Question: Are electronic cigarettes a safe option for vaping?

Resolved: The use of e-cigarettes should be restricted due to potential health risks and societal impacts.

Framework Pro will argue that any substance which poses a net detriment to society should be regulated, as the government's role is to enhance public welfare. Contention 1: Health Costs and Productivity Loss According to the American Cancer Society and the CDC, e-cigarette usage contributes to significant healthcare costs and loss of productivity, amounting to billions of dollars annually. Despite the lower cost of e-cigarettes compared to traditional tobacco, the societal burden is substantial, with non-users bearing part of the medical costs and facing secondhand vapor exposure. Contention 2: Health Risks to Users E-cigarettes contain numerous chemicals, some of which are toxic and carcinogenic. The CDC reports that e-cigarettes have over 7,000 chemicals, including nicotine, which is highly addictive. The government should prioritize the well-being of its citizens by regulating e-cigarettes to prevent health issues. Contention 3: Secondhand Vapor Exposure Secondhand vapor from e-cigarettes affects non-users who do not choose to inhale these substances. The Surgeon General's report indicates that secondhand vapor can cause various health issues among nonsmokers, including respiratory infections and asthma attacks. Restricting e-cigarette usage to private spaces does not eliminate the risk of secondhand exposure, especially for children and other family members. Contention 4: Environmental Impact E-cigarette waste contributes to environmental pollution. Litter from e-cigarette devices and packaging can harm wildlife and aquatic ecosystems. Smoke-free laws have proven effective in reducing litter and should be considered for e-cigarettes as well. Conclusion E-cigarette usage poses significant health risks to users and non-users alike, contributes to environmental pollution, and imposes substantial economic costs on society. Therefore, the use of e-cigarettes should be restricted to protect public health and welfare.

Well, after I set up all my data, I took an orange, poured some of it onto a remote, and nothing happen - I then got a bigger electronic device, poured another instance of orange juice onto it, and it started to short-circuit into a meltdown. You're the remote, not the bigger electronic device, so I can't smoke you out with vitamin C. Therefore you automatically lose for being used by fat lazy folks.

Yeah, Good at giving people a heart attack at age 25.

My previous debate on this topic was forfeited so here I go again. I will be the Pro in this motion and I will carry the burden of proof to show why smoking should not be banned. The rules for each around is as follows. R1: AcceptanceR2: Arguments from both sides (Only arguments) R3: RebuttalsR4: Counter-attacks R5: Final Argument (without Rebuttals) I look for a great debate.I am going to open four debates on the same topic to investigate the aspect in this field more widely.

As Con, I will take side in why should we ban smoking. I am taking the side in banning smoking due to hazardous effects brought by it. In the community, if there are smokers, even non smokers sometimes are affected. Does not matter the percentage. As for example, in a little community of 50 people, and only 5 people are smoking, 45 of them when inhaled the smoke can be affected little by little. Smoking kills you little by little no matter how good it is for you or for smokers, I mean. Major points are: Health effects - Smoking and your Body "The effects of smoking on human health are serious and in many cases, deadly. There are approximately 4000 chemicals in cigarettes, hundreds of which are toxic. The ingredients in cigarettes affect everything from the internal functioning of organs to the efficiency of the body's immune system. The effects of cigarette smoking are destructive and widespread." -Toxic ingredients in cigarette smoke travel throughout the body, causing damage in several different ways. -Nicotine reaches the brain within 10 seconds after smoke is inhaled. It has been found in every part of the body and in breast milk. -Carbon monoxide binds to hemoglobin in red blood cells, preventing affected cells from carrying a full load of oxygen. -Cancer-causing agents (carcinogens) in tobacco smoke damage important genes that control the growth of cells, causing them to grow abnormally or to reproduce too rapidly. -The carcinogen benzo(a)pyrene binds to cells in the airways and major organs of smokers. -Smoking affects the function of the immune system and may increase the risk for respiratory and other infections. -There are several likely ways that cigarette smoke does its damage. One is oxidative stress that mutates DNA, promotes atherosclerosis, and leads to chronic lung injury. Oxidative stress is thought to be the general mechanism behind the aging process, contributing to the development of cancer, cardiovascular disease, and COPD. -The body produces antioxidants to help repair damaged cells. Smokers have lower levels of antioxidants in their blood than do nonsmokers. -Smoking is associated with higher levels of chronic inflammation, another damaging process that may result in oxidative stress. And in some accounts, The Top Ten List of Negative Effects of Smoking: 1. Coughing: Smokers coughing that is. After a not predetermined time of being a smoker, you will begin to experience smokers cough, because your body uses this as a way to try and get rid of the toxins you inhale while smoking. 2. Yellow teeth: many smokers when they realise the state of their smile, that have gone from bright white to almost yellow stop smiling all that much, or try to hide their teeth while smiling. 3. Trouble with blood circulation: After contaminating your blood for a period of time with the smoke you inhale and that therefore gets into your blood stream, your blood will not circulate as freely in your body as it used to, and your arteries will begin to clog. The ares furthest away from the heart, (hands and feet) will be first to get lowered their blood flow, and you will begin to experience cold hands and feet. 4. Lessened glowing of your skin: A healthy skin have a natural glow about, but with the clogged arteries, the lessened blood flow, will slowly make your skin greyer, and more pale than it used to be. 5. Ugly yellow fingertips: The smoke that several times daily gets in contact with your skin at the fingertips, is slowly going to make the fingers on the hand you hold the cigarette with into ugly looking yellow fingers. 6. Lessened ability to smell the lovely flowers: Well maybe you don't really care about the smell of flowers, but another negative effect of smoking is that rather shortly after becoming a smoker, you taste buds and your ability to smell well be severely worse than before. The good news however is that they return rather quickly after quitting. 7. Lessened lung capacity: Your overall fitness levels are determined largely by the capacity of your lungs, and a negative effects of smoking is a slowly deteriorating lung capacity. When I smoked I had a test as I were doing sport at a serious level, but had collapsed during a track test, and were told my lung capacity were well below par for my age group. 8. Lower Energy: When you smoke, your immune system never relaxes for very long. Immediately when smoke gets in your body, the immune system start fighting it, and is therefore working on overdrive so to speak. That extra use of energy has to come from somewhere, and it does. The energy used is taken from your overall energy levels, Along with that, the lesser lung capacity reduces your bodys oxygen intake, which again reduces your energy levels. so you can expect a lower energy level overall from smoking. 9. Bad breath: Often times when I were a smoker I would wake up dry mouthed, and my girlfriend refused to kiss me because of my bad breath. This point should require no further explanation. 10. Less oxygen for your brain: Lower oxygen in your blood also causes the brain to get lesser oxygen then it needs to function optimally. This may cause you to have a worse than average ability to focus on things, and it may also cause dizzy spells. Those are just some, but there are many reasons to ban it. That is just my point for now. But one question lies: What causes cigarette addiction? Sources: | http://quitsmoking.about.com... http://www.itkorner.net...

Just for clarification, yes I did mean in the US. Thanks for correcting my statistics and yours are absolutely the correct statistics in regards to American smoker deaths per year. While you did provide some correct statistics, not all of them were correct or the best stats to use. The statement "Smoking results in a life expectancy 14 years shorter than a nonsmoker" is incorrect. If you read the statement from the source you cited it actually says that "The life expectancy for a smoker in the United States is about 64, which is 14 years shorter than the national average". The problem with this statistic is that the national life expectancy includes that of smokers and non smokers. If we look to some research done by Dr. Akwasi Osei, the Chief Psychiatrist at Accra Psychiatric Hospital, he says that "Tobacco shortens the lifespan of smokers by 25 years. In addition 70% of people who begin smoking in there teens die by age 45". 41% of men who smoked a pack or more a day died in middle age compared to 14% of men who never smoked [1]. And I don't know if you read the entire article from Live Science but they talk about cancer a bit and say a couple of interesting things. "Smoking accounts for 30 percent of all cancer deaths and 87 percent of lung cancer deaths; the risk of developing lung cancer is about 23 times higher in male smokers compared to non-smokers; smoking is associated with increased risk of at least 15 types of cancer; [and] smoking causes millions of deaths worldwide."[2] Smoking is damaging to your health. This is something we both agree on. The next part of my opponents reasoning for not banning smoking was interesting to me. He said that we can't ban smoking because that would be like banning alcohol (the Prohibition failed, I'm not arguing that). However I believe that these are two VERY separate issues. Firstly this is because tobacco is much more addictive than alcohol [3]. According to Michael M. Miller, MD, an addiction medicine specialist, the medical director of the NewStart Alcohol/Drug Treatment Program at Meriter Hospital in Madison, Wis. He is also the president of the American Society of Addiction Medicine and an associate clinical professor at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, about 15% of people that drink regularly become addicted compared to 45% of people that smoke. Secondly, smoking only ends in death. When you follow the directions on a pack of cigarettes you put over 4,800 chemicals, 69 of which are known to cause cancer, directly into your lungs. Smoking is so harmful that cigarette smoking has been identified as the most important source of preventable morbidity (disease and illness) and premature mortality (death) [in the world]. [4] Lastly smoking indirectly hurts everyone. The people who harm themselves by smoking are a drain on both the American health care system and the American economy. Smoking cost the United States over $193 billion in 2004, including $97 billion in lost productivity and $96 billion in direct health care expenditures, or an average of $4,260 per adult smoker. [5] While my opponent asks for a Con vote simply because it would be similar to the Prohibition. I am willing to agree that there are some basic similarities, but fundamentally these two issues are radically different. I have shown how dangerous smoking really is, and how harmful smoking can be to all Americans. Tobacco is not alcohol and they must be treated differently. Because this will be my last post on this debate I just wanted to thank you for a clean and welcoming first experience to Debate.org. I am glad that I got to debate someone who actually knows what they are talking about even if we stand on opposite sides of this issue. I hope I didn't offend you at all because that was in no way my intent. Best of luck to you! -Frost [1] http://www.inforesearchlab.com... [2] http://www.livescience.com... [3] http://www.health.com... [4] http://www.lung.org... [5] http://www.lung.org...

Thank you con. Other than your argument that second hand smoking causes harm to others and that the payment of cigarettes takes money away money that could be spent on something else you haven't supplied me with any arguments that justify forcing other people to abide by what you 'think' is morally right. I will respond to each of your atguments with logic and sources will come in later. "It's a drug that makes you feel good but in the end the feeling is just an illusion." Interesting, so you are claiming the good feeling from smoking is an illusion? Illusion - "A thing that is or is likely to be wrongly percieved or interpreted by the senses."[1] So you are claiming the feeling from smoking is being wrongly interpreted by the body, I don't think so, you are experiencing the chemicals in the cigarette such as dopamine [2] that helps control the brains pleasure centre, this is no illusion, it is physically happening to the body. Also, as I've said before people are aware of the risks, its not your place to determine what they should or should not do about their bodies. "Smokers have bad breath" Is this really a reason to ban smoking, that is poor. "Smokers skin looks unhealthy" So now we are banning things because they are making people look unhealthy, guess what fast food makes people look unhealthy when they become obese. "Smokers have brittle hair.....a yellow smile reveals a smoker......smokers also get yellow nails." Really? Perhaps we should ban these as well then. www.everydayhealth.com/hair-loss-pictures/surprising-things-that-cause-hair-loss-0209.aspx "Its really a myth that smoking calms you down." Well I guess pretty much every smoker I have spoken to is lying then and also: www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090423193946.htm "Smoking causes others to suffer as well" www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/12/19/second_hand_smoke_proven_harmless_again news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2008/07/01/scientific-evidence-shows-secondhand-smoke-no-danger As for asthma, the fact that second hand smoke can trigger attacks is not reason enough to justify banning cigarettes overall, people should be more wildly educated about these facts, this is the way to really solve problems not just banning everything. "Not to mention how many kids smoke underage" So your way of solving this is by banning smoking, you know how these kids get their cigarettes? Illegaly. So banning them probably wont solve that problem. Also it should be down to the parents and failing that, the education to educate kids of the risks. Take it from me, its not difficult for kids, yes kids, to get hold of marijuana and alcohol. blog.norml.org/2009/08/28/study-says-its-easier-for-teens-to-buy-marijuana-than-beer/ This is another argument that shows that banning wouldn't be effective. Anyways, my arguments are largly summed up in my rebuttals below. But I digress the reasons you gave wrre largly not plausible reasons to ban it. A decent example would be banning video games. Video games, like smoking give tue participant pleasure. Video games, like smoking are very addictive. Video games, like smoking can have negative health effects if you become addicted. Now I ask you this, should we ban video games? Should we ban caffiene? Unlike the fast food example these are similar circumstantialy to smoking. Over to you con.

I accept. I will be arguing that tobacco should not be banned due to an individual's right to choose what to put into their body. If anything, tobacco should be regulated due to second hand smoke issues, but not completely banned.Please state your case.

AveRules1. over 3000 ELO to vote, and accept.2. No FF unless same number3. No trolling4. No kritiks, semanticsStructure1. Acceptance2. Arguments3. RebuttalsDefinitionsSmoking: Smoking is the inhalation of the smoke of burning tobacco encased in cigarettes, pipes,and cigars.Ban: A stop to.Vale

Okay, first of all I can kind of see what you are saying about freedom, however, there are lots of laws in the UK which are stripping people from their freedom however, they are stripping people of there freedom for the better. In think this is what they should do with cigarettes. You take the choice to buy cigarettes, however people know it's illegal the may nor choose to buy them initially and also for some people smoking is not a choice because of such things such as passive smoking etc, which I explained in the last round. Passive smoking is the involuntary inhalation of smoke from cigarettes smoked by other people. Passive smoking occurs when a non-smoker inhales secondhand smoke produced by smokers in his or her vicinity. My second point is that even though you might be saying that laws around cigarettes might stop smoking, in our country laws for cigarettes are being placed all the time, and this is really not stopping smoking completely. If cigarettes were just completely banned, then even though some people might try very hard to get them, most people will be much less tempted to have them if they know they are breaking the law. So, people deserve to be stripped of cigarettes because of not just was cancers and diseases it could cause them, but what diseases and cancers it could cause other people if they take it smoking without opting to do it, either by peer pressure or by passive smoking Also this would be a much quicker process than what you are suggesting and our country has more important things to worry about so time is also a big factor. Peer pressure- social pressure by members of one's peer group to take a certain action, adopt certain values, or otherwise conform in order to be accepted.


Question: Are electronic cigarettes a safe option for vaping?

Should e-cigarettes be accessible to all individuals? I believe that your facts are inaccurate. According to numerous databases, including canadavapes.com, Propylene Glycol is the primary component in the majority of e-liquids and e-cigarette cartridges currently available. Typically, e-liquids contain a minimum of 80% and up to 92% propylene glycol, which is responsible for producing the vapor-like smoke when exhaling from an e-cigarette. While it's true that individuals have the choice to use safe or unsafe products, it's more pertinent when people are informed about the products they choose. As a parent and grandparent, I'm particularly concerned about the accessibility of e-cigarettes to younger people. The notion that vaping could encourage cigarette smoking is alarming, particularly for our youth. Regardless of whether you think people should have the freedom to do as they please, it appears that your positive stance on e-cigarettes may be due to a personal preference or use of these devices, correct?

Okay yes, people do die in car crashes but they do not give you cancer, make it hard for someone to breathe, or reduce life expectancy. When automobiles are advertised, there is something positive to say about them. They transport people from one location to another, manufacturers are coming up with more fuel efficient models and the safety of many vehicles is being improved. When cigarettes are advertised, there is absolutely nothing good to say about them. They influence children in a negative way and put many lives in danger; people that don't even smoke. 53,800 people a year die from second hand smoking. Banning the advertisement of them will not "make children automatically decide that cigarettes are bad" but it will reduce the positive influence that they give off. Some children are not lucky enough to have guidance from a parent or guardian, so how are the supposed to know any differently if they are told by television commercials and radio ads that cigarettes are good? There is a way to prevent car crashes if someone drives, there is no way to prevent health problems if one smokes. If a product is harmful to a person's health it should not be advertised in a positive way.

I barely even know what the fuï¿½k you even said. How does smoking around kids cause people to go postal at their job? And that era of cancer victims, tar breath and retardation is here now. And I'm pretty sure you pulled retardation out of the top of your head. PS, you should really try out this thing called grammar/punctuation, its pretty cool. And if NO ONE IN ALL CAPS believes me, ask the man named Phil in my basement.

Should the same laws regarding cigarettes be used for the use of smokeless tobacco? I say no. Personally, I'm a supporter of let smokers smoke, but I do understand why they tax cigarettes more heavily than other items. Cigarettes have been proven to harm people other than the person smoking. Second hand smoke has been linked to lung cancer and various other health problems. Third hand smoke is the stuff that lingers on the clothes of a smoker, and it also can cause health problems, especially to infants. However, smokeless tobacco only harms the person who is using the smokeless tobacco. I find it disgusting, but there is no reason to tax smokeless tobacco as heavily as cigarettes and other forms of smoking tobacco. I understand, smokeless tobacco is just as harmful to the person using it as cigarettes, but that's a personal prerogative. If the user chooses to risk his/her life using a product proven to cause gum/mouth cancer and gum disease, then why stop them? They are hurting no one but themselves.

I'm not sure if you are joking or not but if you aren't please propose a genuine case in round two.The argument that it's a waste of money fails because nearly every single luxury item is a waste of money if we don't believe in the benefits of emotional pleasure. You would have to disprove the entire performing arts and all pleasure-based being abolished to prove it to be a waste of money.Cigars do not cause cancer, over-using them does. this is the consumer's issue and there is therapy for those addicted to any form of nicotine (this opening up in demand for therapy jobs decreases unemployment by increasing demand for them).Cigars are also extremely important to many Caribbean cultures and are almost as sacred as the shisha is to the Arabs, beer is to the Germans and wine is to the french. Whilst it does harm health we have to respect different people's beliefs before outright declaring something illegal for no apparent reason.

you are right there are many other thing that Pollution the air but we schould try and stop that littles thing and no we cant stop cars form driveing by and yes there is a non somking and somking places but the somke is still and the air we schould try and stop somkimg there is a lot of other thing we should try it stop to also you and a child are diffent a child is going to want to do waht a adult do you know its and wrong and why its wrong if you talk to your child about why somkeing bad and the child see other people do it what the point of talking to it then Reducing adult smoking may eliminate role models who lead children to light up Smoking can harm our bodies in many ways, but it is especially harmful to the lungs of a person with asthmas. Tobacco smoke is a powerful trigger of asthma symptoms. That is why I am extremely agreed that, smoking should be ban form public places Usually, smokings are allowed at the sideways, restaurant and also at the community centers. These places have many people including the children. Let says, there is a smoker at those places; automatically the people surroundings will be the secondhand smoker. Usually, people don't smoke because they understand the danger of smoking. But, what we worried about is the secondhand smoker. It is because the secondhand smoke may be the main factor in causing to a number of health problems. Mostly, the secondhand smoke will irritate our lungs and it also can reduce the oxygen in our blood. people should not somek and publice place also second hand somke. The secondhand smokes also will effects for the other people especially the children. we do not need people who somke around use or our kids .

Firstly, regarding passive smoking. This is why smoking in public places is already illegal, it is not a reason to completely make cigars illegal if smoked privately with other consenting smokers."If a smoker wanted to still smoke he could still move to a different country to live in." It is unfair to command a smoker to move countries simply because they want to smoke a cigar as opposed to a cigarette, it is also a violation of personal liberty and disrespecting that many living in USA may want their heritage respected and valued as part of society."If adults also smoke they make there[their] house more unpleasant making them anti-social." Smoking in front of children is already illegal and advised against. This is actually a form of child abuse (to smoke in their face). This is why most parents smoke outside in the back garden for house or balcony for apartment to avoid choking their children, this is also not a reason to make cigars illegal.

Thank you for your response. Smoking and Health Con said, "Thus, again, if we are to follow Pro's logic, then all these things should be banned because they are dangerous and harmful." But they are not as dangerous as smoking. Smoking should be banned because it can cause more negative things than the activities you mentioned. "Just because A is illegal and is considered less dangerous than B, that doesn't therefore follow that B should be illegal too." "To ban smoking just because it is dangerous and harmful, would mean that we would have to ban just about nearly everything else too." You just contradicted yourself. When I said that smoking should be illegal, you said that there are other things that also give negative impact on your money, health, beauty, and the environment, so should be banned to. But then you said this. So considering your previous argument, you didn't give a good reason why smoking should not be banned, and you also pointed why surfing or motorcycling shouldn't be banned if smoking is banned. And to add that, smoking is more dangerous than the things you mentioned earlier. (1) The things you mentioned are less dangerous than smoking. And most of it have some positive impact on us. (2) I agree on freedom of choice. But the government should care for the people's welfare. Sometimes the government have to give boundaries. And this also contradicts your previous argument. Freedom of choice means the government shouldn't ban everything you mentioned. But smoking is bad for many aspects in your life. Smoking and Beauty I said in R2 that smoking should be banned because it causes negative impacts on the smoker, non smoker, and the environment. Coffee just costs you beauty. And I clearly didn't say that anything that causes only one of those negative impacts should be banned too. Smoking and Money Buying a cigarette smoke is a waste of money because it's like buying poison. Other things that cost money can benefit us, like foods, homes, and clothes. Smoking and IQ The things you mentioned are just bad in a couple of aspects. Smoking is bad in many aspects. The government should only ban something that have many negative impacts for us. There have been numerous studies which proved that smoking is bad for your IQ. Besides that, smoking often causes anxiety, irritability, and depression on a person.[1] Smoking and Fires Other things that can create fires have a few positive impacts on us. And smoking do have a few positive impacts I see. Smoking can prevent us from having a few diseases, like Parkinson's. Who wants to increase his/her risks of heart attack and lung cancer so he/she could prevent having some minor disease? Those positive impacts are not great. Smoking and Babies Women that are not pregnant can get pregnant in the future. And Con said that men shouldn't smoke near pregnant women, not banning smoking. But people are usually not aware that there are pregnant women near them, so not smoking in the first place is better. Smoking and Children "Moreover, recall that I said that if we should ban something just because it may influence children, then numerous other things should be banned as well." Smoking doesn't just influence children, it can cost numerous other things that is bad. And those things you said is less dangerous than smoking. Smoking and Death Those positive impacts are not so great. It is true smoking can prevent Parkinson's. But it increases the risks of heart attack and lung cancer too. Despite the risks of automobiles and surfing, if we are more careful, the risk can be lowered. So they should not be banned, as everything you mentioned. Smoking and Environment Paper has a much more positive impact on us than smoking. Even Con know it himself. It gives us knowledge, write out our feelings, and much more. And I know crime is a side effect, but the punishment shouldn't be to tough, such as fines. And banning smoking can help people who are trying to quit smoking. Smoking and Economy What you just said about that is probably true, but there are hundreds of dollars lost every year because of smoking if we don't count the non smokers. Nobody knows exactly how much money do non smokers take from the government, so it is very hard to say whether smoking is good or bad for the economy. Conclusion Con was trying to refute my argument with other examples. But those examples should not be banned if smoking is banned because of my reasons above. And smoking is not bad because it just costs you money or health. It's because smoking costs you your health, beauty, money, environment, and more. Thank you, Con, for participating in this debate. Because this is my very first debate (online and real life), I hope you can forgive me if I make some mistakes. 1. http://www.chantixsite.net...

I have numerous reasons why we shouldn't smoke, here are the reasons : Point 1 : The negative effects of smoking on the smoker Smoking can give over 25 health problems to the smoker. Some of those health problems are heart attack, stroke, and lung cancer. Those diseases are caused by the 4,000 chemicals in a cigarette smoke that cause problems to human cells. [1] Around 6 million deaths a year are caused by tobacco. [2] Smoking also costs the smoker's beauty, because : 1. Smoking ages you. 2. Smoking depletes the collagen in your skin. 3. Smoking thins the skin. 4. Smoking can alter your body shape. [3] Smoking costs the smoker's money. He/she will have to pay : 1. The cigarette smoke itself. One packet of 25 cigarettes costs around $14 and the price keeps rising. 2. The hospital bills for later when you're sick because of smoking. 3. The dentist bill so that your teeth could be cleaned professionally. 4. The cleaning bills for your house, car, and clothes that will stink of cigarette smoke. 5. The redecorating fees. Smoking can make you redecorate more often because smoking inside your house discolors the paint and wallpapers. [4] Smoking can lower your IQ, too. [5] Lastly, smoking can create fires. Every year, almost 1,000 smokers and non-smokers are killed in home fires caused by cigarettes and other smoking materials. [6] Point 2 : The negative effects of smoking on non-smokers Passive smoking is as dangerous as smoking itself. Smoking causes approximately 600,000 deaths of passive smoker. One third of those are children. [7] Smoking can cause stillbirth, premature delivery, and low birth weight to babies if their mothers smoke during pregnancy. [8] Smoking can also influence children to smoke. [9] Point 3 : The negative effects of smoking on the environment Smoking causes air, land, and water pollution. Just to produce 300 cigarettes, one tree is wasted. Energy and water are also wasted for the production of cigarettes. [10] Conclusion Smoking should be banned in all states in the USA because it causes negative effects on the smoker, non-smokers, and the environment. 1. . http://uk.prweb.com... 2. . http://www.inforesearchlab.com... 3. . http://www.ivillage.co.uk... 4. . http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au... 5. . http://doctor.ndtv.com... 6. . http://www.usfa.fema.gov... 7. . http://www.bbc.co.uk... 8. . http://www.babycenter.com... 9. . http://www.redorbit.com... 10. . http://smoking.ygoy.com...


Question: Is it Safe to Vape with Electronic Cigarettes?

Should e-cigarettes be accessible to all individuals? I must respectfully disagree. The CDC and NCBI have conducted studies indicating that e-cigarettes might contribute to nicotine addiction and are unlikely to deter traditional cigarette smoking among adolescents. Moreover, the CDC's verified data reveals a significant increase in e-cigarette usage from 4.5 percent in 2013 to 13.4 percent in 2014. You assert that the e-cigarette "juice" is harmless; do you have any evidence to support this claim? If you do, I would strongly encourage you to provide solid proof. There are valid reasons why e-cigarettes carry similar risks for nicotine addiction, and a synthetic substance like e-liquid or propylene glycol is not devoid of health consequences. Your defense of using e-juice appears to lack concrete evidence and is rather speculative. Can you refute this?

I accept. I will be arguing that tobacco should not be banned due to an individual's right to choose what to put into their body. If anything, tobacco should be regulated due to second hand smoke issues, but not completely banned.Please state your case.

"I see my opponent has got the personal attack game accomplished with his little "Furthermore, who cares what kind you like? ", well who the hell cares about your existence? Anyways. " In a debate where you are arguing about law, an opinion of a flavour does not matter. The second part is Ad Hominem and doesn't matter. Let's begin with the counterpoints 1. " I never said the F. D. A. is banning it. At all. The Title is The F. D. A. SHOULD NOT ban flavored dip. Never said they ARE or going to. The title does not imply that they Will, but the PROPOSED BAN DOES. " The title does imply that they will, and that you don't agree with it, therefore my point remains valid. 2. "My opponent's 3'rd argument is extremely improper" No it isn't. It wasn't an argument. it was a summary of your paragraph. 3. "My opponents 4'th so called "point" was that i did not provide any evidence. This is correct. " I could just stop debating right here, because he just admitted that he has no evidence, but i won't. If you do not have any evidence, you don't have an argument. 4. "My opponent must also be a stickler about technicalities also. " Yes i am. "He tried quoting me and failed at that" I was paraphrasing, and i succeeded. "My whole platoon dips. So therefore everyone i see and am surrounded by in the USMC dips. " That is not what you said. In that quote, you limited it to your platoon in the marines, and before you said "Here in the Marine Corps and pretty much every military branch everyone walks around with a fatty pinch in. " That insinuates that in the marines and most other branches, every single person has a dip in. 5. "My opponents little "Contention" was one of the most hysterical things i have ever seen. " I'm glad you had fun while reading my debate. "First off it is just the flavor. Fruits arent the only dip flavors bub. There is wintergreen, mint, whiskey, bourbon. " I was just using fruit as an example because it is the most common. "Bub the reason they are fruit flavored is because most people like that instead of the burn from the hardcore dips. " I agree. Not having the burn makes it easier to chew, children have a lower tollerance for pain, so they are more likely to try the one that will give them less pain. "There is no reason to ban flavored dips because 24 kids might try that instead of a straight dip" Where did you get that number from? There is a reason, and that is that children are more likely to try it if they are there. You have posted Ad hominems but little else. This was. .. interesting. I had fun

Conclusion Gas cars have the advantage of being around a lot longer and have been tested a lot longer for safety. When people are shopping for new cars, safety is number one on their list to look out for. With electric cars they aren't the safest cars around and can make people think twice about purchasing them. Expenses I know shopping for a new can be expensive but if you know how to shop car with the best unities you can save some money. The car doesn't have to be $30,000 dollars to get great benefits from it you can get a reasonable well working car for just $13,000. If you can buy a new car that has great gas mileage you can save thousands of dollars year round. Another great benefit that will save you money is that some car dealerships give free oil changes every few months which save money a good amount of money. Maintenance Electric cars do require maintenance, maybe not as often but they still need it. With electric cars it can be more costly because they supplies that electric cars needs are different from gas cars so most mechanics only deal with gas cars. Since gas cars have been around longer mostly mechanic only specialize with gas cars and not electric. It's hard to find a mechanics where you live that also looks after electric cars. In the future I'm sure there will be a lot more auto shops that will deal with electric cars but for now there aren't that many. Safety Since electric cars a new to the market, gas cars a much safer to be driving on the road today. This especially, is a serious issue for person who is driving the car has an infant in the backseat. Safety comes first when you, your families and friends life are on the line. Distance A very important matter when it comes to drive is how far you are able to go. You a security blanket when you are driving on a road trip or have long commute hours every day to know that you can fill up your tank at any time if your tank gets low. There are more gas stations are every corner then there is charging units for smart cars. Driving a smart car is risky when you have to drive for long amounts of the day. Environment In a way electric cars still do harm the environment with their very toxic batteries. Yes, electric cars don't run on gas but people fail to see that these batteries in these cars can affect the environment badly if they aren't disposed of properly. Since, now there isn't really a safe way to get rid of these batteries carefully now isn't a good time to buy these cars. Maybe in the future when there are more people who are educated with these types of cars like mechanics, when there are more electric charging stations available, and more HOV lanes available in more states, have higher safety ratings and a safe way to dispose of these batteries then these cars can be a truly good way to help the environment. However, now just isn't the right time to have these on the road because in the end are they really doing more good than harm?

Obviously, tobacco is bad for you. But that doesn't mean it should be banned. People should still have a right to do what they want to themselves. We've given them several warnings. Now, it's up to them to see if they help or harm themselves.One problem that arises from a total and complete smoking ban is this:HOW COULD WE ENFORCE IT?There's really no way we could. It would just be a continuation of the failed war on drugs. Finally, if people want to smoke, they deserve the consequences.

Show me the Constitutional amendment that says a ban on the sale of cigarettes is unconstitutional. It's not the first, since free speech doesn't cover odors. It's not the fourth, since we wouldn't have to break into homes to stop the sale of tobacco. It's not the 21st, that is about alcohol. Despite popular belief, there is no verse in the Constitution that straight-out says "You may do whatever you want." Many things have been around for dozens, if not hundreds, of years, but are now illegal or discouraged to sell because of recent science. For example, lead-based gasoline, lead crystal glass, and asbestos. A ban on the sale of tobacco would put an end to this needless, deadly, and highly-addictive ritual. When people smoke, they don't gain anything, other than a satisfaction of an addiction that wouldn't even exist if they haven't tried it in the first place. Kill it at the source. There will be no new smokers if there is no place for them to get cigarettes. People who are already hooked can be weaned by therapy, or by using of the many cigarette alternatives, such as Nicorette or E-Cigarettes.

Based from research completed at the United States Environmental Assessment Center, Dihydrogen monoxide: •is also known as hydric acid, and is the major component of acid rain. •contributes to the Greenhouse Effect. •may cause severe burns. •accelerates corrosion and rusting of many metals. •may cause electrical failures and decreased effectiveness of automobile brakes. •has been found in excised tumors of terminal cancer patients. Additionally, dihydrogen monoxide is found in many of the foods we eat, used as a solvent in most pesticides (and cannot be removed even after washing. ) Athletes use dihydrogen monoxide as a performance enhancing substance, a leading component in all alcoholic beverages, and also sold as a main ingredient in household cleaners. Inhalation of this chemical can cause almost certain death if medical treatment is not administered immediately. For those who have become dependent, dihydrogen monoxide withdrawal means almost certain death. The worst part is that it is found in every lake, river, and ocean. I propose that this substance should be banned, and more information about this dangerous chemical can be found at www. dhmo. org and . http://www.netreach.net...

Cigarettes' hazard comes from their addictive nature, which cannot take place without the innate human desire. From this, it can be concluded that it is not the action of smoking that affects the human health directly, but rather, the elements of human desire that fuel the human to keep doing what might be hazardous. If the act of smoking itself is deadly, as you say, then it should be capable of killing people regardless of the presence of human desire. Again, since the presence of human desire is the ultimate source of addiction, human desire should be considered to be carrying more risk than cigarettes are. If you had said that the substances in the cigarettes are bad for human bodies, then it would have made more sense than to having said that the act of smoking, itself, leads people to DEATH. If you want to continue with the debate, I'm more than fine. However, if you are intending to keep forfeiting the rounds, I don't see any reason to continue such a debate, a debate in which only one side is engaged, that is.

What facts? That in your opinion smoking is unpleasent and disgusting? That smoking causes chance of death? Everything has a chance to kill everybody. It all boils down to how much money you are willing to spends/how much force you are willing to use to prevent your own, inevitable death from occuring. If people don't want to work where smoking is allowed, they can find work elsewhere. No case has been presented that adequately explains why the ban on smoking would be worth the cease of our personal liberty.

you have a cell phone yourself and I don't see you having a seizure every time you check a text or text someone a smiley face geez Antonio .....NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF THAT PHONES ARE HARMFUL thanks for using your imagination Mitch

There are no viruses.There never has been any viruses in the past and there wont be any viruses in the future. That's because viruses don't exist. Viruses are just made up nonsense by the medical establishment and pharmaceutical companies so that they can make huge mega-dollars out of gullible people with drugs and vaccines. (Only people with some life experience can apply. That means no 16 year olds thanks.)


Question: Is it Safe to Vape with Electronic Cigarettes?

All forms of smoking, including e-cigarettes and marijuana, should be prohibited. To respond to your concerns about the safety of vaping: There's a significant distinction between a substance potentially having adverse effects on unhealthy individuals and a substance conclusively causing cancer. The hazards associated with smoking are far greater than those of vaping, akin to the risks of walking on a busy highway versus walking on a sidewalk. Vaping is generally considered safe, and the arguments you've raised against its safety could equally apply to caffeinated drinks and fast food, implying that you might also advocate for their prohibition. You have yet to construct a compelling argument for why smoking and vaping should be banned. Your previous statement was ambiguous; you initially suggested that smoking and vaping should be illegal, but now it seems you only want them to be illegal when someone else is nearby. What if that person is also smoking or vaping? Would it still be considered a crime? Are you suggesting that if someone is smoking or vaping in their own home with others present, it should be a criminal offense? You need to clarify your stance. You should also justify why you believe these activities should be illegal. Laws that restrict activities that only harm the individual engaging in them (assuming they are aware of the risks) are unjust. This is evident in our drug laws, which have often caused more harm to society than the drugs themselves. If I am smoking in my home, in my car, or alone on a street corner, no one else is affected except for me. This is particularly true for vaping, as vapor does not linger and the vaporizer ceases emitting fumes when I am not using it. If you believe that smoking near others should be illegal, then should a smoker be arrested if I approach them while they are smoking? Are you referring to smoking in public buildings? If so, that is already prohibited to protect workers from concentrated smoke exposure.

CONTENTION ONE: DEATHThe mortality rate for smokers in the United States is three times higher nonsmokers. Cigarettes are estimated to be the cause of 20% of deaths in the United States, every year, or 480,000 deaths [1].Cigarettes have no major redeeming health benefits.Syllogism:P1: Things that cause death without major redeeming health benefits should be illegal.P2: Cigarettes cause death without major redeeming health benefits.C1: Cigarettes should be illegal.CONTENTION TWO: "CIGARETS"So-called "cigarets" do not exist. I have never heard of them. (Cigarettes, on the other hand, are pure evil.)We should ban all imaginary things.Imagine if unicorns started popping up around the United States. People would probably get impaled or something. And they'd probably be smoking some cigarets as they brutally murdered schoolchildren, with carrots.Thus, we must ban unicorns and "cigarets".REFERENCES[1] http://www.cdc.gov...;

Your assertion of the debate is that mining is a relatively safe occupation, but relative to what? It's not safe relative to toilet paper testers. In fact, I can actually bring statistics to show that it is actually far more dangerous. How many miners die per year? What percentage of miners get asbestos or other mining related illnesses? This is from an independent Indonesian website: Pada tahun pertama saja kita melihat bahwa 19% dari semua penguji kertas toilet akan kontrak penyakit mematikan. Selama rentang 10 tahun kita telah melihat bahwa hanya di bawah setengah (48,2%) dari semua penguji kertas toilet mati [1.] Translation: "In the first year alone we see that 19% of all toilet paper testers will contract a lethal disease. Over a 10 year span we have seen that just under half (48.2%) of all toilet paper testers are dead from job-related illnesses." [1.] This was from an independent Chinese website where many toilet paper testers are employed. Upon doing the research of how many miners die over a 10 year span from job related illnesses you will that 48.2% figure is far larger than the amount of miners that die from job related illnesses over a 10 year period. www.npr.org " News " Health Apr 16, 2010 - "Mindful of the grief and anger surrounding the death of the 29 miners at the Upper Big ... in 2006, Attfield found that 4 percent of 1,000 miners tested had advanced pneumoconiosis." This is just one example in one particular case, but it gives you perspective of the 4% of miners battling job-related illnesses vs. the 19% of job-related illnesses that toilet paper testers suffer. [1.] http://m.inilah.com...

Thanks, I just love it how you reject a peer reviewed academic study because you reckon it can't be that bad, although, that's probably my fault as I didn't realise the link I sited didn't work; sorry, here it is for you to read http://www.ecoconnect.org.uk... :). Notice how it supports my point and confirms that electric cars are currently more expensive than regular ones, even though it was commissioned by the low carbon vehicle partnership, whom wanted to prove the opposite. Quite a contrast from your source of Electric Vehicle Association of Canada, who lead with the nice unbiased catchphrase of 'Convert to electric propulsion!' Indeed it would be handy for you to share with us the study from which this is from, I couldn't find it anywhere.The environmental viability fallacy.Perhaps the most extensive study ever done on the environmental electric cars was conducted by the The Norwegian University of Science and Technology [1], whose research shows that whilst converting to electric vehicles would offer, assuming that all of the cars have an extra long life, a 10% to 24% decrease in global warming potential (Contrary to the cutting of 'carbon emission roughly in half' which you purport), this would be however, from an ecology perspective, proverbially jumping from the frying pan into the fire. This is because 'Electric Vehicles exhibit the potential for significant increases in human toxicity, freshwater Eco-toxicity, freshwater eutrophication, and metal depletion impacts'. In fact the environmental effect that a conversion to electric would have with current technology, would have a far greater ecologically damaging affect to our environment than global warming.Key Facts about Dioxins in relation to human toxicity [2]'- Dioxins are a group of chemically-related compounds that are persistent environmental pollutants (POPs)- Dioxins are found throughout the world in the environment and they accumulate in the food chain, mainly in the fatty tissue of animals.- More than 90% of human exposure is through food, mainly meat and dairy products, fish and shellfish. Many national authorities have programmes in place to monitor the food supply.- Dioxins are highly toxic and can cause reproductive and developmental problems, damage the immune system, interfere with hormones and also cause cancer.- Due to the omnipresence of dioxins, all people have background exposure, which is not expected to affect human health. However, due to the highly toxic potential, efforts need to be undertaken to reduce current background exposure.-Prevention or reduction of human exposure is best done via source-directed measures, i.e. strict control of industrial processes to reduce formation of dioxins.'The vast amounts of dioxins that would be released into the atmosphere, should everyone drive an electric car, would be disastrous with the consequences of this toxin reaching to levels in which humans would be affected.If you don't care about animals dying or global food chains breaking down due to freshwater Eco-toxicity, freshwater eutrophication and human toxicity; and your equally indifferent about massive boosts to world human reproductive problems, developmental problems,immune system issues, and skyrocketing cancer levels, then perhaps you care about the metal depletion impacts. Metal depletion sounds better than it is; research indicates that even the full extraction of metals from the Earth's crust and extensive recycling may not be enough to meet metal demands in the future[3]. This is such a concern in the production of current electric cars that if the billion cars that exist in the world today [4] were to be matched and replaced by electric vehicles, the world would face a metal depletion crises, that's why even the idea of the production of that many electric cars is self-defeating as eventually their production would have to be halted, in order to divert resources to necessary industries. The electric car of today is the cause of its own demise. Many of these issues are not considered or come to mind when talking about electric cars simply because they are not huge, global issues that we hear about everyday, but they are very substancial in the production of the electric car; fortunately not enough of them are produced in order to make a damaging impact to world at the moment, but the effects are very real, and should we cary out production on a massive scale, the effect would truly be devestating. Not only that but the carbon emissions case for electric vehicles is also misleading, indeed 'An assumption of 100,000km per car decreases the benefit of electric vehicles to results in impacts indistinguishable from those of a diesel vehicle.' [1][1] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com... [2] http://www.who.int... - World Health Organisation[3] http://www.pnas.org... [4] http://wardsauto.com... Research into the dire effects of eutrophication:http://pubs.acs.org... http://teaching.ust.hk... NB – Here is another Forbes article which reads with the headline 'Electric Cars Are An Extraordinarily Bad Idea' http://www.forbes.com...

To conclude: Point One: Harm and Environment Smoking should be ban, or at least, be discouraged as it harms the health of other people. Eliminating smoking in our culture can help to increase people's health. Imagine a non smoking community, how lovely it would be. Imagine if your future children or your children (if you have) will not be engaged in smoking, that will be a benefit, too. Smoking is not something an individual will look for if he/she does not see it in his/her environment. Its something more on influence, so, if you have a community or a family of non smoker, definitely, smoking won't be part of that person's life. Smoking is more deadly than alcohol, in fact, alcohol has more benefits than smoking cigarette. Alcohol: When taken moderately, you can have the benefits Cigarette: The moment you smoke, the moment you'll receive its deadly toxins little by little. Even when its for first and last, and worse, when you become addicted to it. 2) Banning smoking won't kill Freedom Banning smoking will only help as it discourages people not to smoke, which would mean, for healthy benefits. The presented argument on Round 2 of mine will show the negative effects of smoking, and if you avoid smoking, then, you are saved from those negative effects. As also said, smoking is not something a non smoker would just look for, rather, by influence. If people won't even love or embrace smoking in their life, then, the next generation will eventually won't embrace it, too. 3) Money loss or Innovation? Unemployment or Opportunity? To ban smoking means to look for an alternative use of tobacco in such a way it would be useful. If banning of cigarettes would be implemented, then factories of cigarettes will be encouraged to find alternative - well, the government can help if they want to. Thanks and God bless to all! :)

well, at least I get to state my argument in 2Cnd, 3rd, and 4th round. I'll probably PM you to "provide your arguments and rebuttal in this round" (As said by the instigator himself, Because "I" in your perspective is Mastery, while "You" in your perspective is me. You'll only have 5th round to conclusion with no new arguments. :P (unless you want a full 7-point forfeit) "3rd round-Pro Argument & Rebuttal. Provide your arguments and rebuttal in this round. Again, please cite research provide evidence for arguments." "Provide YOUR arguments and rebuttal in this round..." "YOUR arguments and rebuttal" "Rule breakage will result into a full 7 point loss unless forgiven by the opponent..." (I will not forgive this error. Sorry. It's your mistake. :P) ",..FULL 7 point loss..." Now, to the argument--I argue smoking should not be banned. There are too many people who are addicted to smoking, In 2012, 967 million people were reported to smoke every day, as stated by http://www.bbc.com.... Banning smoking would only allow it even furthermore. Why is this? Well, you all can probably remember what happened when alcohol was banned--everyone attempted to hide it illegally, and children were on the same scale as adults--any age was prohibited to drink. But after the US allowed alcohol, children cannot get it now, showing a definite positive effect. Smoking is similar to alcohol, both being "consumed" by many many people around the world and both have negative effects. While you may argue it is "only is public places", smoking is hard to control, and it would be hard to track those people who smoke in secret. Smoking is nearly impossible to get rid of, especially the addiction. Banning it in public and placing a fine on it would not work, people can still smoke in private, obtaining all your risks and dangers. If you wanted a strong argument, you should have said "ban smoking altogether", while that may be hard to control, it at least supports your health statements and your implication that if smoking was banned in public, people will be healthier. But this is not the case-- you are merely banning smoking in public, not exactly making everyone healthier. I conclude round 2, and will PM you so that you can provide my arguments and rebuttals in the 3rd round. Thank you.

Studies has shown that smoking marijuana doesn't harm you as much as alcohol. We still see teenagers holding a bottle of vodka passed out of their minds and looking the other way we see two people sharing some marijuana, the two people are relaxed and has not crossed the precipice of where you are wasted out of your mind, the teenager holding a vodka is sleeping on the sidewalk, the teenagers precipice was crossed when he/she started to drink.

In conclusion, smoking should be illegal. 1. Making smoking illegal protects innocent bystanders from the dangers of second hand smoking. 2. We don't have the time and resources to study the harmful impact of smoking. It's therefore the government's duty to conduct the necessary study and research. And then it's their job to take action in light of their findings.

"Polio was once America's most-feared disease, causing death and paralysis across the country, but today, thanks to vaccination, there are no reports of polio in the United States." In recent years people have been becoming "anti-vaxxers" These people do not vaccinate their children, but getting back on topic, vaccines can save lives, and they are completely safe. According To most anti vaccine sites I have visited most people just want vaccines to be their choice. Vaccines don't just stop you from getting sick, it helps those who don't vaccinate. There is a thing called herd immunity, if enough people get vaccinated, it can stop a disease from spreading to people who do not vaccinate. But if more people do not vaccinate, it can get though, and sicken the people who do not vaccinate. Causing unnecessary sickness and disease. Vaccines are safe and effective. The only danger is an allergic reaction. There is no mercury or toxic substances in vaccines. Vaccines are safe, and effective.

I will add only add one more point in this round. A study found that THC, the main psychoactive substance found within cannabis, may actually strengthen one's nicotine addiction. In essence, if a person tried to wean themselves off of tobacco using marijuana, they would be more inclined to relapse and return back to smoking tobacco, thus defeating the object of using marijuana as an alternative. Source: http://www.hightimes.com...

There are many things that affect your health on a 'secondary' reason. Pollution being one of them. You breath toxic fumes every time a car passes by. Should we ban these? Then we'd have to do the same for campfires, mills, factories, vehicle exhausts and soon we'll be so afraid of smoke we'll all have to get personal glass bubbles. As it is, many places have smoking sections and non smoking sections. There you have it. You are separated from the smokers. And yet again I think you are seriously overestimating how easily kids are influenced. I pass by people who smoke everyday and I've never lit a cigarette in my life. If you just want to avoid a difficult discussion with your kids about why people smoke even though It's bad for them I suggest just you don't have kids, because your going to find there are many more difficult things headed your way in the "special talk" department.


Question: Are electronic cigarettes a safe alternative for vaping?

Is vaping with e-cigarettes a safe alternative?

Vaping, or using e-cigarettes, might seem like a safer alternative to smoking traditional cigarettes, but is it really? The truth is, vaping isn't as harmless as it's often portrayed. E-cigarettes contain nicotine, a highly addictive substance that can have detrimental effects on our health. Nicotine is a potent poison that can cause severe harm, even in small quantities. In vaping, nicotine is inhaled in aerosol form, which can still have adverse effects on our well-being.

E-cigarettes also contain other harmful chemicals that can impact our health negatively. These chemicals can mix together and create a sticky residue, similar to the tar found in traditional cigarettes. This residue can adhere to our lungs and cause respiratory issues. The chemicals in e-cigarettes have been linked to various diseases, including lung cancer, heart disease, and respiratory problems.

Vaping isn't just harmful to the user; second-hand vapor can also have negative effects on those around them. Second-hand vapor can contain harmful chemicals that can cause health issues for non-vapers, similar to second-hand smoke from traditional cigarettes. This can lead to respiratory problems, asthma, and other health issues, especially in children and vulnerable populations.

Moreover, e-cigarettes have a significant environmental impact. The production and disposal of e-cigarettes contribute to pollution and waste. The lithium-ion batteries in e-cigarettes can be hazardous if not disposed of properly, leading to environmental contamination.

It's essential to consider the long-term effects of vaping, as the long-term health consequences are still being studied. Some studies suggest that vaping can lead to a higher risk of developing lung diseases, heart disease, and other health issues. The safety of vaping is still up for debate, and more research is needed to fully understand its effects.

In conclusion, vaping with e-cigarettes might seem like a safer alternative to smoking, but it's not without its risks. The presence of nicotine, harmful chemicals, and the potential for second-hand vapor to affect others make vaping a questionable choice. It's crucial to weigh the potential benefits against the risks before deciding to vape.

well, at least I get to state my argument in 2Cnd, 3rd, and 4th round. I'll probably PM you to "provide your arguments and rebuttal in this round" (As said by the instigator himself, Because "I" in your perspective is Mastery, while "You" in your perspective is me. You'll only have 5th round to conclusion with no new arguments. :P (unless you want a full 7-point forfeit) "3rd round-Pro Argument & Rebuttal. Provide your arguments and rebuttal in this round. Again, please cite research provide evidence for arguments." "Provide YOUR arguments and rebuttal in this round..." "YOUR arguments and rebuttal" "Rule breakage will result into a full 7 point loss unless forgiven by the opponent..." (I will not forgive this error. Sorry. It's your mistake. :P) ",..FULL 7 point loss..." Now, to the argument--I argue smoking should not be banned. There are too many people who are addicted to smoking, In 2012, 967 million people were reported to smoke every day, as stated by http://www.bbc.com.... Banning smoking would only allow it even furthermore. Why is this? Well, you all can probably remember what happened when alcohol was banned--everyone attempted to hide it illegally, and children were on the same scale as adults--any age was prohibited to drink. But after the US allowed alcohol, children cannot get it now, showing a definite positive effect. Smoking is similar to alcohol, both being "consumed" by many many people around the world and both have negative effects. While you may argue it is "only is public places", smoking is hard to control, and it would be hard to track those people who smoke in secret. Smoking is nearly impossible to get rid of, especially the addiction. Banning it in public and placing a fine on it would not work, people can still smoke in private, obtaining all your risks and dangers. If you wanted a strong argument, you should have said "ban smoking altogether", while that may be hard to control, it at least supports your health statements and your implication that if smoking was banned in public, people will be healthier. But this is not the case-- you are merely banning smoking in public, not exactly making everyone healthier. I conclude round 2, and will PM you so that you can provide my arguments and rebuttals in the 3rd round. Thank you.

(Again, dont really believe in this, but judge based on the arguments) First off, i'd just like to say that all my opponent did was rebut my argument and never presented any evidence that supported smoking being bad. In the last couple years the obesity epidemic in the US and the western world has being a serious problem. Studies have shown that smokers tend to be slimmer than others, Jodi Flaws at the university of maryland school of medicine "In many studies, you often find smokers are slimmer. We've certainly seen it in our studies......Some people think it's due to certain chemicals in cigarettes somehow making them burn more calories, but others believe it suppresses appetite. It may well be both." There is also scientific evidence to support that smoking helps stop a numberous variety of dimentias (a severe impairment or loss of intellectual capacity and personality integration, due to the loss of or damage to neurons in the brain.)"Many dementias go hand-in-hand with a loss of chemical receptors in the brain that just happen to be stimulated by nicotine. Smoking seems to bolster these receptors, and smokers have more of them." (Guardian Unlimited New Media) The studies show that smokers may have more to lose before they start losing their minds. "It does seem that nicotine has a preventative effect" says Roger Bullock, a specialist in dementia and director of the Kingshill Research Centre in Swindon.

I just want to apologize again for round two. "Ultimately, a government's core obligation is to the welfare of its people" Their job is to also protect the freedoms and rights of its people. My opponent, it, arguing that because smoking can be dangerous to the smokers it should be banned. Yes, it can be dangerous, but it should not be banned. People should be taught about the risks, but banning it won't make everyone stop. The people should be able to make the choices that they want to do. My opponent also brought up the idea that if tobacco products are banned that basically the spending would go down. Yes, some people will stop buying which will cause it to go down, but not everyone will stop. They will find a way to buy or make it even if it's banned, like during the prohibition of alcohol. They said in their implementation they said "Years 6-15 I would allow sales of tobacco to users who could demonstrate that they were clinically addicted to tobacco and needed to continue to purchase the product to avoid withdrawal." How would they be able to prove they are clinically addicted. They also said "I would also subsidize programs to help people go through withdrawal, just give those people an alternative to smoking." What sort of alternatives would give to the people? The war on smoking is almost as useless as the war on marijuana, except it's not as ridiculous. My opponent wants to ban smoking, and if we do that history will repeat itself. Even though states are starting to legalize marijuana, its still illegal in a lot of states. The ban has not stopped people from smoking it. There was the prohibition which later failed. http://www.history.com...

Thanks for the response. Here are some new questions: Have you already contradicted yourself in this debate? Did I mention a substance that can be deemed harmful and usually subject to legal restriction? Do you believe that legendary/mythical creatures (i.e.: werewolves, witches, etc.) exist? Do you believe that I fooled you in any way throughout this debate? Do typical knights use helmets? Is this question visible to the naked eye? Do typical knights use horses? Do typical knights use swords? Are the three questions stated above factually correct? Based on the current situation, are you sure for a certainty that you’re really not going to contradict yourself in this debate?

Public healthcare, refers to the safety net provided by the government to ensure the well-being of the health of citizens. They are aimed to establish a harmonious, just and healthy society. According to the World Health Organization public healthcare refers to organized measures to prevent diseases and the public healthcare is aimed for the whole population, but NOT individual needs. As smokers are the "individuals", this motion should definitely stand. Before going onto my substantials, I would like to point out that the prohibition of the usage of public healthcare of smokers are only limited to smoking-related diseases. To begin with, smokers have their choice to choose smoking or not. Since young, schools have been educating the young the importance of health and how smoking would damage their body both physically or mentally. As educated persons, they should be able to differentiate between the good and the bad, what they should do and what they shouldn't. As they have chosen to walk on this path to the pit of misery, they should take up their own responsibility and solve their own problems, instead of relying and wasting the social resources. Moreover, the government has been devoted a lot of resources on setting up advertisement to discourage smoking and they have even printed the side effects of smoking on the boxes of cigarettes. Being told thousands of times not to smoke, if the smokers insist to smoke and value the pleasure of smoking over the importance of health, they should definitely depend on themselves when they get smoking related diseases - asthma, lung cancer.. I will continue my second point in the next round

Obviously, tobacco is bad for you. But that doesn't mean it should be banned. People should still have a right to do what they want to themselves. We've given them several warnings. Now, it's up to them to see if they help or harm themselves.One problem that arises from a total and complete smoking ban is this:HOW COULD WE ENFORCE IT?There's really no way we could. It would just be a continuation of the failed war on drugs. Finally, if people want to smoke, they deserve the consequences.

This is a speed debate, you will have ten minutes to post an argument, and you only have 500 characters.You will be arguing against a ban on tobacco products.Please try to use a size of at least three to make your argument more readable.Go right into your first argument.

My Opponent asked where I drew the conclusion that a smoker gets priority of a non-smoker in the street. Well that is simple neither the smoker nor the non smoker are breaking the law. Therefore if someone is smoking next to someone else it is up to the latter to remove himself from that situation if he does not approve. And in response to my opponent's example of comparing a man wielding a knife to a man smoking, well that is ludacris on many levels. And I believe that demonizing smokers to be "knife wielding lunatic " is unnecessary knowing said smoker did not break any laws to begin with. Defense1... my opponent stated "cigarettes themselves are not drugs, but instead are filled with drugs. Without these drugs you would not have a cigarette as there would be nothing to smoke." However if one were to remove all fillers there still would be tobacco to smoke. Which is a natural substance found all over the world. Further more I would like to thank my opponent for correcting his statement about jobs. However I would like to answer the question "would it not be commendable for a government to stop this industry and therefore free these people to pursue a more benevolent career and benefit themselves and their society in a manner which doesn't lead to the deaths of thousands of people" First I do not think I agree with your definition of free. regardless of the governments best intentions it would not at all be "free" to force these people to do something different. And further more they are in a occupation that benefits themselves or they would not be doing it. As for society Perhaps they are helping more then they are hurting by keeping the jobs that they have the right to keep. If they were forced out of their jobs then why not force out butchers for contributing to unhealthy diets? Defense 2. I am aware that poverty, starvation, homelessness are not new issues. As I have mentioned before by banning smoking it could cause economies around the world to crumble. Your example of children working for their family's in poverty stricken country's is perfect for proving my point while you see this as a bad thing, which it is. undoubtedly, but if you ban smoking your hurting that child more then if you didn't. By banning smoking your taking away that family's only job. now you have taken away their only source of income. What is to happen to them after they no longer can even afford one meal? as for the prohibition argument you claim that it would not happen because smokers are law abiding citizens and 70% of smokers want to quit anyway. You also state that comparing this to 1920's era was irrelevant because drinking was a lifestyle back then. Well first some smokers are law abiding citizens and some aren't. That statement alone proves that it could happen. But lets focus more on the 70% of smokers that want to quit. What about the other 30% they must represent some millions of people around the world, and they, the ones who do not desire to quit wouldn't take it upon themselves to profit from the banning? and as for the 70% that do wish to quit, how many of them would honestly pass up a pack of smokes if they had a chance to get some. Mind you even when they want to quit they choose not too. Defense 3. I will take this opportunity to show that yes my opponent did in fact contradict himself. In one statement it was claimed "tobacco companies have devised a method of using toilet bowl cleaner to ensure that this compound is properly diffused into your body" and in turn he also claims " it doesn't matter if other harmful chemicals are added by humans." while your first statement is suggesting that nicotine is diffused through a humans body because of the toilet bowl cleaner the tobacco companies are putting in it. Which would lead me to believe that your next statement that it doesn't matter if humans add their own chemicals because they bad stuff is already there. So if there weren't any toilet cleaner in said cigarette then by your own statement alone it would have a different chemical reaction then if the cleaner was there. Thus making it very important what humans add, and as I stated before calls for more regulations and a closer watch on the industry, however does not deserve an outright ban. Defense 4. My opponent claims that the 3 year old boy cant just get up and walk out and thus has to be exposed to second hand smoke. I agree with that statement. However I would like to argue two facts. 1. what about the hard working mothers that want their cigarettes and do not smoke in the house? should they be punished because some do? 2. Generations of people have grown up with smoke, and lived to tell about it. It should be noted that not all children die because of their parents habits. my opponent goes on to say "It is then claimed that heart disease is the leading cause of preventable death in the world. In fact, hypertension is whilst an offshoot of heart disease" Ok studies also show that a bad diet is directly involved as well. So lets go out and ban red meat, sugar, pop, candy ect.. the point I am making is that while it contributes the smoker has a choice if they want to smoke or not. and as for the stress reliving part perhaps my opponent should read a little further down in his own reference site. which could be found at http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... on that very same site it states and I quote "Depending on the circumstances and the amount consumed, nicotine can act as either a stimulant or tranquilizer. This can explain why some people report that smoking gives them energy and stimulates their mental activity, while others note that smoking relieves anxiety and relaxes them" Defense 5: My argument was solely based on an economical level. What people do with their own money is their own business and debating that it is wrong to spend any amount of personal money on smoking, is off topic, While I understand your OPINION that one shouldn't spend money on smoking. it is in their right to do so, and not what we are debating.

In conclusion, smoking should be illegal. 1. Making smoking illegal protects innocent bystanders from the dangers of second hand smoking. 2. We don't have the time and resources to study the harmful impact of smoking. It's therefore the government's duty to conduct the necessary study and research. And then it's their job to take action in light of their findings.

Niether inhaling nor exhaling will cause any infection of any description. This is mainly due to the fact that viruses don't exist. If my oponent can prove that viruses exist and are logical entities, Then he can easily win the debate. Good luck!


Question: Is it Safe to Vape with Electronic Cigarettes?

Vaping with e-cigarettes should be regulated due to safety concerns

1. Personal risk: Pro ignores the arguments on second-hand vapor and the fact that vaping may be less harmful than traditional smoking. However, if laws are passed to restrict vaping "for the individual's own good," we must question where we draw the line. Do we legislate against vaping in private homes? Against consuming foods that release carcinogens when cooked (like frying)? Eating unhealthy foods? Overeating? Being overweight? Excessive drinking (not just while driving)? Engaging in risky activities like skydiving, bungee-jumping, or riding motorcycles? How about drinking more than one cup of coffee per day? The problem with these examples is that they only affect the individual performing the action, not those around them. Moreover, as argued previously, some necessary risks affect others, such as "banning vaping may infringe on a person's individual right to behave as they please. Additionally, basing this prohibition on health reasons may be hypocritical when other substances that may pose similar or greater threats to health, such as alcohol and unhealthy foods, are allowed." This ignores the initial argument that vaping is less harmful than smoking, implying that smoking should be banned if vaping is restricted. In a utilitarian society, personal rights can be curtailed for the greater good of society, similar to restrictions on hate speech.

2. Second-hand vapor: Pro dismisses the argument by quoting a single expert to "debunk" widely accepted, peer-reviewed studies. Pro ignores the fact that the majority of studies support a causal link between second-hand vapor and adverse health effects like asthma, stroke, and lung cancer. Pro relies on a single example rather than considering the overwhelming evidence from multiple studies. (http://ntr.oxfordjournals.org...)(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...)(http://www.surgeongeneral.gov...) These are meta-studies that combine the results of many studies.

3. Business impact: Pro overlooks the previous argument that demonstrated smoking bans do not harm businesses. Pro merely restates the case without providing new evidence. The original argument from last round: Pro asserts that establishments like bars and restaurants will suffer reduced profits if a vaping ban is implemented. However, this is not the case: restaurant profits remained stable, and pub profits initially dipped but recovered in the long term. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...) This shows that economic issues do not arise from vaping bans.

4. Taxation: Although the highest tax per pack

The amount of deaths caused by alcohol is irrelevant to the use of marijuana. Although it doesn't directly cause death, it does harm the human body. Smoking anything is obviously not advantageous to your health. The use of marijuana causes distorted perceptions, impaired coordination, difficulty with thinking and problem solving, and problems with learning and memory. In addition, marijuana can become addictive after long-term use. It has been reported that when people have tried to quit they experience withdrawal symptoms such as anxiety, sleeplessness and irritability.

There are possible long-term health risks from using mobile phones. Some research suggests that the radio waves from mobile phones may harm people's brains. Because children's brains are still developing, any possible damage to them is even more worrying than for adults. It is true there is no total scientific proof about this, but it is better to play safe than take risks – the precautionary principle. Until science can prove mobile phones are completely safe for young people to use, they should not be allowed to have them.

Well, I agree that there are some dangers in smoking and using marijuana, mainly because there is always a risk that they could get caught with it, and has alot to deal with gang related material. but If Marijuana was legal, most of those dangers would disappear because that fear would no longer be there. Also, did you not read what I posted about how smoking marijuana reduces the chances of getting lung cancer, even more then a normal non-smoking person has. It has been proved that smoking marijuana has its advantages. Yes second hand smoke is dangerous to another persons health, but its not the smokers responsibility to make sure they are away from the smoke, that is why there are laws and such to help prevent second hand smoking, like staying away from certain buildings, and restrictions when it comes to smoking in certain area's its the person who decides to walk or be around the smokes fault they are getting the second hand smoke. I strongly believe that this world would be better if marijuana was legal because it would take so much controversy out of the way for us to focus on other things. If it was legal, mores scientists could be open to studying it.

You are correct smoking is not good for your health and I have nothing to prove that it is. However smoking is a choice, it should stay this way, I commonly complain about the government structure of England and America, one of my reasons is: who are you and I to vote away someone else's right to make decisions about how they treat their own body? I, myself am not a smoker, but I accept the fact that other people make the decision to smoke and I see the benefits of it. We, as a society are constantly looking to improve everyone else's lives, let them decide what they want to do, warn them of the dangers if you must but stop taking away our rights. It is a common fact that obesity is a problem commonly effecting Western society and causing lots of death through heart disease, diabetes and all sorts of other health problems. www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB4549.html As you can see in the above page, obesity is a bigger problem than smoking, drinking or poverty. Should we ban fatty foods, fast food restaurants? After all, you people seem to want to make everyone else more healthy, perhaps we should ban red meat altogether, ban alcohol as well, ban driving because it poses a potential risk of injury? There are risks everywhere, banning people from doing these activities is not the way to solve the problem. I would also like to state that a smoking ban is not practical. If you tried to ban smoking you would be encouraging more crime and slave labour as the tobacco producers abroad turn to criminals to sell their product. People will smoke regardless of the law, lives will be ruined because people will get a criminal record for smoking a leaf and they will consequently find it near impossible to get a job. I have only scratched the surface, I have many more arguments I am saving for later rounds but so far I have explained why banning smoking is impractical, unfair and unjustified.

I believe tobacco smoking should be banned to whatever extent is necessary. This would not include a person smoking in the privacy of their own home and not in the presence of children or anyone not wishing to be exposed to the smoke. Simply put, the ban I propose makes tobacco smoking illegal around children or anyone who does not wish to be smoked around. Con's argument may focus on particulars, I don't require that she argue for 100% legalization including around infants or anything. So long as, by and large, tobacco legalization is being argued for. Rules: 1. The first round will be used to agree to the rules and definitions. If there are any disagreements on either, they can be discussed in the Comments section before Con agrees to the debate, so they can be changed. 2. The remaining rounds will be used to debate. 3. Excessively semantic arguments should be avoided.

I don't see any proof that it's effective. No sources or pictures. I'm surprised you even had the courage to debate.

In this debate I will taking the position that smoking should be banned, whilst my opponent will be assuming the position that smoking should remain legal. Round 1 will consist of opening arguments solely and any definitions either side wishes to post. Round 2 will be for rebuttals and any further arguments. Round 3 will be for defences and further rebuttals. Round 4 will be for a summary of arguments and conclusion with final point. Round 1: Smoking - The inhalation of the smoke of the burning of tobacco encased in a cigarettes, pipes or cigars. (1) Point 1 -- There can be no doubt that smoking is harmful to ones health. Each year, nearly 6 million people die from tobacco, with 600,000 of those people non-smokers who were exposed to second hand smoke. One person dies every 6 seconds from a tobacco related illness (2) and the American Cancer Society has stated that more people die from smoking than AIDS, car crashes, alcohol, drug abuse, fires, suicides and murders combined each year. This startling fact should not come as a surprise to anyone who understand the effects that the some 4,000 chemicals in a typical cigarette have in the human body. Tar is a sticky black substance that forms deposits inside the lungs of those who inhale the smoke, causing lung cancer and a myriad of respiratory diseases. Carbon monoxide is a compound that reduces the amount of oxygen carried by the red blood cells leading to respiratory problems and can also damage the linings of the arteries, allowing fat to build up inside them, leading to a potential heart attack. These are just 2 of the other 200 "toxic" chemicals found in tobacco smoke. (3) Smokers are 22 times more likely to develop lung cancer. Moreover, smoking accounts for 14% of premature deaths and 10% of all infant deaths. It is clear from this evidence that smoking is extremely harmful to the human body and a responsibility of governments is to protect its people from harmful things. It is for this reason that cocaine, rape and speeding are all illegal and if the same logic was to be applied to this subject than tobacco products would join that group. Point 2 -- As briefly alluded to in some of the statistics above, smoking doesn't just effect smokes, it also affects those around them too. 600,000 non smokers die every year due to inhaling someone else's tobacco smoke. Why do they have to die? Moreover, 28% of children who died in 2004, had deaths attributable to second hand smoke. Is it fair for someone who wants to remain healthy, to have to share the street with a smoker who has no regard for the problems that their disgusting "habit" causes. If the claim to personal freedom is made, then why is the claim of non smokers being ignored? Point 3 -- Smoking also leads to impoverishment of those in lower income countries. 80% of smokers live in middle to lower income countries where the health care is at best, inadequate and therefore they carry the greatest burden. (4) In families from countries that fall into this category, children are sent out to work on the tobacco in order to gain money for the family. They are exposing themselves to the risk of contracting green tobacco sickness which is caused by absorbing the nicotine through the wet leaves. Additionally, the plethora of deaths caused by smoking means that families are left without a means to provide an income and this leads to them being trapped in the poverty cycle as a direct effect of smoking. All the while, the CEO's of these multinational tobacco companies are living green of the billions that they are making from this sickening trade. If political leaders condemn the actions of Mubarak and Gaddafi, then they are guilty of first degree hypocrisy if they do not include Michael Szymanczyk in the same breath. I wish my opponent all the best in this debate. References: (1) - http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... (2) - http://www.who.int... (3) - http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... (4) - http://www.who.int...

It's an interesting topic because in our society today more and more people are going green and one of the first things people think of when going green comes to mind is to buy an electric car. However, electric cars are not as safe for the environment as people might think they are.

I accept. I will be arguing that tobacco should not be banned due to an individual's right to choose what to put into their body. If anything, tobacco should be regulated due to second hand smoke issues, but not completely banned.Please state your case.

They should have by now but they haven't. Should they make cigars illegal? It kills many and makes them waist a lot of money. They also cause cancer and make it harder to breath. I don't think they should make it legal. True they cause cancer after a while but they also have nicotine. Once they start it is hard for them to stop. When they do try they might succeed but they still are damaged forever. Once they start they also start having like 1-3 packs a day. It might be for cultures but it still kills. If they could they should have laws to limit packs to one per week using a license. They could then limit deaths.