greedy, hateful and deluded.
Quitting smoking can be done. It takes wisdom, restraint and effort.
Quitting greed, hatred and delusion can be done. It takes wisdom, restraint and effort.
It’s one of the great tragedies of our modern society to think it’s impossible and blame it on the apparently “natural psychosomatic human condition”.
The fact that it happens gradually and it’s possible to sometimes “fall back” doesn’t mean one should be freely allowed to. After all, the precepts are exactly what keeps one on track.
Finally, like I tried to point out above, the conditions for the allowance of inhaling smoke are listed in the Khandhaka for everyone to read and come to their own conclusions.
Would monastics be able to taper off smoking if addicted? Of course. After all it’s a dukkata, not a parajika.