Republicans end Capitol Hill smoking ban

Don’t come to Aus

We have banned smoking in most areas - basically you can do it in the middle of a large field, in a thunderstorm, on alternate Tuesdays with a full moon and solar eclipse

Lols!

 

Probably like the bible says one can't eat shell fish or get tattoos

 

Yeah but that tastes like ashtray anyway

yeeeeuck!

 

which makes no sense, people should be free to smoke outside if they wish

 

Nicorette taste like ashtray?

 

‘S Ok. I will hand you back your leg now

 

They used to

I gave up without them

 

people lose their legs from too many carbs.... as in diabetes

the diet sadly many feed their kids

not to mention sugar is half fructose and the liver processes that the same as alcohol without the buzz

 

And sadly cigarettes.

 

never known anyone to have lost a leg from smoking in my entire life... diabetes yes...

 

I quit with vapes, I know a few that got addicted to Nicorette, Nicorette did not work for me either

 

Want me to link you to the masses of research on it?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0033350612004702


https://www.who.int/tools/pictorial...auses-peripheral-vascular-disease---australia

 

I just used good old fashioned will power

And bribery - I used the money I saved on hiring a cleaner

 

I think that is bunk, yes people will say it, but I will never believe it

they used to say cigarettes caused high blood pressure, then the studies showed it did not

I believe anti-smokers will overexaggerate the dangers of smoking to get more grants

the fact that in all my life, no one has lost a leg (or any limb) from smoking, says to me that is bunk science

 

I had asthma to the carpet glue they added for fire safety, light asthma, so my choice was rolling my own or quit

 

The correlation between smoking and peripheral vascular disease (one cause of hypertension) is nerly indisputable but happy if you want to go head to head with me on finding research to back our separate positions

Fair warning I am a health professional who has been reading and studying research in the field for over thirty years

 

never convince me of that, especially after the new study shows smokers don't suffer from high blood pressure like non-smokers do

show me a study that absolutely proves smoking causes people to lose legs, it's a guess, not proven science

similar to the saturated fat guess in the past, that caused all our food to replace fat with sugar, told us not to eat eggs and butter, told us margarine and Crisco was healthy

 

I have already linked to a couple so please do me the courtesy of linking to the study

https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ben/cpd/2010/00000016/00000023/art00003

https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1161/01.STR.17.5.831

 

I already linked to it earlier, I will look for it

I think we can both agree smoking comes with risks, but I do think those risks are often overexaggerated

edit to add :

https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/01.hyp.37.2.194

"Some epidemiological studies have reported lower blood pressure (BP) in smokers than in nonsmokers. This finding is regarded as a paradox, because nicotine has potent sympathomimetic effects, which affects BP levels and heart rate. Furthermore, ex-smokers tend to have BPs similar to those of people who never smoked."

"Does Smoking Increase Your Risk of High Blood Pressure?"

https://www.healthline.com/health/high-blood-pressure-hypertension/smoking-and-hypertension

"A 2015 analysis of 141,317 people found that smokers generally had lower blood pressure than never-smokers. A 2017 study involving men who used to smoke found they had a higher risk of hypertension than current smokers"

it was thought smoking raised blood pressure, but this study calls that into doubt

 

From your first study

What they did not control for is the other potent and common causes of hypertension - lipid and salt intake. I would like to see a study that incorporated those factors

 

I don’t smoke and never would but it should be a matter of personal choice. As long as there are smoke free areas alls good. I do hope that those who do smoke can overcome their addiction to it.

 

low potassium should also be looked at, as potassium and salt are linked

https://www.heart.org/en/healthy-living/healthy-eating/eat-smart/sodium/potassium

"Potassium is a mineral that your body needs to stay healthy. Foods with potassium can help control blood pressure by blunting the effects of sodium. The more potassium you eat, the more sodium you process out of the body."

 

Every statement in your "reply," is non sequitur/inapplicable to this thread's debate, which is not whether or not smoking should be legal, how dangerous it is for smokers, or anything about particular personality types, who are less or better suited, to being smokers. This is about designating certain indoor spaces-- specifically, the Capitol-- as being non smoking areas; outlawing smoking in confined areas, such as on airplanes, where non smokers will be subjected to breathing the smoke. It is hard for me to believe that you needed me, to tell you that-- and yet, your milquetoast opinion, does not touch, in the least, on that main idea.

Btw, I likewise think that smoking should be a legal, personal choice-- as nearly everyone, I imagine, would agree. You do not even define your term "moderate smokers (by which, I would estimate that the intended meaning was from 1 to 1 1/2 packs, per day)," much less present a case for the overall health consequences, of that level of smoking, other than one data point, on blood pressure. You did not even summarize, what sort of decline in blood pressure was measured, and how that specifically translated, into anticipated lifespan, versus the decline in lifespan which, I believe, has been documented in smokers-- your mentions of their owning the "title" of longest living people, notwithstanding.

Not to give you a hard time, but I honestly feel, after this reply of yours, that you have just been giving me the runaround. I skimmed through to see some of your other replies, and wonder if you somehow have me mixed up with Bowerbird. I never said anything about smoking outdoors. Here are some points of yours, just to calibrate where we differ, and where we do not:

Just threw that in there-- since you didn't explain differentiating your calling this only a "title," as opposed to actually claiming that smokers were the people who have lived the longest-- to show you that you did actually seem to make the claim, albeit awkwardly worded, that the oldest people to have lived, have been smokers. If, by the way, you are referring to just a few individuals, that would be meaningless; that is, there could likely be some genetic reason they lived so long, so there is no way of knowing, had they not smoked, if they would have lived even longer. It should be obvious that what is most telling are composite averages, for large groups of smokers versus non smokers, living in the same environments.

Personally, I think one's genetics are extremely important, in this regard. That is, I believe there are some that could smoke like chimneys, and never get lung cancer, others who would only develop it due to heavy smoking, still others who would be susceptible after moderate smoking, and those for whom even light smoking would be enough to trip that switch. There are even some who get lung cancer, who don't smoke-- but very few. Nevertheless, even for those who seem cancer proof, just moderate smoking is going to rob them of some of their health and vitality, and is going to mean that they are physically addicted to it.

Maybe the smoke made their throat & nasal passages inhospitable to living things, including the virus-- probably, that would also include, to the smoker. Being exposed to high doses of radiation, would probably also inhibit the virus, but I wouldn't recommend it, as a tonic.

Comparing smoking to sunshine, is pretty ridiculous, IMO.

So, if you stuck with that opinion, we would be in 100% agreement; but your stated positions, bounce around, a bit:

So this is inconsistent with your previous post.

AFAIK, designated indoor places for smoking-- like for cigar aficionados-- are still allowed.

Smoking in one's car, is a pretty crazy thing to fine someone for. Is that California?

Are you kidding me, right now? This is its own run around. Here is what you are replying to:

DEFinning said: ↑
A workplace/office, or restaurant/business banning indoor smoking, is the market, sorting it out.

When I mean a mandate that issues from the government, I call it a legal or government ban, or a law. When I say a business banning it, obviously, I mean their deciding to do so, of their own free will, on their own, under no duress, due to a governmental mandate. God! Seriously? It sounds like you could really use a cigarette.

 

Errrr. - be cautious with the K+ (Potassium) as even people with healthy kidneys can and have easily overdosed on it. Hyperkalaemia is a good way to cardiac dysrhythmias

You might find this interesting

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0753332220313494

 

as I said, I am glad to see some push back on the anti-smoking crusade as it's gone too far, and as i also said, I support bans inside public buildings, but I think businesses should be able to choose and smoking outside should be legal as well

when I was little, before the laws, we had two malls about 5 miles a part, one banned smoking, the other did not, the one became a ghost town as most everyone has a friend that smokes, so they all went to the smoking mall


"AFAIK, designated indoor places for smoking-- like for cigar aficionados-- are still allowed. "

that would work too, airports used to have those in the terminals, not sure if still do - did the Capital have a smoking area?

Amtrak banned the smoking car they used to have, lost a lot of customers when they did that as people took trains vs planes so they could smoke, some decisions are bad ones