Smoking a sin?

I blogged yesterday about the Vatican report on smoking which declares that it is not morally neutral but shies away from outrightly calling it a sin. Now this got me thinking about the issue of when is a sin a sin or not? More precisely: is there a category between sin and righteous action which is nevertheless not simply 'neutral'?
Now I know all that stuff about 'hamartia' and other cognate mataphors for sin but I had tended to operate with the idea that things are, in the last analysis either sin ful or not. Some things probably in themselves [an onotological approach -eg adultery and murder] and many others in terms of context and purpose [a teleological appraoch] but I'm now wondering whether we need another category to cover a smoky room in between?

I see it like this: I think that it is right that smoking regularly is sinful in as far as it harms the body God endows us to care for and imposes emotional, physical and material costs that could be better used elsewhere. It also imposes such costs on other people, especially thsoe closest to us emotionally and physically. Therefore, it seems to me regular smoking is probably sinful. On the other hand addiction is surely some mitigation; in as far as we are not responsible it is not sin, however, we are then responsible for dealing with the addiction ...

But is smoking sinful in and of itself? Iow: is it sinful to even light up one cigarette simply to try it or to form a bond of comradeship for the sake of the gospel? I actually think not: our bodies are able to be tolerant of such insults as occasional exposure to tabacco smoke and the reasons given for maintaining that regular smoking is sinful do not apply. So at what point does it become sinful to smoke? I guess that I would have to say it would be somewhere after trying it or having the occasional smoke and becoming a regular and most properly at the point[s] where one becomes aware that it has become a habit and that it has [self-]harmful consequences.

I think as well, what I am feeling towards is an approach to such matters that is somehow about wisdom. It is unwise to smoke but at one end of the scale it may be an acceptable risk and generally 'okay' to enjoy the occasional after dinner cigar [for example] and at the other it is downrightly bad to light up and continue the habit. How one deals with that is also a matter for wisdom since the delicate art of giving up is not simply a matter of 'just say no'. I am married to someone who no longer smokes but who is often loath to say that they are a non-smoker ...

Another test case for thinking about this is the issue of meat consumption; it seems clear to me that for reasons of world distribution of resources, the impacts on animal welfare and health reasons, the level of meat consumption in the west is sinfully high. However, it is hard to translate that into saying to each and every individual that they should be vegetarian. I think I would say that, other things being equal, some meat consumption is okay. Some, like myself, may feel seriusly enough about it to 'prophetically' give up meat eating. Most should probably cut down; some must be in the region of gluttony in this matter. However, making an outright statement that meat-eating is wrong and sinful is not possible.

More to ponder I'm sure and I am aware that there is a whole lot of ethical thinking that I vaguely know is out there but haven't been able to keep pace with: virtue ethics and narrative ethics being two I can think of straight away. Anyone got some more leads on this stuff?
Nouslife: papal 'curse' on smoking