Question: Is vaping with e-cigarettes safe?

Smoking E-cigarettes in public should be categorized the same as any cigarette and not allowed. Are they safer than tobacco? Or are they a high-tech way to hook a new generation on a bad nicotine habit? Nobody knows yet. Research into the effects of e-cigarettes lags behind their popularity. But ready or not, the era of e-cigarettes is here. It"s a booming, billion-dollar industry -- on track to outsell tobacco products within a decade. The number of teens and tweens using these products doubled between 2011 and 2012. The time to get informed about these products is now. So far, evidence suggests that e-cigarettes may be safer than regular cigarettes. The biggest danger from tobacco is the smoke, and e-cigarettes don't burn. Tests show the levels of dangerous chemicals they give off are a fraction of what you'd get from a real cigarette. But what's in them can vary. "E-cigarettes may be less harmful than cigarettes," Drummond says. "But we still don't know enough about their long-term risks or the effects of secondhand exposure." E-cigarettes have triggered a fierce debate among health experts who share the same goal -- reducing the disease and death caused by tobacco. But they disagree about whether e-cigarettes make the problem better or worse. Opponents say that because nicotine is addictive, e-cigarettes could be a "gateway drug," leading nonsmokers and kids to use tobacco. They also worry that manufacturers -- with huge advertising budgets and celebrity endorsements -- could make smoking popular again. That would roll back decades of progress in getting people to quit or never start smoking. Others look at possible benefits for smokers. "Obviously, it would be best if smokers could quit completely," says Michael Siegel, MD, MPH, a professor at Boston University's School of Public Health. "But if that's not possible, I think they'd be a lot better off with e-cigarettes. They're a safer alternative." Siegel compares replacing tobacco with e-cigarettes to heroin users switching to the painkiller methadone. The replacement may have its own risks, but it's safer. Some supporters believe that e-cigarettes could help people quit, just like nicotine gum. Research hasn't shown that yet, though. But there is no hard evidence that they are harmful OR safe. http://www.webmd.com...

Should E-cigs and vapes be regulated You don't care If they are addicted or not. There are no good ways to start vaping. 85 percent of vapers grow up to smoke. If you think about it you are just vaporizing chemicals and breathing them into your lungs. Vaping harms nearly every organ in your body, Including your heart. Nearly one-third of deaths from heart disease are the result of vaping and secondhand smoke.

Should the e cigarette be available to everyone I have to disagree with you. According to studies from the CDC and NCBI, results suggest that e-cigarettes may contribute to nicotine addiction and are unlikely to discourage conventional cigarette smoking among youth. Also confirmed data from the CDC shows an increased use of e-cigarette from 4.5 percent in 2013 to 13.4 percent in 2014. You claim that the e-cigarette "juice" is safe, do you have data to back up that statement? If so, I would urge you to give some concrete evidence. There are reasons why e-cigarette shares the same risk for nicotine addiction, and a simulated substance such as e-liquid or propylene glycol, is not without health effects. I feel that your justification for using e-juice is without concrete evidence and purely speculative. Can you rebuke this?

Bloomberg's Ban on E-Cigs Electronic cigarettes comes with different cartridges including 6-18mg of nicotine and sometimes 0mg. This is to say that electronic cigarettes are safer to smoke than traditional cigarettes. Electronic cigarettes do not cause tar because of the fact that it does not contain tobacco and leave behind no tar. As a result, the main components of carcinogen are not present to create a problem that traditional cigarettes that contain various chemicals, additives and smokes. Vapor is just vapor. It does not include any smell or lingering odor. It is far from affecting people around you while smoking electronic cigarette. Electronic cigarettes should not be banned because it does not pose any harm to its users and help people from quitting cigar.

Smoking E-cigarettes in public should be categorized the same as any cigarette and not allowed. Nicotine is derived from tobacco. I am not saying that people should not be allowed to use these devices, I am saying they should not be allowed to use them in public around other people potentially putting other's health at risk. They have not proven that these devices are not damaging to those around them and therefore should not be allowed in public and should fall under these protective laws. While there have been benefits from these devices, they have enable some to decrease the amount they smoke or stop smoking, there have also been people that have stared smoking because of them. There has been an increased use in the younger population as well. The effect these products can have on those using them, and those around them include; nausea, head aches, cough, dizziness, sore throat, nose bleeds, chest pain or other cardiovascular problems, and allergic reactions such as itchiness and swelling of the lips. I have also read about people getting wheezy, heart burn, and watery eyes. There have also been reports of young children developing a raspy voice after exposure in a vehicle or enclosed places. There is more and more evidence pointing that these devices can have negative effects on those around them. Since the health of others is at risk, they should not be allowed in public places, and should fall under they same laws as other cigarette products.

Should E-cigs and vapes be regulated So you're ok with kids getting addicted to nicotine just because they think it makes them look cool. Companies advertise that it is safer than regular smoking but it really isn't. The chance for second-hand smoke is almost the same. There is no research at all backing that they help people get off smoking. In some cases, It actually makes your addiction worse. One student was carrying a Juul in his pocket when it just exploded. Kids are going behind their parents' backs and using them. Research shows now that e-cigs and Juul's are more popular than cigarettes now.

Should E-cigs and vapes be regulated I've never claimed that I'm okay with "kids" acquiring an addiction to electronic cigarettes. I simply do not care. It's not only nicotine but other harmful substances that are present. You provided examples of why they're bad, Without any sources. I'm just saying that there shouldn't be any regulations because it will be utterly pointless and time consuming. Juul for example is a good way to start vaping, A teen hobby that adds a sense of smoking cigarettes whilst it does contain harmful chemicals similar to cigarettes; "Traditional cigarettes contain a laundry list of chemicals that are proven harmful, And e-cigarettes have some of these same chemicals. " Thus, There is a small percentage of chemicals in e-cigs than the classic cigs. http://www. Center4research. Org/vaping-safer-smoking-cigarettes-2/

Marijuana is a healthier alternative for tobacco than E-cigarettes. To begin I will make statements based on fact with reliable sources to back the claims made. I will use the next round to refute my opponent's information. Let's start out with how E-cigarettes are dangerous and finish with how Marijuana is not. I will use the fourth round to add further points. I would also prefer if my opponent used round 5 to recap and please not use new arguments. E-cigarettes were introduced into the United States in 2007 after being created by a company is china. They are similar to regular cigarettes in terms of appearance. The e-cigarette uses a mechanism to heat up liquid nicotine which is then transformed into vapor and inhaled and exhaled by the user. Health experts agree, they may pose a serious threat to the the user of the device and the public. I will list and explain various ways that this is true. Health experts also agree they need to be tested and researched more to be deemed safe or unsafe to our health. Possibly the worst of the e-cigarette concept is that they are not subject to tobacco laws because they contain to tobacco. Meaning that they can be purchased with identification proof and can be purchased easily, particularly on the Internet. Meaning youngsters who have acquired enough knowledge to know that e-cigarettes are purchasable online might order one for themselves and keep it. These devices also come in Flavors: Chocolate, caramel, strawberry even bubblegum! Celebrities also use them which may attract children also. A couple examples are Johnny Depp and David Letterman. Katherine Heitgl even used one on a talk show and explained the to the audience! You are probably inquiring what is wrong with something like this? Well, I will get to that in a moment. The reason e-cigarettes are popular among 'former smokers' is because they contain nicotine. An addictive drug found in all tobacco cigarettes. This addictive drug is placed in products like e-cigarettes and tobacco cigarettes so people do become addicted and remain buying the specified product. This product may even contain MORE nicotine than a tobacco cigarette. Yes, more. Also manufacturers continue to deny testing from the FDA (Food and Drug Administration). Ushering us towards a more dreadful conclusion. Countries have realized the health risks and have banned them from the country entirely and/or made them lllegal. Examples are: Australia, Canada, Israel and Mexico. The FDA also claims that second vapor can cause some serious health hazards. Individuals have claimed that the vapor burns their eyes, nose and throat. Especially those with health problems and the elderly. These E-cigarettes and also cause damage to the wind-pipe. Scientists from Athens, Greece noticed the problem also. A test was done on 32 individuals that volunteered to do so, 8 of which have never smoked before. They were given E-cigarettes and asked to use them for 10 minutes. These are the Results. -Non-Smokers -raised airway resistance by 206% to 182% Which experts quoted was a significant increase. -Current and regular smokers -suffered a 220% to 176% increase in airway resistance. -Asthma patients -found no increase. Now I will explain the health benefits behind Marijuana. I will begin with a very truthful quote by The Economist. "If Marijuana were unknown, it's discovery would no doubt be hailed as a medical breakthrough. Scientists would hail it's potential for treating everything form pain to cancer and marvel in rich pharmacopoeia; many of whose chemicals mimic vital molecules in the human body. before I begin I would like my opponent and the voters to watch this video it is very brief and contains a lot of information. www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mlfvklejuw Now with that in mind I will begin my statement on how marijuana has health benefits. Due to the fact that marijuana does not contain nicotine smokers of the product tend to smoke less because of the lack of the addictive drug. Marijuana also contains THC, a bronchial dilator, meaning it opens up the wind-pipe and lungs excreting dirt and other harmful membranes trapped inside the body. There has been absolutely no cancer resulting from the use of marijuana. Not even a death associated with the herb. There are also health benefits in the cannabis plant (basically marijuana). Like how earlier represented in the video link I posted that it can reduce the risk of cancer. The Journal of the American Medical association tested 5,000 individuals between ages 18-30 years old that used marijuana regularly."Had no discernible lung impairment in lung activity from non-smokers." There was also a test conducted at Harvard! It revealed the active ingredient in marijuana cute tumor growth in common lung cancer in half and significantly reduces the ability for cancer to spread. Sources: www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/249784.php health.howstuffworks.com/wellness/smokingcessation/10-fact-about-e-cigarettes.htm patients4medicalmarijuana.wordpress.com/marijuana-info/marijuana-vs-cigarettes/ txconnectme.wordpress.com/2012/04/26marijuana-cuts-lung-cancer-tumor-growth-in-half-harvard-study-shows/

Should the e cigarette be available to everyone Again, I feel that your information is incorrect. According to several databases, including canadavapes.com, Propylene Glycol is the primary ingredient in the majority of e-liquids and e-cigarette cartridges on the marketplace today. Most e-liquid contains at least 80% and as much as 92% propylene glycol. This is the ingredient that produces the smoke-like vapor when the e-cigarette is exhaled. You are correct in saying people have choices if they want to use products that are safe or unsafe, but it seems more applicable if people are educated in the product they choose to use. And being that I am a parent and a grandparent, I am more concerned about the availability of this product to the younger generation. The idea that vaping can promote cigarette smoking is not good news, especially to our youth. Whether or not you feel that people can do whatever they want, it seems to me that your favorable interest in e-cigs exist because you may either like or use e-cigs, am I correct?

Should E-cigs and vapes be regulated Vaping is a dangerous hobby, And yes I don't care if they become addicted or not. Life is short, Make it count. Likewise, You're a good debater

Smoking E-cigarettes in public should be categorized the same as any cigarette and not allowed. The FDA is actually proposing extending its authority to cover additional products that meet the definition of a tobacco product under the proposed rule: Tobacco Products Deemed To Be Subject to the Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act. Currently FDA regulates cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, roll-your-own tobacco and smokeless tobacco. Proposed newly "deemed" products would include electronic cigarettes, cigars, pipe tobacco, certain dissolvables that are not "smokeless tobacco," gels, and waterpipe tobacco. The definition of a "tobacco product" according to the FDA is any product "made or derived from tobacco" that is not a "drug," "device," or "combination product" (except for accessories of deemed tobacco products). Examples of tobacco products include; hookah, e-cigarettes, cigars, pipe tobacco, novel tobacco products, and tobacco products that may be developed in the future. To read this definition for yourself go to http://www.fda.gov... (It is on page 7 of the document.) Nicotine overdose has increased in not just adults, but also children. CNN did a story on this. In February there were 215 poison center calls involving e-cigarettes which is an huge increase from one per month in September 2010. The sad thing is 51% of those calls involved children 5 and under. http://www.cnn.com... E-cigarettes fall under the definition of a tobacco product according to the FDA. Manny of the E-cigarette devices contain nicotine the drug found in tobacco along with other substances and some have been found to contain carcinogens. There is not enough evidence to support that these devices are safe for those exposed to them and therefore should be categorized the same as any cigarette. Meaning they should not be allowed in hospitals and other public places.

Marijuana is a healthier alternative for tobacco than E-cigarettes. I'll start by highlighting why nicotine is a beneficial component of e-cigarettes and then finish with reasons why e-cigarettes are a healthier 'alternative' than marijuana. But first I will point out that young people are susceptible to copying most things they see older people doing regardless of what it is. Also the fact that e-cigarettes are not subject to tobacco laws doesn't really do much in terms of preventing young people from getting them. If a child or teenager wants something they'll find a way to get it. The large amount of underage smokers and drinkers in the US and UK would be an example of this. It's natural that an e-cigarette would contain nicotine; they're tailored towards smokers. The vast majority of e-cigarette users are either former cigarette smokers or people who are trying to quit smoking; in addition there is little evidence to suggest that non-smokers take up e-cigarettes. Now, if a tobacco smoker were to attempt using marijuana as an alternative there is a relatively high chance that they would relapse back to smoking tobacco once again. A tobacco smoker may not even give up tobacco even if they were to begin smoking marijuana thus becoming a "dual user" i.e. they would smoke both tobacco and marijuana. The latter point in itself would defeat the object of marijuana being used as an alternative (since the negative effects of the tobacco smoke would negate any positive effects marijuana presents). On the other hand, if a tobacco smoker were to attempt using e-cigarettes as an alternative the chances of a relapse are relatively low. A study showed that among former smokers who were regular used e-cigarettes, only 6% relapsed back to tobacco after a year. More importantly, among the "dual users", an amazing 46% quit smoking after a year. So actually it's the fact that e-cigarettes contain nicotine that makes it a healthier alternative than marijuana. This is because switching to a non-nicotine alternative would most likely lead to nicotine withdrawal and the symptoms of nicotine withdrawal include a series of negative effects: - feeling irritable - feeling or being aggressive - dysphoria - restlessness - poor concentration - increased appetite - weight gain - urges or cravings to smoke - night-time awakenings/sleep disturbance - decreased heart rate Thus by using e-cigarettes one still receives their 'nicotine fix' without the added negative effects that comes with tobacco smoke. A final point is to address the fact that nicotine is not a carcinogen. This means that it does not cause cancer. So the chances of a person acquiring cancer, of any sort, from smoking an e-cigarette would be the same, if not less, than smoking marijuana. Sources: http://alcoholism.about.com... http://www.mhra.gov.uk... http://acsh.org... http://www.nicoventures.co.uk...

Bloomberg's Ban on E-Cigs Whether smoking a cigarette or e-cig there is still nicotine In both and nicotine is highly addictive. E cigs are not a safer alternative to cigarettes because they are just as addictive. E-cigs may only be vapor but it is not undetectable. That wretched nicotine smell will linger on your clothes and in your hair. The smoke and vapor is bound to offend someone and I would not like to be sitting out at dinner and have someone blow their e-cigarette vapor in my face or be sitting on the subway next to someone puffing an e-cig having to inhale second hand smoke in an air tight location. E cigs should be banned in closed public spaces and away from those who may find them offensive.

Smoking E-cigarettes in public should be categorized the same as any cigarette and not allowed. The initial reason for the electronic cigarette was for people to stop smoking. Personally, I have seen so many people that benefited from it. Although it has nicotine, it does not have tobacco, and it doesn't burn. Vaporizing is and should be allowed in smoke-free places. Also I don't think it is anyone else business whether or not someone is smoking if it is not damaging to them.

Smoking Should be Banned -Thank you once for your submission. Summary:First of all, you choose to deny the children, the family members. I have seen parents who smoke near their children, and other family members. So, walking away might not even be an option.A safer version of smoking, what are you talking about, these scientists are working for tobacco industries that produce only tobacco. Also, electrical cigarettes have its flaws too.1. E-cigarettes have a lithium battery, which is very detrimental to your health.2. They contain liquid nicotine.3. They are toxic.4. No quality control.5. FDA wants regulations for these cigarettes.6. Reusability.7. Cost less than actual cigarettes.8. Banned in public places (New York, Chicago).9. Second-hand vapor.10. Lung Damage.Sources:http://health.howstuffworks.com...Don't Smoke and vote for me!

Marijuana is a healthier alternative for tobacco than E-cigarettes. For now all rebuttals to Pro's points have been addressed, and woven into, the points I made in round 2.

Should E-cigs and vapes be regulated Yes, I think E-cigs and vapes should be regulated. They should be regulated because their target audience is kids they make flavors from almond to tropical margarita that are appealing to kids. Also, They caused the same harm as tobacco and don't help addicts.

Why Smoking Cigarette is bad for a person well being Every week there is always something we learn about either by reading or listening to about how bad something is bad for us actually has beneficial health effects. They say coffee, then pizza - and every other day it's red wine and of course the smoking. I ask myself is this really something that is true? We can always find something wrong with everything if we dig and do enough research on it. Why is it that smoking is one that Pro and others emphasize on even when its stated as a fact that coffee is just as bad? Well the answer is: that depends how you interpret the facts. Pro still is geared towards the health and well being of others by stating facts of how much smokers smoke ie; the average, chain etc…. It's been said by physicians and they'll tell you there are few things you can put in your mouth that are worse for you than a cigarette. By smoking does help the obesity issue which we have now a day's especially in children. This is a health issue as well which are commonly more so than ever in kids from their parent's lack of direction. This is one example of major health issues to come at an earlier age. So as adults if we have the choice to smoke that's our choice and we should not look down at for that. There are many people who never smoked and have cancer and died at young ages. So while smoking isn't all that bad we is it ok to support the obesity issue which is just as equal if not worse than smoking? Drug companies are already researching drugs with nicotine in to help these conditions removed from cigarette smoking and the first one has hit the market. The answer to that is the E-Cig. There is still nicotine in the cigarette but has been much more accepted in the world. Why, because, it does remove the bad smells, second-hand smoke, or cancer causing chemicals. World renown doctor, Dr. Panariello even suggested that while utilizing the electronic cigarette, there is virtually no risk of getting cancer. These conclusions come from studies which show that nicotine is about as equally harmful to your health as caffeine. So knowing this why is the coffee so much more acceptable everywhere. We can still smoke with this electronic cigarette now in airports, restaurants, bars, work place, homes etc… some benefits for this is as follows: •No tar, tobacco, carbon monoxide, or ash. •Get the same amount of nicotine as a regular cigarette. •Each cartridge costs less than $2 and is equivalent to an entire pack of cigarettes. •You can save over $1,000 each year. •You won't "smell" like a smoker any longer. •Different flavors are available. •No more second-hand smoke In my conclusion the Pro should stop judging smokers. It's just that simple. http://www.healthreportsdaily.com... Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com... http://www.guardian.co.uk...

Juul Is Bad. I agree that Juul is bad, And smoking/vaping in general is bad for ur health, But Juul is a much better alternative to normal cigarretes

Smoking E-cigarettes in public should be categorized the same as any cigarette and not allowed. No, because it is not an actual tobacco product

Should the e cigarette be available to everyone First off let me start by saying I never claimed e-juice to be safe i think they are quite harmful. another thing you said was that they had prpolynic glycol or glycerin which is anothet untrue statment. Allmost all e-juice maufacturers use vegtable glycerin. But what does this argument really come down too, freedom. If you want to tuin youre health at whatevet age you want why should you not be able to with e-juice when you can do it with soda. But if you restrict minors from buying e-juice without nicotine the health risks can decrease. And like i said befor it should all come down to people, do they want to ruin there healt. If they want to thats fine by me im pretty sure that thats natural salection.

Marijuana is a healthier alternative for tobacco than E-cigarettes. Also happy holidays! Marijuana-. http://www.drugabuse.gov... Tobacco-. http://healthliteracy.worlded.org... E-cigarettes-. http://en.wikipedia.org... I would prefer a well equipped opponent for this debate where as this can be an extremely controversial topic. The first three links should get you started!

Should the e cigarette be available to everyone I don't think it should be sold to everyone. I think the main purpose is to help people quit smoking. I feel that it will entice the younger generation to use this method of vaping, when there are side effects involved with inhaling any substance into the lungs.

Smoking E-cigarettes in public should be categorized the same as any cigarette and not allowed. I work at a hospital in an Emergency department. While I was at work a few weeks ago, I walked past a visitor that was smoking his electronic cigarette, or E-cigarette, while walking down the hall. I was very appalled and realized that people think it is okay to smoke these anywhere including hospitals. It seems as though the laws don't always apply to these devices, even though they should. I informed the visitor that smoking in any form is not allowed on hospital property, and while he was annoyed he did put the device away. With the many advances in Health care we have learned much about the effects of tobacco and nicotine on the body. I think that people should have the choice to use it or not, but I do not believe they should be able to use it in any public place. My health and the health of others is important to me. Smoking in any form, be it cigarettes or E-cigarettes, exposes the people in the vicinity and should be categorized the same.

Smoking (All types, Including marijuana and Vapor) should be banned. To address your claims of the dangers of vaping: There is a difference between a substance possibly having side effects in unhealthy people and a substance definitely causing cancer. The risks of smoking compared to those of vaping are like the risks of walking on the highway compared to the risks of walking on the sidewalk. Vaping is mostly safe, and the same arguments you made against its safety can be made for caffeinated beverages and fast food, so I assume that you want those banned too. What you have yet to do is form an argument explaining why smoking and vaping should be banned, and you were not clear with your last sentence. Your initial post said you wanted smoking and vaping to be illegal. Are you now saying you want them to only be illegal is another person is nearby? What if that person is also smoking or vaping? Is it still a crime? Are you suggesting that if someone is smoking or vaping in his or her own home and others are around, that should be a crime? You need to make your position clear. You should also explain why you think that whatever you are arguing to ban should be illegal. As to why I am against what you initially posted, laws that ban activities that only harm the individual partaking in the activity(assuming that the individual has been apprised of the dangers) are unjust. This has been shown in our various drug laws which have been more damaging to society than the drugs they banned. If I am smoking in my home, in my car, or by myself on a street corner, then nobody is affected except for myself. This is especially true with vaping because unlike smoking, vapor does not linger and the vaporizer stops putting out fumes when I am not puffing it. If you think that it should be illegal to smoke near others, then if I walk up to a smoker who is smoking, should he be arrested? Are you talking about smoking in public buildings? If so, that is already banned so that workers are not exposed to concentrated smoke.

Marijuana is a healthier alternative for tobacco than E-cigarettes. 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...

Bloomberg's Ban on E-Cigs Electronic cigarette is not subjected to U.S tobacco laws because it doesn't have any tobacco in it. Therefore, electronic cigarettes are better than regular cigarettes. In terms of accessibility among minors, they are able to purchase regular cigarettes which is actually violating a law as to purchasing electronic cigarettes. Another reason why smoking electronic cigarette is better than regular cigarettes is because there is no combustion involved while smoking it. There is no smoke coming out of the cigarette, instead there's a vapor that provides similar sensation as smoking traditional cigarettes. This is one of many great innovations we have in our modern time. The mayor shouldn't ban something useful as to alternating smoking cigar.

Marijuana is a healthier alternative for tobacco than E-cigarettes. Unfortunately it seems Pro was unable to continue the debate for whatever reason. Since I have no further points or rebuttals to make, this debate is now over.

Smoking should be banned in all public places What my opponent says is true - for a standard cigarette. With an e-cigarette, the problem can be averted.Smoking an e-cigarette is technically smoking. It contains fewer chemicals than the normal cigarette does, and it releases a tiny amount of smoke. This greatly reduces the risk for the smoker and the people around them. With the e-cigarette, is it really necessary to ban smoking in all public places?E-cigarette smoking can also help the economy. They are taxed, and this helps generate money for the economy. With little health risks, the e-smokers don't have to make the economy lose the medicare bills, resulting in a net gain. With places like the US in debt, can we really afford to lose this, given most smokers smoke in public areas?Illegalizing e-smoking has a down-side. Addicted people would still smoke in public places, defeating the purpose of illegalizing it. Cigarette taxes would go away, removing the economic support it brings us. Is illegalizing smoking the best thing to do?

There are possible safety concerns No research has shown health risks. The advice is only because we do not yet know the long term results. As studies continue for longer this final worry will also be ended.

Smoking should be banned from outdoor public places as well as indoor public places In order to ban cigarettes completely my opponent needs to explain why we should get rid of all types of cigarettes. Since I've proven at least one type of cigarette that wont bother others or induce a lot of health concerns, Then we should not ban all cigarettes. My opponent has never tackled the fact that the government will raise taxes exponentially to make up for the lost revenue of 19 billion a year. Silence equals concurrence. With that being said my opponent hasn't rebutted any of my points. E- cigarettes don't cause cancer,lung disease nor does it produce an offensive smell that will bother others. Since I have proven a good form of cigarette so say, since I have proven the detriment of banning this I believe that con should win.

Cigarettes are bad for my health. My initial argument was a statement, not an opinion. The tobacco industry has stated that they are only harmful if you smoke them and I believe them. As an added precaution I not only avoid smoking them, but I am also careful about not to eating any of them. < > I mean no disrespect, but I trust my doctor, his equipment, credentials, experience and reputation over your high school student's medical knowledge. Thanks for coming out!

Juul Is Bad. Well, I agree, But smoking normal cigarettes is still worse.

Smoking should be banned from outdoor public places as well as indoor public places your only focusing on the electric cigarette now i for one have never heard of this type of cigarette lets focus on the big picture on the non healthy ones. The non healthy ones. "Cigarette smoking kills over 400,000 people a year Smoking is one of the largest problems in the United States. There are constant lawsuits over the effects smoking has on people. Smoking is the largest leading cause of death in the US; In college dorms we are all living in a small space where different people have different preferences. This leads to the question of just how much effect does smoking cigarettes have on general health" go to http://jrscience.wcp.muohio.edu...

Smoking (All types, Including marijuana and Vapor) should be banned. The reason I included vapor is because I wanted to cover all types of smoking. We should also remember that Vapor can also be toxic. It's an Illusion of safe smoking. "The nicotine inside the cartridges is addictive. When you stop using it, you can get withdrawal symptoms including feeling irritable, depressed, restless and anxious. It can be dangerous for people with heart problems. It may also harm your arteries over time."(www.webmd.com/smoking-cessation/.../electronic-cigarettes) I also forgot to add that I wanted it to be Illegal around other people >< I apologize!

Should the e cigarette be available to everyone saying that e cigs should not be sold to everyone is like saying we shouldn't sell soda to everyone. The e-cig is just a device that makes things into vapor, what should be restricted is the E-juice itself. I say this because the actual danger is in the nicotine. but if minors could only buy e-juice without nicotine then its just like drinking soda. I bring soda up because soda is filled with dangerous chemicals that can harm you if you consume to much of it. and that is exactly what e-juice is. a liquid filled with tons of mystery chemicals that can harm you. so what is the pout of banning them if we don't ban soda? It also should come down to a persons choice, if they want to ingest chemicals they should be able to.

Cigarettes are bad for my health. Cigarettes are clearly detrimental to your health. You speak solely of the present, where you have not experienced any of the effects of cigarettes (which typically occur in the long term). You are basing your health solely on symptoms: you cannot look inside your body, so ultimately you THINK you are healthy without any real way of knowing.

Smoking Tobacco Isn't Bad. To argue that smoking isn't unhealthy seems quite interesting, but we can go that route. I think it is considered beyond consensus among the scientific community that smoking tobacco is categorically bad for health.Here are some statistics from the CDC:- Cigarette smoking causes more than 480,000 deaths each year in the United States. This is nearly one in five deaths- Smoking causes more deaths each year than the following causes combined:4 Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) Illegal drug use Alcohol use Motor vehicle injuries Firearm-related incidents - More than 10 times as many U.S. citizens have died prematurely from cigarette smoking than have died in all the wars fought by the United States.- Smoking causes about 90% (or 9 out of 10) of all lung cancer deaths. More women die from lung cancer each year than from breast cancer.- Smoking causes about 80% (or 8 out of 10) of all deaths from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).- Cigarette smoking increases risk for death from all causes in men and women.- The risk of dying from cigarette smoking has increased over the last 50 years in the U.S. Smokers are more likely than nonsmokers to develop heart disease, stroke, and lung cancer. Estimates show smoking increases the risk: For coronary heart disease by 2 to 4 times For stroke by 2 to 4 times Of men developing lung cancer by 25 times Of women developing lung cancer by 25.7 times Smoking causes diminished overall health, increased absenteeism from work, and increased health care utilization and cost. Smokers are at greater risk for diseases that affect the heart and blood vessels (cardiovascular disease). Smoking causes stroke and coronary heart disease, which are among the leading causes of death in the United States. Even people who smoke fewer than five cigarettes a day can have early signs of cardiovascular disease.1 Smoking damages blood vessels and can make them thicken and grow narrower. This makes your heart beat faster and your blood pressure go up. Clots can also form A stroke occurs when: A clot blocks the blood flow to part of your brain; A blood vessel in or around your brain bursts Blockages caused by smoking can also reduce blood flow to your legs and skin References U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.The Health Consequences of Smoking—50 Years of Progress: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2014 [accessed 2017 Apr 20]. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. How Tobacco Smoke Causes Disease: What It Means to You. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2010 [accessed 2017 Apr 20]. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. QuickStats: Number of Deaths from 10 Leading Causes—National Vital Statistics System, United States, 2010. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2013:62(08);155. [accessed 2017 Apr 20]. Mokdad AH, Marks JS, Stroup DF, Gerberding JL. Actual Causes of Death in the United States. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association 2004;291(10):1238–45 [cited 2017 Apr 20]. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Women and Smoking: A Report of the Surgeon General. Rockville (MD): U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Office of the Surgeon General, 2001 [accessed 2017 Apr 20]. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Reducing the Health Consequences of Smoking: 25 Years of Progress. A Report of the Surgeon General. Rockville (MD): U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 1989 [accessed 2017 Apr 20].

Bloomberg's Ban on E-Cigs Tobacco kills. It doesn't matter how it is smoked, whether in a vapor pipe or in cigarette form, people will still get cancer and suffer a slow painful death. Who wants to live like that? Or who wants to watch their closest most loved family members, relatives or friends suffer like that? Inhaling tobacco whether electronically or old fashioned is still inhaling toxic chemicals that can be very harmful to your health. Bloomberg should ban E-Cigs altogether but especially in public places.

Smoking should be banned from outdoor public places as well as indoor public places If something is banned then obviously it will cause a effect on things. If we ban smoking completely, then we will loose 19 billion dollars a year.....http://www.nytimes.com...If we ban smoking completely then our government might not be able to fund welfare, and or some other operations of state. Also if we ban this then the government might exponentially raise taxes to make up for this lost revenue.part 2....My opponent agrees with this point and doesn't refute it. e- cigarettes don't produce the smell, or smoke as regular cigarettes. So there is no second hand smoke so say to worry about. Also e- cigarettes don't pose as many health risks.Unless he can defeat all my points then con should win.

Marijuana is a healthier alternative for tobacco than E-cigarettes. This will be my first debate on DDO but I've debated on the marijuana topic many times so hopefully I'll be equipped enough. This should be fun! Happy holidays to you also!

Smoking should be banned from outdoor public places as well as indoor public places cigarette industries pay taxes . Thus they have influence on politics. - find out how many members of your parliaments smoke. You won't get it illegal, as long as people vote for smokers. - there's taxes on cigarettes. So the if the government made smoking illegal, then people would smuggle cigarettes and still smoke. But the state would not get the money.Electronic cigarettes The electronic cigarette allows you to “smoke” to your heart’s content: without inhaling benzene; formaldehyde; cyanide; or any of the 4,000 other constituents of tobacco smoke likely to do you harm. E-cigarettes smoke is not the same as regular smoke....its scentless and doesnt have many health risks. .........http://goeshealth.com...

Bloomberg's Ban on E-Cigs It has not yet been concluded that E-cigs help people quit smoking. Theres no proof E-cigs have aided in quitting cigarettes, it has only been proved a remedy for those who cannot quit cigarettes. Also according to health.howstuffworks.com Because they contain no tobacco, e-cigarettes aren't subject to U.S. tobacco laws, which means they can be purchased without proof of age, especially online which is dangerous for our children. No laws make buying these e-cigs easily accessible and when smoking is started at a young age they are hooked and prone to all the diseases and cancers caused by cigs. these devices should be deemed illegal until the proper research trials have been conducted. Teacher also made it clear to limit 750characters

Smoking in public has to be banned As both of us agreed, children do suffer from a second-hand smoking. 6,8 children of the US population have already gotten asthma and yes, we do not know the causes of asthma in every particular case and yes, most of those children might not developed it by second-hand smoking. Yet asthma attack is not the lightest of asthma symptoms, it is a complete opposite. People, who are having asthma attack, feel difficulty of breathing, wheezing and coughing. A neck and chest muscles are tightened, person cannot talk, he is panicking and anxious. Daily, asthma attacks take lives of nine Americans. Moreover, in average 3285 deaths are caused by asthma per year. Yes, this illness is not the main topic right now; hence, second-hand smoking puts its part into making people"s future unclear: no one knows how asthmatics will handle being in public and having an asthma attack as a result of someone smoking near them, because every asthma attack requires immediate medical help. Your second argument was banning smoking in public places will infringe private property rights. I can slightly agree on that point. However, smoking in public approaches the line of infringing the World Health Organization Constitution"s point of having ""the highest attainable standard of health as a fundamental right of every human being." Simply saying, very human being has rights on being healthy. Smoking in public places will damage human"s health. Therefore, it has to be banned. Special smoking places should be built in order to satisfy smokers" needs, because no one can say a word about someone"s decision to smoke as soon as person is old enough to do that. Yet smoking in public places, especially indoors, has to be forbidden. Taking a step back to the teen smoking, you understood one of my rhetorical questions in a reversed way. Shooting oneself does not mean that teenagers, who smoke, want to kill themselves. By following your logic, everyone, who smokes, simply wants to die, what is not true and both of us can agree on that. Comparing a bullet to a cigarette was the way to make statements "smoking kills" and "smoking leads to premature death" even more clear. "Teens are less influenced now than ever to smoke cigarettes." It might be a result of restricting smoking and tobacco consumption age in several states. A purchase of tobacco products is illegal for everyone, who is under-aged, who is not 18 years old yet. In some states, it is legal to smoke even though person is not 18 years old. Their sense of "responsibility" is taking over and most of the teenagers start to smoke by being provocatively influenced. Electronic cigarettes, as a suggestion to decrease air-pollutions caused by cigarettes, is a good solution. Nevertheless, there are things about e-cigarettes that are also dangerous for our environment that you could not think about at the first place. Going a bit in-depth, there are two types of electronic cigarettes: rechargeable and non-reusable e-cigarettes. Non-reusable cigarettes do not cause a lot of waste as they have been thrown away; some of their part might be reused as something else made of metal. Unfortunately, smokers, who decided to switch to e-cigarettes, would not choose non-reusable electrical cigarettes because it would be costly for them: in average, these e-cigarettes last only for 300 to 400 puffs, which is not a lot for a daily-smoker. Why is not the other type of e-cigarettes better than normal cigarettes? Rechargeable cigarettes contain a small batteries, that could not been thrown away, they are harmful for the environment as any other batteries. All batteries contain toxic chemicals that cause damage for the environment. Second con of rechargeable e-cigarettes is their electricity consumption. According to The World Bank (IBRD and IDA), 83,6 percent of American"s total electricity consumption is produced by burning fossil fuels. If all 40 million people, who smoke in the United States, did prefer to smoke electronic cigarettes over traditional cigarettes and their choice was be buying rechargeable cigarettes, they would be in need of electricity. As we know, burning fossil fuels causes bigger problems: greenhouse effect, acid rains, etc. Electronic cigarettes demand electricity to recharge; therefore, more pollutions in the atmosphere and our world is going to be contaminated. Of course, there are many advantages of e-cigarettes, as you mentioned: they help people cut down on smoking or quit doing it completely, they do not litter, if not thrown on the ground on purpose. However, it had to be mentioned, that there are cases of the electronic cigarettes" explosions. The e-cigarettes are devices, which sometimes refuse to work and requires care. Negligent use of the e-cigarettes might lead to their explosion and following injuries after it. For example, CNN"s report was dedicated to the e-cigarette explosion in costumer"s pocket on the local gas station on February 25th year 2016 in Owensboro, Kentucky. "Big fire, and he was burning," Jassie Singh, who was working the register at the time.(1 ) Man left with the third-degree burns all over his leg. Other incidents, mentioned in the same report, are spontaneous electronic cigarettes explosions, which leaded to man"s hospitalization and 3-years-old child"s first- and second-degree burns. These accidents are concrete examples of e-cigarettes being dangerous. The explosions may happen in public, where they will harm not only an owner of an e-cigarette, but also people around him/her. My conclusion is, problem of smoking has always been present and restricting the law by banning smoking in public places will be a small step to solving the problem in general. The United States is ranked as 51st country in a list of cigarettes consumption per adult per year, what is equal to 1,028 cigarettes. Hopefully, smoking ban in public would decrease this number and American will become a country of a dream for everyone. Sources: 1.http://edition.cnn.com... http://www.cdc.gov... http://data.worldbank.org... https://www.drugabuse.gov... http://www.who.int... http://www.aafa.org... http://www.webmd.com...

Use of E-Cigarettes/Hookah Pens in underage citizens I don't see how adulthood has anything to do with it. These simulations of cigarettes can be a good replacement for those who are addicted to tabacco. "The primary therapeutic use of nicotine is in treating nicotine dependence in order to eliminate smoking with the damage it does to health. Controlled levels of nicotine are given to patients through gums, dermal patches, lozenges, electronic/substitute cigarettes or nasal sprays in an effort to wean them off their dependence. Studies have found that these therapies increase the chance of success of quitting by 50 to 70%, Though reductions in the population as a whole has not been demonstrated." http://en.wikipedia.org... Hookah pens contains far less to no nicotine. http://www.ireachcontent.com... http://www.zamnesia.com...

Smoking Tobacco Isn't Bad. There is a major flaw in your argument. Cigertettes are not really tobacco as yes they have 400+ chemicals in them. I as an avid cigar/pipe smoker I hate cigertettes. There is only one ingredient in cigars/pipes and that is tobacco. I"ve been smoking as long as I remember (one a day), and my physical/other check-ups have been perfect for the last 30 or so years. There is also a healthy way to smoke. The people who die of smoking are one smoking cigertettes, and two BREATHING in the smoke. I hate the smell of smoke and never breathe it in, however I love the taste of it. "Eating" smoke literally has a nil chance of giving you a sickness. I actually had a throat infection and something was stuck in my throat. The doctor said to not smoke for at least two weeks, and it should be better. After about 2.5 weeks I still felt the same. So I said F it and I smoked my pipe. After about 2 minutes I vomited an absoulutely disgusting bloody, mushy, blob on my table and my throat infection was gone. There is also a nil chance of getting addicted if you "eat" the smoke instead of breathing it. This is why I believe that we paint an absoulutely horrible picture of tobacco to kids these days. I think instead of teaching them it"s absoulutely detrimentally horrible, socially unacceptable, and smokers are losers and throwing their life away; we should teach them to not smoke cigertettes, instead cigars and pipes, and to "eat" not inhale. Smoking is completely fin and actually relaxing if you do it in the right, proper, and healthy way. Here"s just a fun one: Some very famous cigar/pipe smokers include of course Mark Twain and Winston Churchill. Notice how most cigar/pipe smokers live to a very average or longer age? I think this is because it makes us more relaxed and actually improves quality of life. https://www.dallasnews.com...

Use of E-Cigarettes/Hookah Pens in underage citizens They involve tobacco dependence by trying to treat it with a lesser dosage, if we're consistent with the point of therapeutic value I made. We are not debating if it is legal or not, so that's off the point. Hookah pens can contain no harmful ingredients such as nicotine. E-cigarettes and hookah pens can be used therapeutically, so I'm for it in that manner, and I'm for hookah pens that do not contain ingredients such as nicotine and tar etc. in any manner.

Smoking Tobacco Isn't Bad. I am a bit perplexed here. "Cigarettes are not really tobacco"Typically a cigarette weighs approximately 1 gram of which the tobacco content can vary between 65-100%"I as an avid cigar/pipe smoker I hate cigertettes."Relevance? I, as an avid bungee jumper and race car driver hate skydiving."There is also a healthy way to smoke."If there is a substance that can be taken in one of two ways, and one of those ways is one of the deadliest processes known to man, perhaps this substance is bad.There is also no documented dichotomy between "breathing" and "eating" smoke like you seem to be talking about, nor any indication that one has a "nil chance of giving you a sickness""I smoked my pipe. After about 2 minutes I vomited an absolutely disgusting bloody, mushy, blob on my table"We're talking about cigarettes, not cigars, but is this really supposed to be a contention in a health debate?"There is also a nil chance of getting addicted if you "eat" the smoke instead of breathing it."Please provide sources. Scientific sources"Notice how most cigar/pipe smokers live to a very average or longer age? I think this is because it makes us more relaxed and actually improves quality of life."What evidence are you basing this on. Cancer.gov says "Cigar smoking causes cancer of the oral cavity, larynx, esophagus, and lung. It may also cause cancer of the pancreas. Moreover, daily cigar smokers, particularly those who inhale, are at increased risk for developing heart disease and other types of lung disease"

THB, the age for smoking should be put down to 16 in the UK. My family and I are highly against smoking, and always have been. Not only can it harm and scar you for life, it's life threatening and addictive too. Yet all this advice is going around, people will still smoke and, studies say, die 10 years early. 1# Health As I said in my introduction, smoking has life threatening symptoms, these include: -Cancer -chest pain -shortness of breath -persistent cough -coughing up blood -frequent colds and upper respiratory infections -persistent hoarseness -difficulty or pain on swallowing -change in exercise capacity -sudden weakness on one side of the face or body; or difficulty speaking -leg pain while walking that goes away when at rest -unexplained weight loss -persistent abdominal pain -blood in the urine Every cigarette you take reduces your life span by 11 minutes. Also, a smoking causes 1 in 5 death in the western world. 2# Friends and Family Smoking around Friends and Family is called second hand smoking; around 3,000 non-smokers die from lung cancer a year, and tens of thousands non-smokers die from heart disease. Millions of children in their own home breath second hand smoke, it is especially dangerous for children as they have developing lungs. 3#Money 25,792 pounds is the price you would pay if you smoked from eighteen to eighty, a small car or small property could be bought for that price. Even though e-cigarette are supposed to be the alternative, they are still holding a fare amount of nicotine. If you smoke half a pack per day, that means you're spending between 155 to 230 pounds per month for smokes. If you switch to blue e-cigarettes, it'll cost you somewhere between 69.95 and 89.95 pounds for a rechargeable kit that includes a five-pack of flavour cartridges. ____________________________________________________________________________________________ That's the conclusion to my points, in the next round I will be arguing about why it is not a good idea to lower the age limit to 16, as had been before, but changed in recent years. Thank you for reading my argument, and I hope you will also have a good one.

Cigarettes are just as bad as cars. Walking outside in a polluted city like San Francisco or Karachi or LA or a city in china(16 of the world's most polluted cities are in China) [[http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1661031_1661028,00.html]], you are already damaging your lungs from all the CO(carbon monoxide fumes) put in the air from car emissions and all the people exhaling Carbon Dioxide(why are very polluted BIG cities, very populated too? people use cars and aeroplanes/airplanes(used by people vacationing to places with cleaner air and traveling businessmen) which cause a lot more pollution than cars[[http://www.ehponline.org/qa/105-12focus/focus.html]]). Cigarettes release chemicals that are bad of course, but they are a preferable means of getting your smoke. Electronic vaporizing cigarettes do not produce second hand smoke and are hugely unpopular but won't be for long. It's better to be the smoker than to be the person whose face is being smoked into(statistically passive smokers are at a greater risk) .

Marijuana is safer to consume than both alcohol and tobacco Government propaganda and other conditioning have led people to believe that marijuana is a dangerous substance, when in actuality, it is safer than both alcohol and tobacco. It is stupid of anyone to think that smoking any kind of plant matter is not dangerous. Any smoke being inhaled into your lungs is in some way bad for you. Sure some substances create much more toxic smoke, but smoking should not be seen as harmless. While saying this, it should be noted that marijuana smoke has been researched and seen as far less dangerous than tobacco smoke. Many studies show that there is no relation in cancer and long-term smoked marijuana(http://www.foxnews.com...). Some studies even show a decrease in cancer tumors showing that it may possibly help slow down cancer(http://www.sciencedaily.com...) It is still true though, that marijuana smoke is in no way 100 percent healthy. This does not say ANYTHING about the safety of marijuana or the compounds contained in the plants. There are many more options of consuming marijuana. These include vaporization and edible forms. Vaporization is heating up the plant to a temperature just enough to vaporize the thc/cbd in the plant, but not enough to burn the plant. This means no smoke will be created at all. Edibles involve baking the marijuana to extract the thc into food such as brownies or butter to be added to food. Now without smoke to worry about, what is dangerous at all about marijuana? Two things can be said. A) It increases your heart rate B) cognitive and physical impairment. Since we are relating the safety of marijuana to alcohol and tobacco, the first argument does not really say anything. This is because alcohol and tobacco also increase your heart rate(http://alcoholism.about.com...)(http://www.acde.org...) The second argument could say that marijuana causes cognitive and physical impairments. Short term memory loss is created with marijuana, but it is only temporary and returns after the drug leaves the body. Physical impairments from it are at a much less extreme than alcohol but slightly higher compared to tobacco. Many people just assume because someone is "high", it must be like they are "drunk", so of course they can't drive. This is untrue though. Studies have proven that there is very little, if any driving problems associated with marijuana.(http://articles.businessinsider.com...)(http://www.insideline.com...). The last negative health effect associated with drugs would be addiction. Nicotine contained in tobacco is one of the most physically addicting substances that is naturally produced on earth. Alcohol, while less than nicotine, has been studied to also show physical dependency. It is not known the physical dependency of marijuana. It is known that if any at all, it is far less serious than of tobacco or alcohol. People that get addicted to marijuana almost always do so because of a psychological addiction, not physical. You can be psychologically addicted to ANYTHING so this is just a way of saying that they have addictive personality. So basically, the only negative health affects from marijuana in vaporized or edible form are only a increased heart rate and temporary "high" effects that do not effect driving nearly as much(if at all) as alcohol. It should be noted that overdose from marijuana resulting in death is impossible. Lets compare this to the negative effects of alcohol. This includes DEATH from overdose, long term kidney damage, loss of brain cells, coma from overdose, large amount of physical dependence, large driving risk, etc. Now lets compare this to tobacco. Note that this is based on smokeless tobacco, where smoke tobacco would of course be more dangerous, but I have to be fair due to talking about vapozed and edible marijuana. Smokeless tobacco comes in either "dip" which is still VERY dangerous and causes cancer(http://www.cancer.gov...). It can also be vaporized in "e-cigarettes". This is much safer, but nicotine itself is also dangerous, and you would be receiving nicotine. Using these e-cigarretes, the safest form of tobacco has shown to STILL cause cancer(http://health.usnews.com...). It also can cause hives, difficulty breathing, and vomiting(http://www.livestrong.com...). Knowing this information, I find it impossible to believe that marijuana is more dangerous than alcohol or tobacco.

Bloomberg's Ban on E-Cigs Electronic cigarretes don't contain Tobacco. It was invented back in 2007 to find an alternative way for smoking regular cigarettes which contains tobacco. According to health.howstuffworks.com, some people say they feel more comforable using electronic cigarrete than regular cigarettes not only because it doesn't contain tobacco but it is also reusable. In addition, it saves them money and help them quit smoking regular cigarettes. PS. The characters aren't limit to 500.

Smoking in public has to be banned For the argument about the topic of asthma, you mentioned that 3,285 deaths are caused by asthma per year. Most asthma attacks can be brought under control. And not all of these deaths are caused by second-hand smoke. Asthma attacks can be triggered by certain things which includes stress, pollens, perfumes, food additives, and much more. Tobacco smoke is only one thing that triggers it. Pollens can be found year round, but sadly we cannot ban those from traveling into public places. We also cannot stop pollutants that trigger asthma attacks. You mentioned while countering my second argument about "The highest attainable standard of health as a fundamental right of every human being, "as said by the World Health Organization Constitution. Yes, everyone does have the right to live a full and healthy life. Smoking in public places may damage a human's health, but second-hand smoke will not damage you as much as things we breathe in, absorb and smell all the time. People smoke outside in public all the time and is their choice as a human being, they want to have their "highest attainable standard" of health. They also have that right as well. There are usually warning signs to places that allow smoking indoors, so it is the fault of the person coming into the place and inhaling that smoke if they do not read the warning sign. Your rhetorical question more than likely puts that effect and emphasis on why not kill yourself if you smoke. The logic that I was following was the logic that you were sending to me. The electronic cigarettes, rechargeable or not, can be made even better, which includes the electronic cigarette explosions. As soon as electronic cigarettes get more attention, the better and safer they will be. For my conclusion, smoking is a problem that does require attention but can be easily solved by supply and demand. The consumers of the cigarettes have the control on how the rules will be pulled and what will be made in the cigarette industry. America cannot put an ultimate ban on cigarettes in public places because that is what runs America. More than 20% of America smokes cigarettes, and since the taxes on cigarettes are high, cigarette taxes bring in the most revenue. America will always be great, but even greater if we share the innovation and technology of electronic cigarettes and safer cigarettes for the public. If we can do this, this particular argument wouldn't even exist. Sources: http://www.everydayhealth.com... http://dailycaller.com...

kids shouldent vape If parents are so irresponsible to let their kids vape who can stop them and if they have no nic in it its just like flavored air

kids shouldent vape I've seen kids younger then 14 who are vaping, and when you ask them why they say "its not bad for me" so i think that we should slap parents who let there kids vape

Vaccines are 100% effective and 100% safe. "The benefits of vaccines far outweigh the risks." Pro You just made a Con argument by admitting that there are risks. Thanks for the debate.

Cigarettes are bad for my health. I am in excellent health and cigarettes have not harmed my health in any way, shape or form. ........

Cigarette Smoking Should Be Banned Everywhere Yes. I am not stating that one should simply ban everything that is bad, but smoking is known to be hazardous and it is difficult to breathe and it stinks. You can decide to ban fast food if you wish to. I believe that is a contributing factor in an unhealthy society. No. You would not have to ban all the ingredients from the market. Do you know why? Most of those ingredients are okay to use under safe circumstances, but it is the combination of them that makes them deadly. Let's compare cigarettes to a simple compound like Carbon Monoxide. It is made up of one carbon atom and one oxygen atom. If we decided to ban the unhealthy use of Carbon Monoxide, we would not be required to ban oxygen nor carbon. Why is this? Both of these atoms are included in a healthy life when the are consumed as separate atoms. One would not simply inhale Carbon Monoxide for fun; however, smoking displays this perfectly. Let's also compare smoking to using Cocaine. Cocaine is a drug that begins as coca leaves. It is dried and soaked in gasoline. Later in the process, battery acid is mixed in. The use of cocaine is illegal, but the contents alone are not. Gasoline is used to run cars, battery acid is used to create energy, and cocoa leaves were an ingredient in Coca-Cola during the early 1920's (1). If you were to create a "healthy" cigarette, you would need to ban over half of the ingredients that were found in them. Freely distributing electronic cigarettes will not help the economy which you argued the ban of cigarettes would not do either. Not banning cigarettes allows future generations to become addicted. Do you know what else is addictive and dangerous? Meth. It is also against the law to use. (1) http://www.naturalnews.com...

Why Smoking Cigarette is bad for a person well being Con states that only 1-2% percent of nicotine is goes in too the body. Then never responded about how the other harmful chemicals named in my previous respond like the carcinogens (cancer-causing poisons). Then talks about how we have a choices to stop if we choose. Ignoring the fact that their is a chemical substance making the brain think it needs more nicotine. Another thing is i stated we are talking about the well being of a person. Meaning how addictive it can be too smoke. Health Risk Con also ignored the fact of how excessive smoking, damages the origins in the body for long terms of smoking. Their addiction in the work place for heavier smokers will make them less productive. If they get that craving then they start drifting off thinking about smoking. As stated before on how bad second hand smoking truly is. In other world when a person is in a environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). They actually get the whole 4,000 chemical compounds in the cigarette. which 69 are consider carcinogens. While pro only states "There is only positive things to address with smokers than others think". Another thing i was to restate is how an estimated 12 million deaths within 40 years. Social effects Con stated how people with low self esteem are comfortable. This than makes it a dependent variable in the person minds. Meaning that the person with low self esteem will not be able to function. The reason why is they think they are out of their comfort zone. Then all they do is try to figure out how to get that mind-set. As stated before they will not care for who or where they are, unless they fulfill that addiction. Con never responded how impersonal kids are when young. Then making that connection of how smoking is acceptable even though its harmful. Their for making those kids when growing up addicted to smoking too. conclusion I clearly stated many reason why smoking is bad for a human well being. Even explain how bad second hand smoking is too. Effecting the people who do not smoke and hurting their health. Then how non-functional a smoker can be while getting withdraws. Another reason is how their are 60 cancers chemicals in a cigarette.

Smoking is good for you, And I love it! I'm gonna have to point out that you still haven't given sources or support on: The number of people who think smoking is good, And that they love it. Certain statements about smoking dcibs that are misconceptions and are not scientific phenomenon. You also haven't addressed my point on the issue of nicontine and how it affects a person's health and overall lifestyle. First you argued that smoking is bad, But good. Now you are arguing that everything is bad unless it is consumed or used at modearte levels. This is false. We cannot use this logic to judge the safety of waht we put into our bodies. There are materials out there that are good, But can be bad if we use them over the limit. And then there are materials taht are innatley bad, Like cigarettes. If there is no distinction, Then there shouldn't be a problem for a kid to go to a liquor store to buy some alcohol or for a person to go in an alley and get crack. But it IS a problem and there IS line drawn between good and bad things. Smoking cigarettes is the leading cause of preventable disease. There are more than 16 million Americans who are living with a disease caused by smoking. Smoking is a known cause for not erectile disfunction. Smoking causes 480, 000 deaths (13, 000 per day) every year in the U. S. , 6 million worldwide. Keep it fresh, Yo. Fresh Empire mike drap

Smoking Yes it true everyone die. But it's really hard to die when u are healthy. Once you start smoking you are taking big risk to your life. Take a good look around people around you and now I want you to see people who smoke around you. People who don't smoke around you will seems to be much smarter and healthy than people who smoke around you. It's dangerous and a risk taker to your life.

Marijuana is safer to consume than both alcohol and tobacco NotesThanks for this debate. Writing this round has been fun and I hope the next few are equally so.This debate is unavoidably going to be about sources; the method of determining safety of a substance is through research.I will refer to Pro's sources as numbers, by the order they were presented in.DefinitionsMarijuana"1: hemp 1a, c"[1]Alcohol"1b: drink (as whiskey or beer) containing ethanol"[2]Tobacco"1: any of a genus (Nicotiana) of chiefly American plants of the nightshade family with viscid foliage and tubular flowers; especially: a tall erect annual tropical American herb (North tabacum) cultivated for its leaves"[3]Carcinogen"a substance or agent causing cancer"[4]RefutationParagraph One (Intro)Just the actual level of danger matters here.Paragraph Two (Benefits)Excerpt from his source 1:“We know that there are as many or more carcinogens and co-carcinogens in marijuana smoke as in cigarettes,” researcher Donald Tashkin, MD, of UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine tells WebMD.His own source states that marijuana has just as many or more agents known to cause cancer as cigarettes (not pure tobacco). His source also claims that it is not clear why they achieved these results.Unfortunately, his source 2 provides very little information about the actual study conducted. Regardless, Cancer.org states that "[e]ven though placebos do not act on the disease, they seem to have an effect in about 1 out of 3 patients."[5] So I propose that it is likely his study showed less effectiveness than a placebo. Marijuana reduces ability of bronchial cells to fight tumors, too.[7]Paragraph Three (Other Forms)Pro claims that safety of marijuana smoke says nothing of the safety of its other forms, but fails to show reason as to why vaporized marijuana or marijuana edibles are healthier. Also, this debate is about marijuana, not THC. Pro states that just the THC is extracted to make these other forms. No argument there, but THC is not marijuana. It is one ingredient. Pro is only conditionally supporting the resolution. The marijuana evaluated here should be that smoked from a pipe; it contains all the ingredients of marijuana without extra from a marijuana cigarette or other form of delivery.Paragraph Four (The Dangers of Marijuana)We have to worry about marijuana when smoked. Pro admitted himself that the vapors and edibles are just THC, not marijuana. Many, many more things can be said about the dangers of marijuana use than increased heart rate and cognitive and physical impairment. We have to worry about lung cancer, as marijuana is 20x more likely to cause lung cancer than cigarettes.[6] It also has twice as many carcinogens as cigarettes.[6] So cancer in general is a danger. Marijuana reduces ability of bronchial cells to fight tumors and other possible issues, suppresses the rest of the immune system in general, and speeds up the progression of HIV to AIDS.[7] The article goes on to state that "[i]t has been suggested that marijuana is at the root of many mental disorders, including acute toxic psychosis, panic attacks (one of the very conditions it is being used experimentally to treat), flashbacks, delusions, depersonalization, hallucinations, paranoia, depression, and uncontrollable aggressiveness. Marijuana has long been known to trigger attacks of mental illness, such as bipolar (manic-depressive) psychosis and schizophrenia." Wow, seems quite a bit worse than just stating, without any sources, that the only issues are "increase[d] heart rate" and "cognitive and physical impairment".Paragraph Five (Heart Rate Increase)He states that all three substances lead to this. No need for argumentation here.Paragraph Six ("Cognitive and Physical Impairment")TobaccoPro states that [p]hysical impairments from [marijuana] are... slightly higher compared to tobacco" with no other comments on tobacco from him here.AlcoholHe provides no sources to state any physical impairments of alcohol use. So I will ignore the claim that alcohol impairs people physically, as it is unwarranted. Onto the second issue of driving. His source 5 only finds a correlation between states that have medical marijuana and lower traffic-related deaths. If there's a correlation between a society in which people drink juice and a society in which serial killers are rampant, does drinking juice lead to serial killings? His source 6 states that the study "did find that drivers were more easily distracted when under the influence." This is hugely important. Distracted driving accounted for 5,474 deaths and 448,000 injuries in 2009.[8] And the problem is already getting worse without the widespread use of marijuana. There was a 4% increase in the proportion of distracted drivers in fatal crashes from 2005 to 2009.[8] Oh, and also, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration states that 6.8% of drivers involved in collisions test positive for THC (once again, not synonymous with marijuana, but a major ingredient of it).[13]Paragraph Seven (Addiction)First of all, nicotine is not addictive.[9][10][11] Onto Pro's claims about alcohol. Because he has no sources, it is hard to determine how addictive alcohol is when it "has been studied to also show physical dependency [sic]." I assert that it isn't very addictive with alcohol dependence in 5% of the population[12]. This is opposed to marijuana, with 9% of the total number who will use it, 17% (1 in 6) of the teenagers who start in their teenage years, and 25-50% of daily users estimated to develop dependence.[13]Paragraph Eight (Summary)Fatal marijuana overdoses have been reported.[14] All refuted previously.Paragraph Nine (Types of Tobacco)I'm talking about tobacco, not substances containing tobacco."Dip" tobaccoContains nuclear waste, cyanide, more[15]CigarettesCommon knowledge is that they have more than tobaccoE-cigarettesDo not contain tobacco[16]My CaseObservationThis debate is of which is the safest of the three drugs. If the answer is marijuana, Pro wins. If the answer is alcohol or tobacco, Con wins.C1: Gateway DrugI made a table with statistics of [17]http://tinyurl.com...C2: Dangers of MarijuanaSubpoint A: Medical· 20x more likely to cause lung cancer than cigarettes, twice as many carcinogens[6]· Reduces ability of bronchial cells to fight tumors and other possible issues[7]· Suppresses the rest of the immune system, too[7]· Speeds up progression of HIV to AIDS.[7]· Causes many mental disorders, such as acute toxic psychosis, delusions, depersonalization, depression, flashbacks, panic attacks, paranoia, uncontrollable aggressiveness[7]Subpoint B: OtherApply all non-medical statistics and arguments about the danger of marijuana used in refutationC3: Alcohol and TobaccoApply all statistics and arguments about alcohol and tobacco used in refutationC4: LegalThis one's simple. One should and will not be arrested for use of alcohol and tobacco if one is 21 or older.Unfortunately, I am out of characters to use. In the next few rounds, I intend on elucidating my contention 2, subpoint B and my contention 3. Back to Pro.Again, I thank Pro for the fun debateReferences[1] merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marijuana[2] merriam-webster.com/dictionary/alcohol[3] merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tobacco[4] merriam-webster.com/dictionary/carcinogen[5] cancer.org/Treatment/TreatmentsandSideEffects/TreatmentTypes/placebo-effect[6] foxnews.com/story/0,2933,326309,00.html[7] cyber.law.harvard.edu/evidence99/marijuana/Health_1.html[8] distraction.gov/research/PDF-Files/Distracted-Driving-2009.pdf[9] statepress.com/archive/node/7194[10] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine#Psychoactive_effects[11] tinyurl.com/tdiup[12] niaaa.nih.gov/Resources/DatabaseResources/QuickFacts/AlcoholDependence/Pages/abusdep2.aspx[13] drugabuse.gov/ResearchReports/Marijuana/marijuana4.html[14] drug-overdose.com/marijuana.htm[15] uihealthcare.com/topics/smoking/smokelesstobacco.html[16] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_cigarette[17] marijuanaaddictiontreatment.org/statistics-facts.html

Cigarettes are bad for my health. I see you have attempted to clarify your initial...vague... statement. I commend you on that. There is, however, the unfortunate consequence (for you that is), that your clarification essentially renders your opening address useless: for it is an irrelevant statement altogether. It appears that you are referring to second hand smoke, now clarifying that you do not in fact smoke cigarettes. You say that cigarette companies say cigarettes are only harmful to you if you smoke them. That is an "appeal to authority" fallacy in that you claim their statements to be true simply because they are a large entity that says so. Has it occurred to you that their statements might be skewed? Surely, if I was the P.R. spokesman for a cigarette company I would not go out and admit that my company's chief product has collateral health effects. You say that my medical knowledge is much less respectable than your doctor's. You are correct. Certainly, I would trust my doctor more. I am afraid, however, that you have drawn an irrelevant conclusion from this truth. You are assuming that your doctor can, with 100% accuracy, predict your health. I can cite several examples when doctors have been wrong. There is also another flaw with your argument. You fail to address the chief statement of this debate. Are cigarettes bad for your health? It is possible that you are perfectly healthy right now because you have had minimal exposure to cigarettes: this does not mean cigarettes are not detrimental to your health. If you are so sure that cigarettes are not detrimental to your health I invite you to spend six hours of your life in a smokers lounge at an airport or hotel or bar (take your pick), or any edifice full of smoking individuals. Do this for four years. I can assure you that your respiratory system will not compliment that decision. If you are arguing that cigarettes do not currently pose any bad side effects to your health then please say so. Using the ambiguity of your statements to your advantage is not effective an effective debating manoeuvre.

Smoking Tobacco Isn't Bad. Cigars and pipes tied to same risks as cigarettes (Reuters)Cigar and pipe smokers are more likely to develop heart disease, stroke and lung diseases than those who do not smoke. Additionally, cigar and pipe smoking can result in gum disease and tooth loss. Because cigars contain more tobacco than cigarettes, and burn for much longer, they also give off greater amounts of second hand smoke, negatively affecting those around you. (University of Pennsylvania)Association Between Exclusive Pipe Smoking and Mortality From Cancer and Other Diseases (https://academic.oup.com...)Cigar and pipe smoking and cancer risk in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (International Journal of Cancer)Cigars are dangerous due to the process of aging and fermenting the tobacco, which creates nitrates and nitrites, which are known to be carcinogenic. When a cigar is burned, it produces more cancer-causing compounds, such as nitrosamine, tar, carbon monoxide and ammonia. These are found in higher levels in cigar smoke than in cigarette smoke. One large cigar can contain as much tobacco (up to 20 grams) as an entire pack of cigarettes (1 gram of tobacco per cigarette)! Even though many cigar smokers do not inhale, the amount of nicotine is higher in a cigar (1-2 milligrams in a cigarette versus up to 400 milligrams in a single cigar) and this nicotine is quickly absorbed in the saliva. For this reason, the addiction to cigars is just as strong as to cigarettes. A smoker's saliva contains the chemicals from the tobacco smoke, exposing the mouth, lips, tongue and throat to these carcinogens. (University of Pennsylvania)The harms of cigarette smoking are well-reported, but those of cigar smoking are discussed less often. (U.S. Food and Drug Administration) Given the public health harm caused by smoking, we conducted a systematic review of information currently available on the mortality risks of cigar smokers compared to those who had never smoked tobacco or used any form of tobacco. We reviewed 22 studies and found that regular cigar smoking increases the risk of dying from many of the same diseases caused by cigarette smoking, including cancer and heart disease. A 2014 study estimated that regular cigar smoking causes 9,000 premature deaths annually in the U.S. We also found that when cigar smokers reported not inhaling cigar smoke, they were still three to ten times more likely to die from oral, laryngeal, or esophageal cancer than someone who never used tobacco. Research has shown that whether cigar smokers realize it, they are likely to inhale some tobacco smoke. Cigar smokers also absorb nicotine and harmful substances from cigar smoke through their mouths. Our study reinforces the fact that cigar smoking poses significant health risks to users. (U.S. Food and Drug Administration)

Should E-cigs and vapes be regulated Of all context, There should be no regulations. If the audience wants to buy them; let them. If kids do it for the clout, Let them. The ones whom will suffer the consequences is the user. That's all.

Smoking should be banned Ok, 1. Pro said about "The government has right to limit what people do to their bodies" is silly thing. Like what I said before, this is personal right. Banning smoking may infringe on a person's individual right to behave as he pleases. In addition, 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 fattening foods, are allowed. Another reason to oppose the current campaign against smokers is because it violates the legitimate rights of smokers. John Stuart Mill, in a slender book published in 1859 titled On Liberty, wrote: The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community against his will is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. This is the basic premise of libertarianism, the political philosophy of the Founding Fathers. Mill statement is directly applicable to the controversy over smoking. Quite simply, a just government does not have the authority to ban smoking on private property or to tell smokers to quit or to punish them if they do not. Smokers are adults, not children, and they deserve to have their informed choices respected by others. If we pass laws forcing smokers to change their behavior "for their own good, we need to ask: Where do we stop? Do we pass laws against smoking in private homes? Against frying food indoors (which also releases known carcinogens into the air)? Eating the wrong kinds of food? Eating too much? Weighing too much? Drinking too much (and not just when driving)? Exercising too little? Should we ban other risky behavior, such as skydiving, bungee-jumping, or riding motorcycles? How about drinking more than one cup of coffee each day? So, if government has right to limit what people do to their bodies, directly government will too much interfere. They will limit what food that should we eat maybe worst, government will handle the time to us sleep for our healthy. Can you imagine how suck is that? Pro failed broke my arguments about smoker's rights. 2. Second-hand Smoke Is second-hand smoke a rationale for higher taxes on tobacco or smoking bans? The research used to justify government regulation of second-hand smoke has been powerfully challenged by critics, including Congress own research bureau. According to the EPA, the risk ratio for forty years of exposure to a pack-a-day smoker is just 1.19. Epidemiologists as a rule are skeptical of any relative risks lower than 3 and dismiss as random ratios less than 1.3. An important report on second-smoke appeared in the May 12, 2003 issue of the British Medical Journal. Two epidemiologists, James Enstrom at UCLA and Geoffrey Kabat at the State University of New York at Stony Brook, analyzed data collected by the American Cancer Society from more than 100,000 Californians from 1959 through 1997. "The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, the researchers wrote, although they do not rule out a small effect. "The association between tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed. "It is generally considered that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke is roughly equivalent to smoking one cigarette per day, according to Enstrom and Kabat. "If so, a small increase in lung cancer is possible, but the commonly reported 30 percent increase in heart disease risk--the purported cause of almost all the deaths attributed to secondhand smoke -- is highly implausible. 3. Business Smoking bans have had severe negative effects on restaurants, bars, and nightclubs in cities where such bans have been enacted. Smokers choose to stay home or visit with friends who allow smoking in their homes, or spend less time (and less money) in bars and nightclubs before leaving. Smoking bans can also move noisy and potentially dangerous crowds onto sidewalks, and divert police resources from battling more serious crime. Smoking bans violate the private property rights of individuals. The owners of bars, restaurants, and other businesses should be free to decide whether to allow smoking in their establishments and what kinds of accommodations to make for nonsmokers. Their customers should decide how important it is to be able to smoke or to experience a smoke-free environment. People often include smoking to the list of pleasurable activities they enjoy when dining out or visiting a bar. Banning smoking at these establishments may make people less likely to visit, which can hurt the business owners if smokers make up a large percentage of their customers. On the other hand, potential patrons who may have avoided a location because smoking was allowed may now visit a business because of the lack of irritating smoke. 4. Taxing Smokers Cigarettes are already the most heavily taxed commodity in the U.S. The federal excise tax is $1.01 a pack and the national average state excise tax is about $1.36 per pack, for a total of $2.37 per pack. Some cities and states impose far higher taxes. The combined state-local tax rate in Chicago is $6.16 per pack, and in New York City it is $5.85 per pack. Cigarette taxes also are an inefficient and unreliable way to raise funds for government. Excise taxes require relatively high rates to raise funds, creating opportunities and incentives for evasion and the transfer of economic activity to states with lower taxes. Dramatic price hikes and extreme taxes on cigarettes are threatening to create a stampede of tax evasion, black-market transactions, counterfeiting, and even use of lethal violence against convenience store clerks and truck drivers. Recent tax hikes adopted by New York, Cook County, Illinois, and elsewhere threaten to take us to a neoprohibitionist era with all the crime, expenses, and loss of respect for law enforcement that accompanied Prohibition. Excise taxes are also regressive. People with low incomes not only pay a higher percentage of their incomes on cigarette taxes than do wealthier people, they even pay more in absolute terms. Persons earning less than $10,000 paid an average of $81 a year in tobacco taxes, versus $49 for those who make $50,000 or more. This was before recent massive tax hikes! Finally, excise taxes require regular rate increases to keep pace with inflation, whereas income, sales, and property taxes all rise with inflation or economic growth. Because of their narrow bases, excise taxes are unstable revenue generators. 5. Solution In April 2014, the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health published a report summarizing a survey of more than 19,000 past and present users of electronic cigarettes "" the largest survey of its kind to date. Here is what the survey found: Electronic cigarettes helped 81% of the survey respondents quit smoking. Among those who had not quit entirely, one-third were non-daily smokers, and the rest had decreased consumption from 20 cigarettes to 4 per day. Smokers primarily begin using electronic cigarettes for harm reduction and to reduce second-hand smoke exposure to family members. Electronic cigarettes appear to be effective even in highly-dependent smokers. Side effects are minor and reported health benefits are substantial. Unfortunately, some public health organizations and lobbying groups have made a business out of opposing smoking. If electronic cigarettes solve many of the problems that come from smoking tobacco, their """business” may be hurt. This conflict of interest means they will be among the last to admit that electronic cigarettes are a safe alternative for smokers. So, government should not banned smoking. If they worry about people healthy, smoker can choose to use electronic cigarettes. But still,government can't force them to stop smoking. That is their right to choose.

The Benefits of Smoking Actually Outweigh the Risks ( Take 2 ) As someone who has never smoked and never will smoke, I hope to inform everyone on the risks of smoking and why any benefits smoking may provide are either marginal, non-existent, or can be given without smoking. If my opponent agrees, I'd like to set the burden of proof as being on Pro - that would mean Pro must positively prove the resolution in order to win. However, if he would prefer we can set the BOP as being split, meaning each side must prove their own case. Within the medical community, tobacco smoking is regarded as a major health hazard, enough so that in 2008 the World Health Organization (WHO) attributed it to 100 million deaths in 20th century, and that one billion people could die in the 21st century from it due to its increasing prominence in poor and developing countries. (WHO, page 6) Dr. Margaret Chen, the Director-General of the WHO, noted that "tobacco use can kill in so many ways that it is a risk factor for six of the eight leading causes of death in the world". (WHO, page 7) The WHO describes tobacco as "the single most preventable cause of death in the world today" and noted that, with five million annual deaths, it kills more people than TB, HIV/AIDS, and malaria combined. They state that tobacco kills up to half of its users and can harm everyone exposed to it. (WHO, page 8) The health risks of tobacco smoking have been well-known for more than a century now. In 1912 Dr. Isaac Adler suggested lung cancer was related to smoking, and in 1929 Fritz Lickint published a study giving evidence to this theory, showing those with lung cancer were likely to be smokers. The epidemic did not truly begin until the rise of cigarette smoking following World War I - prior to the war it was a rare disease, but following the war lung cancer rates spiked. [2] In the 1950s we began seeing more research linking tobacco to lung cancer, including Richard Doll's 1950 study in the British Medical Journal and the British Doctor's Study, which conclusively proved the link. [3] The famous Smoking and Health: Report of the Advisory Committee to the Surgeon General of the United States was published in 1964, linking smoking to emphysema, increased risk of heart attack, chronic bronchitis, and a 70% higher age-corrected mortality rate, in addition to lung cancer and underweight newborns in smoking pregnant women. [4] Simply put, the evidence here is overwhelming - and these are just the old studies! Newer studies have shown risks from second-hand smoke and even the residue that tobacco smoke leaves on outside substances. These are strong words - how can a simple plant be so harmful? That is what I am out to prove, and I hope that by the end of this debate everyone will come away with a greater understanding of tobacco smoking's immense risks. Why is tobacco smoking so unhealthy? Let's look at the facts. According to the National Cancer Institute, "Of the more than 7,000 chemicals in tobacco smoke, at least 250 are known to be harmful. .. Among the 250 known harmful chemicals in tobacco smoke, at least 69 can cause cancer". Let's take a look at some of the 'greatest hits':*Arsenic - A toxic chemical that, in addition to being a carcinogen, disrupts the production of ATP. [6] Well-known as a rat poison. [7]*Benzene - A cancer-causing chemical linked to bone-marrow failure, leukemia, DNA and chromosome damage, and organ damage. [8]*Beryllium - A carcinogen that causes berylliosis, a pulmonary disease. [9] *Polonium-210 - An extremely toxic radioactive isotope of polonium, notably used to murder Alexander Litvinenko. [10]Those are just a few of the deadly chemicals smokers inhale each time they take a drag. In addition, smoking damages artery linings and increases the risk of blood clots, leading to risk of heart attacks and strokes. It also contains carbon monoxide, which decreases the amount of oxygen in your blood, and nicotine, which increases heart rate and blood pressure. [11] Carbon monoxide and cyanide are believed to lead to pulmonary damage, resulting in emphysema and COPD. [12] Oral issues include oral cancer, periodontitis, teeth staining, and bad breath. [13] A side effect of the artery narrowing caused by smoking is impotence, something 85% higher in male smokers than non-smokers. Additionally, smoking is a key cause of ED - meaning it is responsible for all the Viagra commercials that come on in football games. [14] Reproductive issues aren't just limited to men - because the smoke chemicals interfere with estrogen production, women are hurt here as well. [15]The result of all this crap? Smokers lose upwards to 13 years of life. [16] That is 13 fewer years to see their grandkids, travel the world, or enjoy retirement. And that's just the death statistics - it doesn't account for, for example, smokers surviving with COPD or ED. It doesn't account for smokers that are impotent, or have suffered miscarriages because of the damage of smoking. It doesn't account for second-hand smoke. It doesn't account for the effect of smoke on pets, the noxious smell of smoke, the residue it leaves on everything it touches. It doesn't account for the cost of a two-pack a day addiction, or of medical treatment for when you are dying from cancer. Just from years lost alone this debate resolution is disproven - what on earth could be worth losing over a dozen years of life over? With the bad stuff out of the way, let's look at some positives of smoking. Hey, smokers don't have as many knee replacement surgeries! Well, that could be because smokers aren't likely to jog and aren't generally obese. Why aren't they obese? Because nicotine is an appetite suppressant. Never mind it is highly addictive and might actually make the food you do eat taste worse, that is indeed a positive. [17] Of course, you don't need to smoke to get nicotine - you can just go buy some of the nicotine replacement gum products to get smokers to stop smoking. Another plus is you might not get Parkinson's. [17] If you would rather die young than risk getting a condition maybe 2% of the population at most, I guess smoking is an option. [18] It's a similar thing with Alzheimer's: apparently nicotine might reduce the risk or push back offset a bit longer. Of course, it could just be because people who smoke die sooner, so they don't get it. [19] You also might have less of a mortality rate from heart attacks, but this might be because you'll get them younger so your body will be more used to them. [17] Smoking also helps clopidogrel, a blood-clot inhibiting drug, work better. [17] Simply put though, none of these slight benefits outweigh the risk - and in many cases, you could just get the same effect elsewhere, either from another, less harmful drug, or from just using nicotine and cutting out the smoke. Either way, smoking is most certainly more of a health risk than a health benefit. References:1. . http://www.who.int...2. . https://en.wikipedia.org...3. . https://en.wikipedia.org...4. . https://en.wikipedia.org...5. . http://www.cancer.gov...6. . https://en.wikipedia.org...7. . http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov...8. . https://en.wikipedia.org...9. . https://en.wikipedia.org...10. . http://www.nytimes.com...11. . http://www.bhf.org.uk...12. . https://en.wikipedia.org...13. . https://en.wikipedia.org...14. . https://en.wikipedia.org...15. . https://en.wikipedia.org...16. . http://www.cdc.gov...17. . http://www.livescience.com...18. . http://www.genome.gov...19. . http://www.straightdope.com...

are vaccines safe Vaccines are known to help us fight diseases, but the immunity they are meant to provide cannot be guaranteed... Let me just quote that '...vaccines are "unavoidably unsafe" and contain "unavoidable" viruses, phages and contaminants...' which in basic terms, prove that they are not as hygienic (or clean) as medicines or treatments are normally required to be.

Smoking is good for you, And I love it! I CAN'T WAIT FOR THE NEW MICHAEL MYERS MOVIE! I'm going the first night it's out. I love all the Halloween movies except # 3 Like you mentioned science has shown that cigarettes can be bad BUT so is everything else. Too much of anything will eventually kill you. There was a kid last year who drank 12 Nestle ice teas a day for 6 months and completely destroyed his kidneys because of an active ingredient in the tea that crystallized in his kidneys. Now the kid is 22 and will be on dialysis for the rest of his life. Eating too much bacon can cause heart disease. Eating too much of one item can cause stomach cancers. Moderation to anything is the key. And tobacco is the same. If you are smoking less than 6 cigarettes a day it will hardly do anything in your body. I told my doctor I smoke 4 cigarettes a day and he just shrugged his shoulders. It is ironic how many doctors and nurses say cigarettes are bad, Yet if you look in the smoking areas just on the outside of hospital properties they are all smoking. I see doctors smoke all the time, You would think they would have the most knowledge on the subject of tobacco consumption. Smoking can only be bad if you chain smoke over a pack a day, Otherwise having a cigarette, Your body gets rid of the toxins within 2 hours of smoking. We have toxins in Coca Cola, Like sulphuric acid, Citric acid sodium citrate which are very harmful to the body in mass quantities yet nobody is complaining about Coca Cola. Cigarettes are no worse than alcohol, And are way better than meth, Heroin fentanyl, Ecstasy and cocaine. The key to cigarettes as in anything else is moderation. Cigarettes are not bad, And I have pointed out some benefits. I believe all the negative info on cigarettes is just media fear mongering. Cigarettes will never go away just like alcohol, People enjoy it and some may frown but in the end it's a personal choice. mic drop

The Benefits of Smoking Actually Outweigh the Risks ( Take 2 ) I'll take the full BOP.(sentences w/ underline used to quote con)As to the first segment of my opponent's second paragraph, I would have to ask - how are these numbers gathered? How do we know for absolute certain that these deaths were "caused" by smoking, and not some exterior force? When a smoker dies from a disease in the hospital, it is protocol for the doctors to record the death as being "caused" by smoking, regardless of whether or not the disease itself was actually caused by smoking at all. This creates a fallacious statistical conclusion as the 'Detection Bias'. "Detection bias occurs when a phenomenon is more likely to be observed for a particular set of study subjects. For instance, the syndemic involving obesity and diabetes may mean doctors are more likely to look for diabetes in obese patients than in thinner patients, leading to an inflation in diabetes among obese patients because of skewed detection efforts."[1] So, as for the numbers being provided by my opponent, I would be interested in seeing the experiment executed to provide these evidences.The problem of lung cancer:Here is the real scoop on the association of lung cancer with smoking: as for the Surgeon General's reports on smoking causing lung cancer, the actual results of the experiments themselves are astounding. Consider the results of experiments on animals done "between 1964 and 1982", which were meant to "educate" smokers to stop smoking: "Prior to the writing of the [Surgeon General] Report, numerous experiments had been conducted, attempting to induce lung cancer in laboratory animals by painting their lungs and trachea with cigarette tars, forcing the animals to inhale vast quantities of tobacco smoke, etc. All of these experiments failed, miserably! Consequently, at page 165 of its Report, the Committee was obliged to concede that "Bronchogenic carcinoma has not been produced by the application of tobacco extracts, smoke, or condensates to the lung o r the tracheobronchial tree of experimental animals with the possible exception of dogs". The phrase "possible exception of dogs" related to a single experiment, of which the Committee wrote that "this work has not yet been confirmed. To this day, it remains unconfirmed and it remains true, to this day, that despite hundreds of experiments18, nobody has been able to induce a single cancer in lab animals by exposing them to ordinary tobacco products or smoke."[2] But wait, there's more: Other researchers attempted to induce lung cancer in lab animals by using nasty combinations of industrial strength carcinogens. They used mixtures of ozonized gasoline and mouse-adapted influence viruses; polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, directly applied to the lungs of rats; mixtures of benzo(a)pyrene and iron oxide dust; radioactive cerium; and beryllium oxide. Even with these noxious brews, the results were not entirely successful. For one thing, some of the experimenters reported "distant metastases", i.e., tumors occurring in sites far from the lungs (which makes me wonder whether the "treatments" had simply weakened the animals' immune systems to the point at which cancers were springing up spontaneously throughout their bodies). Moreover, not all the animals got sick. For example, two out of ten rhesus monkeys injected with beryllium oxide developed cancers but 8 did not"[2] The problem of emphysema: The evidence is equally sketchy concerning the link between smoking and emphysema, as my opponent has claimed. In fact, a study prior to 1973 had shown that the disease occurs genetically. "Some time subsequent to 1973, a genetic cause of emphysema was discovered. In an article in...Grolier's Encyclopedia, Howard Buechner, M.D., explains that a significant number of the people with the disease lack a gene that controls the liver's production of a protein called alpha-1 antitrypsin (AAT). This protein controls or degrades an enzyme called neutrophilelastase, produced by the white blood cells. When the enzyme is left unchecked, it destroys alveolar tissue."[3] The correlation between emphysema and lung cancer, therefore, is moot. Even if the correlation existed, it would still be multifactorial, and therefore moot - for multiple sources of the very same carcinogenic substances found in cigarettes are found outdoors everyday! I quote it thus: "DIRECT MEASUREMENT read-outs from BC AirCare laboratories indicate that vehicular emissions 1995 in the Vancouver's Lower Mainland amount to 324,500 tons, or 2 pounds per person per day. How does that compare with 0.5 millionth of a gram per cubic foot of Environmental Tobacco Smoke in a normally ventilated room[?]."[4] A simple walk around the city during the winter can reveal the pollutants each of the city's citizens are breathing. Take a glance at the blackened snow on the side of the street, and you'll see how the city's polluted air is literally turning snow, which was once white, a charcoal black. For reference, I invite my opponent and the voters to take a look at the photograph provided below: (Mmmmmm, see that beautiful blackened snow? You're breathing that!) The problem of bronchitis: "Bronchitis has hundreds of inflamatory causes, i.e.: cold temperatures, allergies, and alcohol. Smoking (even inhaled in substantial doses) plays an infinitesimal role in bronchitis. Far more important is the body structure: a slim, non smoking individual with a small chest is exposed to a far greater risk of bronchitis than a heavy smoker with a large chest."[5] Heart attacks?: "For many years, anti-smoking activists have insisted that smoking "causes" heart attacks. In truth, there is no scientific evidence to support such a claim. As early as the 1950's government scientists began conducting studies ... to assess the "risk factors" which lead to heart attacks and stroke. Early on, they identified three such risk factors: Smoking, high blood pressure and cholesterol. As the years have gone by, however, other researchers have identified still other risk factors. Taking estrogen pills has been identified as a risk factor in women 36 . Male pattern baldness has been identified as a risk factor in men 37 . Vitamin and mineral deficiencies have been blamed for heart attacks, as well as eating fatty foods and drinking too much alcohol. There are other obvious risk factors: 100% of all heart attack victims breathed air during the time prior to their heart attack. 90% drove automobiles. 95% paid income taxes." (sorry Mr. President, the doc says I can't pay income taxes anymore because it puts me at risk for heart attacks!) Statistical arguments moot at best: This goes back somewhat to what my opponent was mentioning earlier about smoking causing "100 million deaths in the 20th century", but statistics, sadly, are not a good basis for belief. A good explanation for this can be seen here: Greg, in this video, discusses statistics and the flaws involved with them. I would like to quote him saying "statistics and...corrolary data are...the second weakest form of imperical data to rely on" (he says this at about 8:48). As for smoking, consider this: let's say a smoker lives in an old house (also once owned by a smoker) for ten years and develops negative cardiovascular effects. This smoker goes to the hospital, stays for a month, then passes away. The doctor operating on the smoker states that the death was caused by smoking, and this smoker's death is then added to the death tally which anti smokers continue to tout left and right. However, three months later, a house inspector inspects the smoker's house, and discovers that the walls were actually painted with lead, which has also been known to cause negative cardiovascular effects. So, the smoker's death may not have even been a result of the cigarette smoking at all! That said, I challenge my opponent to refrain from statistical arguments. Avoiding "toxic chemicals" futile: "Those are just a few of the deadly chemicals smokers inhale each time they take a drag." A drag of what, the outdoors? According to my sources, the pollutants we breathe in each time we step outside includes, but is not limited to: -Nitrogen Dioxide -Carbon Monoxide -Lead -Sulfur Dioxide -Arsenic -Asbestos -Benzene (petrol additive) -Dioxin -Methane -Nitrous Oxide (laughing gas) [6] Although it is true that some of the chemicals my opponnent mentioned may exist in trace amounts in cigarettes, chances are, you've already consumed them. "Cigarette butts contain hazardous chemicals such as cadmium, arsenic, and lead that are partially filtered out during smoking. But when the butt is discarded, these chemicals leach into the environment contaminating our waterways and land."[5] Oral health: Perhaps choosing to brush your teeth more often would be an arguably better way to take care of your oral health than to refrain from smoking alone? Life expectancy: See Round 1. COPD: The cause for COPD is unknown. [3] ED/Impotence: This is contrary to historical evidence. As my opponent pointed out, cigarette smoking had its heyday in the 1950's; but what did we also have in the 1950's? The baby boom! "There is absolutely no proof of that, of course. Smokers have been reproducing successfully for thousands of years. The most famous "lovers" were (and are) smokers." [Source 6, Round 1] Proof: (Sex symbol and smoker Marilyn Monroe.) (Clint Eastwood: The face of ED? Such talk is nothing but blasphemy.) ETS: May actually protect the health of others [Source 6, Round 1] [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] - http://www.lcolby.com... [3] - http://www.lcolby.com... [4] - http://www.forces.org...[5] - http://www.cleanup.org.au...[6] - http://www.infoplease.com...

Is smoking bad for you Smoking may be legal but that doesn't mean it's good for us! In fact, it's just the opposite: smoking is the only legal consumer product that kills you when you use it exactly how it's meant to be used! That's pretty scary, isn't it? Cigarettes are made from tobacco. The tobacco plant is the only plant ever discovered to contain the drug called nicotine. Nicotine is a very strong poison that can kill a human in less than an hour if even a small amount is injected into the blood-stream. Tobacco smoke contains very tiny amounts of nicotine that aren't deadly but are still very bad for our health. Tobacco smoke also contains many other chemicals. In fact, it contains over 4,000 chemicals, many of which are very harmful to our bodies. All of these chemicals mix together and form a sticky tar. It's the tar that gives cigarette smoke its smell and color. The tar sticks to clothing, skin, and the insides of our lungs! Tar is very dangerous inside our lungs. It sticks to the cilia in our lungs that are responsible for sweeping out germs and dirt. If the cilia are covered in tar, they can't work right, and germs and dirt can stay in the lungs and cause diseases damage tar does to your cilia is only the beginning, though. The tar and smoke are made up of many chemicals that are known to cause cancer, as well as many chemicals that are just plain bad for you.With the nicotine and tar working together, there are a lot of bad diseases linked to smoking cigarettes. Diseases like throat cancer, mouth cancer, bladder cancer, lung cancer, chronic bronchitis, emphysema, and heart disease are all caused by smoking.In fact, 40,000 people die each year from diseases caused by smoking. Each cigarette you smoke takes 5 to 8 minutes of your life. Is it worth it? The following famous people died because they smoked: Humphrey Bogart (age 57) Jesse Owens (age 67) Michael Landon (age 54) Nat "King" Cole (age 45) Sammy Davis Jr. (age 64).Unfortunately, even if you don't smoke, you can still get sick from tobacco smoke. If you breathe the smoke from another person's cigarette, it's as bad as if you were smoking the cigarette yourself! This smoke is called second-hand smoke and it kills hundreds of people each year. If your parents smoke, you have a greater chance of getting ear infections, asthma, bronchitis, and tonsillitis. Children who are exposed to smoke all their lives have underdeveloped lungs, and they are two to four times likely to have allergic reactions and asthma than children of nonsmokers.Second-hand smoke is starting to really bother nonsmokers, and that's why there are more places where smoking isn't allowed than there used to be. Now you aren't allowed to smoke on a plane, in a bus, or in many buildings. Non-smokers want to breathe clean air! Cigarettes aren't just bad for our health. They are bad for the environment, too! Think of the amount of paper that goes into making each cigarette. Young people smoke about 6,000,000 cigarettes per day! That's a lot of trees that are cut down, and the paper can never be recycled! Look around outside. There are cigarette butts everywhere! Do you know that it takes more than 5 years for a cigarette butt to biodegrade? That means that it takes at least 5 years for the cigarette butts to break down unless someone cleans them up. Gross! Most people realize that smoking cigarettes are dangerous for their health. But are other forms of tobacco just as dangerous? The death rate for pipe and cigar smokers is actually less than the death rate for cigarette smokers but still higher than the death rate for non-smokers. BUT, that's not because the tobacco used in cigars and pipes is safer! It's because cigar and pipe smokers don't inhale as deeply as cigarette smokers do when they smoke. If a person inhales deeply for cigars and pipes, then they are actually more dangerous than cigarettes! Don't think that cigars and pipes are safer than cigarettes! Pipe smokers have a very high rate of lip cancer, and compared to cigarette smokers, pipe and cigar smokers have a higher chance of getting mouth cancer, throat cancer, and larynx (voice box) cancer. The second-hand smoke from cigars is really bad. One cigar puts out as much smoke and tar into the air as 42 cigarettes! Stay away from cigar smoke if you want to stay healthy! Some people think that smokeless tobacco is safer than cigarettes. Smokeless tobacco comes in two forms: chewing tobacco and snuff. Both forms are put into the mouth and sucked on. It's true that smokeless tobacco is better for your lungs since there is no smoke to breathe in. BUT, it is very bad for other parts of your body. Just like regular tobacco, smokeless tobacco contains nicotine, which is a very poisonous drug that speeds up your heart and increases your blood pressure. Holding an averagely-sized wad of chewing tobacco in your mouth for 30 minutes gives you as much nicotine as smoking 4 cigarettes!Besides the nicotine, smokeless tobacco contains all the bad chemicals that regular tobacco does, including the ones that cause cancer. Here are all the things that smokeless tobacco can give you: You can have a reduction in your ability to taste and smell You get stained teeth You get bad breath It can cause tooth decay It can cause gum disease It can give you bleeding gums It can give you sores in the mouth that don't heal You can experience dizziness It can make you throw up It can decrease your physical ability You can get mouth, lip, cheek, and tongue cancer You can get palate, pharynx, larynx, and esophagus cancer You get a fast heart rate and high blood pressure You can get heart disease

Smoking is good for you, And I love it! As soon as you specified what kind of substance was being smoked, I as well as most people knew where this is headed. You're advocating for the claim that smoking is good for you, Implying that this activity is beneficial for everyone. Here are my points on why your argument is not viable and justifiable: Your opening segment seems okay and solid. It is a possibility that there are many negative misconceptions associated with smoking cigarettes. Whether are true or not will be determined within this debate and we will both be the judges so I'd appreciate it if you don't troll. Your own testimonial on smoking is subjective and anecdotal. It is also not credible due to the fact that you are, Supposedly, A twelve-year-old kid and that your view on smoking may not be representative or the majority opinion within the smoking community. If you can give me a survey that supports your rhetoric that most smokers love smoking cigarettes and that it's good for them, Then it can be approved. You have established the proven fact that cigarettes alleviate Ulcerative Colitis and that it is not a cause of conditions like Ulcerative Colitis. Superficially, This point effectively supports your claim that smoking cigs are a good way to improve your health. However, If we were to assess the number/efficacy of positive effects in comparison to the number/severity of negative effects in smoking cigarettes, We would conclude that the negatives outnumber and outweigh the positives by a lot. Positive effects include but are not limited to: a false/deluded sense of stress relief and relaxation, Alleviation of IBDs, Low risk of obesity, Lowers risk of Parkinson's disease. Negative effects include: lung cancer, Mouth cancer, Throat cancer, Milanosis, Tooth loss, Tooth decay, "Smoker's Face"(premature wrinkling and sallow coloration) birth defects, Stenosis, Periodontitis, Second-hand smoking, Addiction, Stress exacerbation, Increase risk of engaging in substance abuse, Etc. Evidently, The cons to smoking completely overshadow the minute number of pros when it comes to smoking. Furthermore, There is a multitude of alternatives for cigarettes in regards to the list of positive effects of smoking. Substitutes such as taking a break/chewing gum/listening to music/meditation, Medication, Exercise/liposuction/eating healthy, Etc. Are all great ways to reap those benefits in contrast to smoking. And what's so great about these alternatives is that they don't come with the many dangers and lethal side effects that smoking cigarettes have. While tobacco was the basis for the economy that our nation was built off from, It is not the representation of our nation's ethics or at least something that we shouldn't be proud of. Slavery was part of our economy for a while, But we shouldn't uphold that legacy. Besides, We can still use tobacco without putting it in cigs.

Should the e cigarette be available to everyone Isee now, youre a parent and you dont want to youre kids to use ecigs so you dont want any underage peoplw to have thwm, and thats completely understandable. But you have to relize that kids will get there hands on them somehow and there really is no point in punishing the kids because they will get them again! So what im saying is why not let the kids have the freedome to ruin there health, its natural selction at its finest.

Smoking should be banned 1. Personal right Con ignores my arguments on second hand smoke and the fact that marijuana is less harmful than smoking. My arguments still stand."If we pass laws forcing smokers to change their behavior "for their own good, we need to ask: Where do we stop? Do we pass laws against smoking in private homes? Against frying food indoors (which also releases known carcinogens into the air)? Eating the wrong kinds of food? Eating too much? Weighing too much? Drinking too much (and not just when driving)? Exercising too little? Should we ban other risky behavior, such as skydiving, bungee-jumping, or riding motorcycles? How about drinking more than one cup of coffee each day?"The problem is these only affect the people who do the actions, not others around them. Plus, as argued in round 1, the ones that do affect others in the above list are necessary risks. “Banning smoking may infringe on a person's individual right to behave as he pleases. In addition, 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 fattening foods, are allowed. “ This ignores my first argument which showed that marijuana is less harmful than smoking, which by con's logic means that smoking should be banned since marijuana is banned. Plus, in an utilitarian society, personal rights can be reduced to benefit society as a whole. For example, hate speech can be banned but is not a violation of freedom of speech. 2. Second hand smoke Con uses an argument from authority by quoting a single expert and using it to "debunk" established, peer reviewed reports. Con ignores the fact that the overwhelming majority of studies support a casual link between second hand smoke and childhood asthma, stroke, and lung cancer. Con uses a single example instead of looking at the overwhelming majority of studies. (http://ntr.oxfordjournals.org...)(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...)(http://www.surgeongeneral.gov...) The above are meta-studies which aggregate results of many studies. 3. Buisiness Con ignores my previous argument, which proved that smoking bans do not affect businesses. Con restates his case instead of providing new evidence. My original argument from last round: Con claims that establishments such as bars and restaurants will get reduced profits if a smoking ban takes place. However, this is not the case: restaurant profits stayed the same, and pub profits dipped slightly but increased in the long run. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...) This proves that economic issues do not result from smoking bans. 4. Taxation While the highest amount of tax per pack of cigarettes is $6.16 in the U.S., the estimated cost of a single pack of cigarettes on society caused by reduced productivity and deaths is $7. Many smaller cities have lower tax rates for cigarettes than $6.16. This shows that even with taxation, smoking is not worth it. (http://www.nytimes.com...) 5. E-cigs Con's argument goes like this: P1. If people can quit smoking, smoking should not be banned. P2. People quit smoking with E-cigs. C. Smoking should not be banned. This does not make sense, as even if people are able to quit smoking, smoking is still a risk. People can quit illegal drugs, but illegal drugs are banned. By con's logic, I can argue that: -People can quit drugs by slowly reducing the amount of drugs they take. -Gradual reduction requires the drugs to be continued to be taken during the quitting period. -Illegal drugs should be legalized because the treatment requires small amounts of them. Conclusion Con has not successfully refuted my arguments, and in one case restated a debunked argument without using sources or new evidence. I believe that I have met my burden of proof.

Why Smoking Cigarette is bad for a person well being Con insist to stay on the health portion of why smoking is not good for you and why I don't address the other areas is because I chose to be optimistic and see the greater good on the effects of smoking. So let me give you more facts to prove that smoking is good for you. As I stated several times this has many benefits and are good for potential treatments. In addition I support the facts that this increases productivity in work, life and in health. Here are just a few facts of benefits that smoking is good for you in many ways: Benefit #1..Concentration There has been study performed by Wesnes and Warbuton that show how great smokers concentration is. There was an experiment for smokers and non smokers. They needed to watch a clock for 80 minutes and whenever the little hand paused they needed to press the button. The end result was the smokers won and had 10-15% faster reaction time. Benefit #2…Calmness Researcher Norman Heimstra hired smokers and non-smokers to carry out tasks for 6 hours WITHOUT PAUSE. The non-smokers became angry, frustrated and aggressive – but the smokers remained calm. Benefit #3…Memory Smoking has been studied by Dr James Le Fanue for memory. He has found that smoking has helped with Alzheimer's and claims you have a 50% chance of not getting this disease. If you didn't know Alzheimer's are people who lose their memory. Now there is another doctor who is Dr Paul Newhouse and what he did was he gave people who have memory problems the nicotine patches, and what the results where they regained 46% of their long term memory. Now the people who did not wear the patch that provided nicotine lose 25% of their memory. Not to get into much more detail here are a few more added benefits from smoking: •lowers risk of Parkinsons Disease •may reduce risk of breast cancer •lowers risk of knee replacement therapy •lowers risk of obesity •lowers risk of death after some heart attacks •helps the heart drug clopidogrel work better •can help both relax and stimulate Shall I go on? In conclusion Con should open his mind and see how this makes a difference in the well being of a person. Maybe when he sees someone with these issues he will offer some suggestions to better well being and suggest that nicotine can help them even if they are someone he even loves knowing this will help them in health. I rest my case.

Smoking is good for you, And I love it! This is off topic but I was wondering if you're excited for the new Michael Myers movie coming out. It'd be imperative that you evidently confirm these taboos and misconceptions about smoking. Take any of the negative factosrs listed above and prove whether or not it is a common misconception or a scientific phenomenon. "I want people to realize that it's not that bad". You just disproved your own argument by saying that smoking is bad, But not as bad as people think. Smoking, According to your statement, Is still bad, Therefore it is not good for you. Certain substances and products that are bad are still legal, But not because it is good for you. The reason why the government has not outlawed smoking cigs is due to their past experience with another substance that is worse, If not equally bad, Than cigarettes. Alcohol. Due to complains about domestic violence and alcoholism induced by drinking, People, Particularly women, Launched the Temperance Movement which urged the government to make reforms on drinking alcohol. In 1919, The Prohibition Act(Eighteenth Amendment) was officially implemented into the US Constitution. Basically, It was an all out ban on any alcoholic beverages. However, The results didn't live up to the expectations of the activists and politicians. It actually undermined their cause. Criminal organizations seized control of alcohol. They sold and managed it in an underground network of bars and saloons. While the rate of alcohol consumption decreased in the beginning, It drastically increased once the mob made a foothold. There were no economic gains from the banning of alcohol. People started to turn to more dangerous substances like opium and cocaine. Smoking is still harmdul to the body, But the reason why we don't ban it is so that the government can oversee and regulate the production and selling of cigs and because people will be using it more. The reason as to why smoking was socially and culturally acceptable back then is because modern science was not as adcanced as it is today. Over the years, Research and experiments have been conducted on smoking cigarettes; it has been concluded that smoking is bad. It's the same with pollution. People thought pollution was not a problem until the environmentalist movement showed up. It is impossoble to abstain from smoking cigs incessantly. The amount of nicotine they put into it makes people hooked, As if their life depends on it. Its nicotine that decieves you into thinking that you love it. Nicotine causes your body to release dopamine, Which makes you feel relaxed and relieved. What happens when your source of smoking cigs is gone? You'd go into withdrawal and that is a terrible experience you could have avoided if you didn't smoke in the first place. Sodas and junk foods are still condemened, But not as much as cigarettes because junk food can be consumed in moderation, While cigarettes shouldn't be touched at all, Especially for kids. As stated before the cons outwiegh the pros and there are many alternatives to smoking that can give the same results which are better and risk free.

Use of E-Cigarettes/Hookah Pens in underage citizens The simple fact that teens who are underage and using tobacco products/products that involve tobacco dependence speaks for itself. It is against the law in some states to use these as a minor.

Vaccines are safe There seems to be a lot of myths going on about vaccines being dangerous. Con must try to prove that vaccines are dangerous. I will attempt to prove vaccines are safe and helpful.

Why Smoking Cigarette is bad for a person well being Con thinks I am judging smokers. In all actually i am stating facts on how bad it is for a person well being. First of con needs to not worry about how I feel about smoker. There off con never had a real valid argument. The reason why she believes to stop cancer is too switch to electronic bogies. Accepting the fact that cigarettes are bad for a person well being from health risk. To the way people act form the chemicals affecting their mind. Then con tries talking about how coffees caffeine is just as bad as cigarettes. As i stated numerous time that a single cigarette. Contains over 4,000 chemicals that con has never responded too. After words con change the subject to how obesity is worst then smoking cigarettes. So then i ask what would you want to do for the kids. Get them hooked on cigarettes just so they can get skinny. Their are other ways to lose weight like working out, good nutrition, etc. But there are fews ways to stop smoking and even prevent cancer smoking a lot. Then con ask why i care so much of a person well being health is the most important part of a person life. In conclusion I am ending my debate with my well know facts of how bad smoking is for a person. One of the worlds deathly s thing know to man that is legal. Then the harmful effects of the youth it is giving and the example we are setting for them too. I know a parent would feel so bad when they find out their child started smoking. Knowing they could be the reason why this had happen. My final statement is how cigarettes effects a person personality. Since it is a sedative drug that causes addiction. That scene of mental sharpness is the nicotine posing the brain causing it too crave a cigarette constly and keep its mind off track unless it happens.

The Benefits of Smoking Actually Outweigh the Risks Con Statement: Smoking has the ability to harm nearly every organ in your body. Further, smoking can cause many diseases and reduces the general health of an individual. Nearly 16 Million Americans suffer from a disease caused by smoking. Currently, tobacco use causes over 5 million deaths per year globally. The notion that smoking tobacco lowers a smoker's risk of Alzheimer disease, Parkinson disease is completely trumped by the fact that the risks of those diseases could be reduced by healthier methods. Smoking is not really all that popular, if it was, why do tobacco companies lace the cigarettes with nicotine? People do not smoke cigarettes for medical reasons, if they do, I would find it to be very rare. People are addicted to cigarettes, and they have trouble quitting. Tobacco companies target youth and hope they can create an addiction at an early age. Have you seen the lungs of a smoker? Can you really tell me that inhaling smoke is in any way healthy for an individual? The benefits of smoking do not outweigh the risk. Are you saying that I can be a healthier person if I start smoking, please explain. Every medical benefit you will bring forth through tobacco smoke could be attained by a healthier method.

Vaccine are Safe and Effective I will be arguing that vaccines are not safe, and that they have not been as effective as we are told. They are not the main cause of the decline in diseases such as polio and smallpox, and they are dangerous.

Vaccines are safe Because vaccines are created with the actual virus, disease, ect. it gives the risk of contracting what you are trying to avoid. In fact, my brother was given a shot when he was an infant, within a few hours, he blew up and was a hard as a rock. We had to bring him to the ER. And the link of the website i am about to reference is just another point of proof. As Barbara Loe Fisher, founder of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), stated: "The truth is, nobody knows how many vaccine victims there are in America, how many of the 1 in 6 learning disabled children; or the 1 in 9 with asthma; or the 1 in 100 who develop autism; or the 1 in 450 who become diabetic, can trace their chronic inflammation, disease and disability back to vaccine reactions that have been dismissed by public health officials and doctors for the past century as just "a coincidence."" http://articles.mercola.com...

Use of E-Cigarettes/Hookah Pens in underage citizens The use of e-cigarettes and hookah pens should be banned from underage citizens due to the lack of adulthood they still have not experinced yet.

. you could get heart disease and lung cancer

Damaging health Smoking is a very bad habit.It has many bad side effects.it causes many fatal diseases like bronchitis,liver cancer,blood cancer, breathing problems etc.which can kill people.It also causes heart related diseases.It makes infections in the internal side of our body.Because of it, every year about 50,000-1,00,000 people dies in the world.It has tobacco in it which is very very dangerous for human health.Sometimes it gets harder to breathe for the smokers.It also can be dangerous for the friends & family of a smoker.As a Substantiation we can take the matter of Hafiz who is a student of CTG. university.(-THE DAILY AJADY)..He died of cancer last year because of smoking.Smoke made his liver infected.So he died with an unbearable pain.Like Hafiz there are so many people are dying.So we should take necessary steps to make people live.We should make smoking illegal. Cigarette smoking causes 87 percent of lung cancer deaths[[http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/tobacco/cancer]]

Vaccine are Safe and Effective Assuming this is the acceptance round, I'll be trying to prove vaccines are safe.

Smoking is good for health! Well, according to a website run by medical doctors[1], smoking does indeed cause lung cancer, bladder cancer, stomach cancer, etc... So how is this healthy? Cancer kills, and lung cancer, according to NBC news[2], is the most deadly cancer, and has taken the most lives of any types of cancer. How is this healthy then? The answer is, It is not. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[1]: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com... [2]: http://www.nbcnews.com...

Why Smoking Cigarette is bad for a person well being While some or even most people think that smoking cigarettes is bad for you there are several reasons why it is good. Health Risks Each cigarette contains 10mg nicotine but only 1-2 is consumed in the body. Do you know that tobacco has long been known to have a stimulating effect on the brain. This is to also to help boost memory, have you become more alert and better concentration. Do you also know that the ingredients in cigarettes are helping people today in 2012 to extend their medical issue extra months with the Alzheimer's disease. It has also been discovered that in addition to better memory and concentration that it is boosting the intelligence and recall ability of animals in laboratory experiments. How is that possible you may ask yourself? Here is how: Nicotine is locked into the brain fairly quickly, causing your body to start pumping more blood and producing more glucose. Sugar is then rapidly released throughout the body, making the smoker feel more alert and focused. I'm sure you were not aware of this as many only focus on the bad and the harm it can do your health. People do not know all the facts. Social Effects People who smoke all tend to stay together. The reason why is because there are so many out there that are full of judgment and look down as smokers. Yes smoking can play an important role in friendships, while offering a cigarette or asking for a light can be ice-breakers to start a conversation. Many people may not be so social to go out and meet others as easy so by having that common grounds helps with striking up a conversation. By having a conversation based on a common habit is not so bad if you are trying to make friends at work or out of work. It is an ice breaker and may create long lasting relationships in many ways that ultimately makes you happy and create a happier lifestyle for you and others. Again many will state that its bad for you but as stated above they don't know all the facts and how it also filters into your personal mental well being. Read more: http://www.netdoctor.co.uk... Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk... Read more: http://www.3fatchicks.com...

Why Smoking Cigarette is bad for a person well being Rebuttal con explains how a cigarette contains 10mg of nicotine. Then we would have to obverse how at how many people smoke cigarettes a day. Let's take a look at how nicotine addiction works, Every puff a person takes at least takes 10 sec for nicotine to reach the brain. Then as con stated that it makes our brain stimulated, we feel more alert and calm. This is such a good feeling to a normal person, Then they have another puff. And another. Soon the brain gets a sensation for the feeling. Shortly after the brain's chemical structure actually changes. It becomes hooked into making that effect last longer. Social Effect I want to state on how addictive it is again. Especially for the people who are not as social. Think about if a person does not have have a high self esteem. He then think about doing something that he is not very comfortable doing. Then stresses what could happen and what if it goes bad. Then he starts getting stressed out and keeps contraindicating his beliefs. There for since he is stressing he needs to smoke to release his stress. After smoking then he feels more alert and calm as i stated before. Eventually that person is more and more wanting that calm feeling. Thus if he does not have that relief of a smoke. The mind will start craving that nicotine. When this happens he will not care where are who he is smoking around. This effect is the reason why their is second hand smoking and how it effects a great amount of people. Its estimated that 700,000 children are are exposed to second hand smoking. which is a reason why a lot more kids have Asama problems. conclusion I'm stating That smoking cigarettes are may able to make a person more alert. Until it becomes more of an addiction.That is very costly and harmful when used excessively. Another thing i would like to say is heavy smokers have withdraws. Since they brain has a sensation for the nicotine. Thus causes the smoker to start stressing until they get a cigarette. Showing no consideration of other people and children around them. http://www.washingtonpost.com... http://www.stop-smoking-programs.org... http://www.abovetheinfluence.com...

rebuttal to first yes point Everything is harmful, the paint in the walls of your home emits radiation. Almost everything is reported as being carcinogenic every now and then.

Why Smoking Cigarette is bad for a person well being Pro just insists to focus on what the harmful things cigarettes can do. Pro also states that smokers smoke excessively. This however is not true. How can you gauge the definition of "excessive smoking" compared to what? To me Pro is comparing it to non smokers which is judgment towards smokers. Pro says that this addiction in the work place for heavier smokers will make them less productive. How can that be? Well Dr. Stephen Heishman, a scientist with the National Institute on Drug Abuse (part of the National Institutes of Health) and his colleagues studied all the literature they could find on nicotine and performance published between 1994 and 2008. In all, they reviewed and coded 41 studies and looked at how nicotine affected everything from fine motor skills to short term memory. Their results were published online in the journal Psychopharmacology. What they found surprised them. Not only does the drug help with fine motor skills and alertness, it improves short term memory for tasks like remembering a list of items. By knowing this fact it doesn't seem to me that bringing up work performance is an issue. Is it possible that the people that drink coffee and do not smoke can affect their work performance as well? It's the caffeine that gives them that short term boost then crashes on them and they can focus or do their job well that's when mistakes happen. Compare this to smokers they stand on their game shaper than ever and if a cigarette is needed then so be it the result from that is they are even more on their game. (Shaper state of mind) Pro continues to touch upon health. Smoking fact - Nicotine in pure organic form is good for your health. Nicotine is a naturally occurring compound and part of the food chain. Trace elements are found in many common foods including vegetables such as potatoes, tomatoes, bell peppers, cauliflower, eggplant, chili peppers, and also some teas. Nicotine makes you feel good. As we been talking about the nicotine in cigarettes not only makes you feel better it helps improve concentration and memory and it is also proven to help a number of conditions including: Depression, schizophrenia, Parkinson's diseases and attention disorder. In conclusion, I stand by my research and argument on how smoking can benefit people in a positive light. Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com... http://news.discovery.com...

Smoking should be illegal First off I want to refute my opponents arguments “It is directly related to lung cancer” Lung cancer can be directly related to a numerous amount of sources such as asbestos, dust, microwaves, ect. Many things in modern society are directly related to human illnesses and injuries. Examples: 1.Bikes are directly related to bike injuries2.Sugar is directly related to diabetes Just because an illness or injury is directly related to something does not mean it should be illegal. “It is addictive” Yes, the nicotine in cigarettes is very addicting but just because something is addicting doesn’t mean it should be illegal. Examples: 1.The grease in fries is addicting but fries aren't’t illegal2.Internet and T.V is addicting but I guarantee your using it to continue this debate3.Caffeine in coffee is addicted but that isn’t illegal either. “Second hand smoke causes asthma” My argument on my opponents first statement should conclude my rebuttal on this remark. My arguments… Money Nicotine Tax is a huge income for the U.S government. Taxing cigarettes not only discourages people from buying them but also helps the government out financially. Choice Although Nicotine is addicting you still have a choice on whether or not you buy them. Prohibition tried to ban alcohol and that failed, the same thing would happen if you banned cigarettes, people would still find a way to smoke. It doesn't’t impair your judgment Unlike alcohol and recreational drugs, Nicotine does not impair your judgment when it comes to making decisions and reaction time. Nicotine is in fact the safest drug when it comes to short term use.

Water fluoridation is safe Thanks to ax123man for defining water fluoridation. Rebuttals "We are also exposed to fluoride at various levels in toothpaste and with topical treatments at the dentist. Since 1992 the ADA has required toothpaste manufacturers to include 'Use only a pea-sized amount (of toothpaste) for children under six' on labels." Well, this does not prove that it is unsafe as although water fluoridation has been praised as one of the top medical achievements of the 20th century, fluoride-containing toothpaste can be acutely toxic if swallowed in large amounts. [1] Without giving the dose ingested and how many fluoride are in there, you cannot just say that it is toxic. "The EPA does not know for sure what levels of fluoride we consume." That is because it isn't its job. The EPA regulates tap water and as the name says, protects the environment. "Recent medical studies refute the EPA claims." You cannot say that recent studies refute it if you do not say: -Which medical study says it. e.g., I can say that I heard that __ happened to __ on the internet, but it has no validity as the website is not given. -How much fluoride (dosage) is used. e.g., A study may show that large amounts causes __, but the dose is nowhere near the dose used in water. "Given the emphasis placed on aesthetics in relation to tooth care these days, I believe many people would consider visible signs of dental fluorosis as "unsafe"." Dental fluorosis is the developmental disturbance of dental enamel caused by excessive exposure to HIGH concentrations of fluoride during tooth development.[2] This is possibly higher than the recommended dose. Arguments Cancer Science findings show no or uncertain (equivocal) evidence on the correlation between fluoride and cancer. Taken together, the two animal studies fail to establish an association between fluoride and cancer. "Under the conditions of these 2-year dosed water studies, there was equivocal evidence of carcinogenic activity of sodium fluoride in male F344/N rats, based on the occurrence of a small number of osteosarcomas in dosed animals. There was no evidence of carcinogenic activity in female F344/N rats receiving sodium fluoride at concentrations of 25, 100, or 175 ppm (0, 11, 45, 79 ppm fluoride) in drinking water for 2 years. There was no evidence of carcinogenic activity of sodium fluoride in male or female mice receiving sodium fluoride at concentrations of 25, 100, or 175 ppm in drinking water for 2 years." ---The Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Fluoride [5] "The other carcinogenicity study was sponsored by the Procter and Gamble Company using Cr:CD (Sprague-Dawley) rats and Crl:CD-1 (ICR) mice both treated with 0, 4, 10, or 25 milligrams/kilogram/day sodium fluoride added to a low fluoride-basal diet. A second control group received powdered rodent chow. There was no evidence of malignant tumors associated with sodium fluoride in mice and rats of either sex in the Procter and Gamble study. While there were two osteosarcomas in the low dose female rats, one osteosarcoma in a high dose male rat, and one fibroblastic sarcoma in a mid-dose male rat, these findings in treated animals were not statistically different from controls." [5] Definitions Equivocal - uncertain as an indication or sign [3] Osteosarcomas- A malignant bone tumor. Also called osteogenic sarcoma.[4] [1]http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]http://en.wikipedia.org... [3]http://www.merriam-webster.com... [4]http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [5]http://www.health.gov...

Everyone smoking right now should QUIT IT. I know that my arguments are subjective, but the truth is, smoking harms people around the smokers. The cigarette's flavour might be pleasant for smokers, yes, but deep down, it affects your health in the bad way, which makes it truly unpleasant. I will tell you a true story about a smoking situation. [My father used to smoke continuously each day and he couldn't stand a minute without it. Then, one day, he was smoking near my older brother, who was just 7 y/o at that time. The smoke went into his face and he was fanning it away with his hand. Not soon later, he had asthma and my dad decided to quit smoking forever. And he just did it, like that, not needing anything to help himself quit. From the time he made that decision on, he never smoked again IN HIS LIFE.] My brother had asthma because of my father smoking. You could also get ear infections, but luckily, my brother didn't get it. So, that's why I'm saying that everyone smoking should QUIT IT.

Juul Is Bad. Why are you on my side? Let me re tell this again. I am with Juul. If I am wirh, You must be against. Which you clearly aren't, So please forfeit.

Damaging health It is the case that smoking is an unhealthy habit, and that it harms the smoker and those physically close to the smoker when they are smoking. But that's no argument for a government-enforced ban on smoking. Eating fast food is unhealthy, so is it up to the government to shut down all fast food restaurants? Drinking alcohol is unhealthy, and many innocent bystanders are harmed as an effect of drunk behavior (drinking and driving, drunken arguments, etc), is it up to the government in that case to eradicate all alcohol from the country? Of course not. In all of these cases, it is up to the individual to make the decision for their own health. As for preventing secondhand smoke, smoking regulations enforced by the government, ie smoking is not allowed within 50 feet of a public building or inside the workplace, etc, seem to be a good idea. But there's no need for complete government control of tobacco products/cigarettes.

Smoking First and for most i would like you to be welcome to this debate and i would ike you to be clear on what you are asking what is your stance on smoking or is smiking bad or ood for you ? Smoking leads to disease and disability and harms nearly every organ of the body.1 More than 16 million Americans are living with a disease caused by smoking. For every person who dies because of smoking, at least 30 people live with a serious smoking-related illness. Smoking causes cancer, heart disease, stroke, lung diseases, diabetes, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), which includes emphysema and chronic bronchitis. Smoking also increases risk for tuberculosis, certain eye diseases, and problems of the immune system, including rheumatoid arthritis. Smoking is a known cause of erectile dysfunction in males. Smoking is the leading cause of preventable death. Worldwide, tobacco use causes nearly 6 million deaths per year, and current trends show that tobacco use will cause more than 8 million deaths annually by 2030.2 Cigarette smoking is responsible for more than 480,000 deaths per year in the United States, including nearly 42,000 deaths resulting from secondhand smoke exposure. This is about one in five deaths annually, or 1,300 deaths every day.1 On average, smokers die 10 years earlier than nonsmokers.3 If smoking continues at the current rate among U.S. youth, 5.6 million of today"s Americans younger than 18 years of age are expected to die prematurely from a smoking-related illness. This represents about one in every 13 Americans aged 17 years or younger who are alive today.1 Costs and Expenditures

Smoking is good for you, And I love it! I would like to clarify my statement about smoking. There is too many taboos about cigarettes being very bad. I want people to realize that it's not that bad. If it was it would be illegal like cocaine and heroin. Smoking used to be a norm, You could smoke in a restaurant, A movie theater, An airplane, Mall, Pretty much anywhere, But today smoking has become stigmatized as being really bad. Well smoking is not bad for you, Don't let the anti smoking propaganda agencies fool you. Smoking is no worse than consuming alcohol, Which incidentally is very bad for your heart and liver. Also how many people drink and drive and cause deaths on the road. While with a cigarette you can still drive a car, Or do any other activity. Unless you are smoking over 1 pack a day, Everyday, Smoking is not that much more harmful than other things in society. Why is it smoking is stigmatized as bad, But serving sugary sodas to children, With tons of corn syrup or fatty foods are not stigmatized the same way? Smoking is a personal choice like gambling, Drinking, Doing drugs. And unlike other drugs it's is not illegal as per the Health department. If it was so bad, It would not be available for sale, Like cocaine and meth and heroin which are illegal and can only be purchased from a drug dealer. Smoking does have it's benefits like "Smoking may lower risk of knee replacement. . . . "Smoking may lower risk of Parkinson's disease. . . . "Smoking may lower risk of obesity. . . . "Smoking may lower risk of death after some heart attacks. . . . "Smoking may alleviate ulcerative colitis. . . . "Smoking may reduce stress Smoking is LEGAL as recognized by the health department, It's available for sale anywhere and is no worse than alcohol. Therefore people need to get rid of this stigma that smoking is so bad. Until the 2000's smoking was a regular habit of society, Kids could buy them for their parents with a note from the convenience store, It was normal to have an ashtray beside your phone at work to talk on the phone and have a cigarette, Or go for dinner and have a nice cigarette after in the smoking section of the restaurant. Smoking gets a bad rap and I want to void those misconceptions about cigarettes being bad. Smoking is a personal choice and it's not bad like the propaganda society tries to feed you. Smoking is good and there is nothing better than to light up a nice Camel cigarette after a long day at work to reduce stress and relax. No different than having a glass of bourbon after a long day at work. Cigarette smoking is not bad, It has it's benefits.

Whether banning smoking is a good idea or not. Thank you for accepting the challenge my worthy opponent. As you said "Banning it would be a breach of the right to choose". Yes it might be true but the smokers mainly smoke on the roads and not inside their houses and so other people get exposed to the smoke and become passive smokers whether they are in favor of this or not. I believe this is what would be a breach of the right to choose. As you said there are many other activities as harmful as this or even more but they can only cause harm to the person engaged in these, not the by passers. For example, if a person does not workout, he is the one who will not be healthy, it will not effect the others any circumstances. You also mentioned that it would be bad for business. Yes banning it will be bad for business, but some things have to be banned as they are unhealthy to the general population. The smoke released from these cigarettes is Carcinogenic. This is a proved fact, and the government can not always think about business the government cared only about money, why did it then ban cocaine and other drugs, it should have legalized it one one condition, that all the payments are to me made by Cheque, but no. It isn't always about the money, sometimes you also have to think for others. By banning smoking we mean that the government will stop any business related t it, that includes the factories where it is made, the shops where it is sold, everything. So that means that there will be no Cigars or cigarettes remaining, so the addicts will not be able to smoke it. Sure there will be a few thousands of them in circulation even after the demand, but eventually they will be finished. If there are no Cigars or Cigarettes, there would be no increase in the crime rate because there will be nothing to steel My opponent also mentioned that it helps a person relax, yes it does, the fact is undeniable but there are other safe ways to relax which do not cause harm to anybody including themselves.

The Benefits of Smoking Actually Outweigh the Risks "Well, can one achieve the same benefits of alcohol without drinking? Of course, yes, but the benefits remain" Let's not forget that your claim is that the benefits outweigh the risks. You just stated that you can achieve the same benefits through other methods. Why put your health at risk if you can take healthier preventative measures? "Well, does drinking damage your liver in any way? in response to both of these quotes, I would compare cigarette smoking to drinking alcohol. There are benefits just as there are risks." You have to remember that drinking and smoking are choices. One can choose to do both, therefore one can chose to not take the risk of damaging their lung or liver. The same health benefits can be achieved through healthier alternatives. Through that reasoning, it is fair to conclude that smoking is a greater risk than a healthier method at achieving the same health benefit. Remember, the topic is "Benefits of smoking actually outweigh the Risks". If you wanted your argument to be more affective, you should debate on the topic of "Despite some health risks, smoking also has some medical benefits". However that is not the topic of the debate. As for the statistics you provided "1 out of 6 chance of heart disease", it's not relevant to the debate. Smoking is a choice! People can completely avoid the risks associated with smoking by choosing not to smoke. It's a risk that could be controlled. Strokes, accidents, heart disease, and accidental poisoning can be mitigated, but not fully prevented. A person can fully avoid the risks associated with smoking by choosing not to do it. There is physical evidence that can be observed through an Autopsy that can prove that smoke damages a human lung. That damage along with other risks associated with smoking is a risk that can be avoided all together. My opponent did a great job identifying the few medical benefits of smoking, but that is not what we are debating over. The same health benefits that are seen in smoking can also be achieved through healthier means. In conclusion, smoking still poses a risk. If there were no other alternative health benefits, your argument would have been quite convincing. However, that is not the case. Thanks for the debate! I would gladly debate you again,