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 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/

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 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?

Should the e cigarette be available to everyone

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.

Smoking E-cigarettes in public should be categorized the same as any cigarette and not allowed.

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

Should E-cigs and vapes be regulated

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.

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.

Bloomberg's Ban on E-Cigs

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.

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.

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...

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.

Smoking (All types, Including marijuana and Vapor) should be banned.

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.

Should E-cigs and vapes be regulated

No, because it is not an actual tobacco product

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?

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.

Bloomberg's Ban on E-Cigs

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

Juul Is Bad.

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.

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.

Bloomberg's Ban on E-Cigs

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.

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.

Should E-cigs and vapes be regulated

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.

Use of E-Cigarettes/Hookah Pens in underage citizens

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!

-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!

Smoking Should be Banned

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.

Bloomberg's Ban on E-Cigs

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/

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

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?

Smoking should be banned in all public places

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.

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.

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.

Bloomberg's Ban on E-Cigs

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...

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!

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

kids shouldent vape

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.

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

Bloomberg's Ban on E-Cigs

For now all rebuttals to Pro's points have been addressed, and woven into, the points I made in round 2.

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.

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!

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.

Is it safe to purchase video games online? I wish to purchase some new trending video games for my brother. Some of my friends suggested me to check here at Steam. Instant-gaming (https://www. Instant-gaming. Com/en), BestBuy, Online stores tat offer great deals on the bulk purchase of video games. Please give your opinion about the online purchasing of video games.

Video games

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!

Cigarettes are bad for my health.

I accept and look forward to you explaining to me why you should have the right to tell me, a grown adult, that I can't enjoy my vaporizer in my own home.

There are many other choices that we allow parents to make which may affect their children’s health. Living in a big city can be just as dangerous for their respiratory systems because of the air pollution. Not vaccinating your child can lead to them contracting a life threatening illness, like polio or measles. Yet we don’t punish parents who choose to expose their children to car exhaust fumes daily or to the risk of a serious illness, although the cost of treating them would also have to be covered by the healthcare system. We have to trust parents to do the best they can, and not let the state to interfere with family life.

The state has a right to get involved because the costs of illnesses caused by passive smoking are u...

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 want to debate with someone intelligent for once so bring it on.

Smoking Vapor Pens should be legal for kids 16 and up

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...

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...

Smoking should be banned from outdoor public places as well as indoor public places

The evidence came from a study from the US Surgeon General's Report, which was cited in my previous argument. Obviously the less smoke you breathe in the less of an effect it willl have, but Con asserts that there is a safe amount that can be taken it. Con asserts that one will never be exposed to the amount of smoke to do enough damage. This does go against the findings of the US Surgeon General Report. Not to mention, further reserach was conducted and even the gaseous phase of cigarette smoke contains reactive oxygen species (a cancer-causing agent) inhibits normal cell function. (1) The study itself found that being exposed to only 2 cigarettes is enough to stop the function of a cell's sodium pump. (1) According to Dr.Rajasekaran regarding the study "We now know that one need not inhale the particulate matter present in secondhand smoke to suffer the consequence of smoking. Exposure to the gaseous substance alone, which you breathe while standing near a smoker, is sufficient to cause harm." (1) The level to which this can be harmful is unknown at this point, but there is no reason to allow this to be done on public property where it can be dangerous to one's health. Not to mention, there's no reason to assume that there won't potentially be a lot of people smoking on public property and if a person comes to the area enough, it could be harmful in the long run. We also don't know what the future of cigarette smoke could hold. It could become much more dangerous in the future. Cigarettes have already become more deadly in the past 50 years and could easily become more of a health risk. (2) If there is no one around, there is no reason to assume the law will be enforced, much in the same way speed limits aren't enforced when no one is around. The amount of people who smoke cigarettes is irrelevent if it is a danger to public health. 1-http://www.sciencedaily.com... 2-http://www.tobaccofreekids.org...

It Should be Illegal to Smoke on Public Property in the United States

Yes it is safe too purchase video games online assuming you use a secured site, Like you said steam. But be careful so that you dont work your way off the the site because with redirects and links. READ THE ADDRESS. P. S this isn't really a debate but i figured I might as well lend a hand.

Video games

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...

My opponent has forfeited all the rounds.

I think I'll forfeit this one and start another one, Is that okay with you? I will challenge you personally. I'm sorry, I didn't post this correctly.

Lester Grinspoon, M.D., Emeritus Professor of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School. "Puffing Is the Best Medicine," Los Angeles Times. May 5, 2006. - "[T]here is very little evidence that smoking marijuana as a means of taking it represents a significant health risk. Although cannabis has been smoked widely in Western countries for more than four decades, there have been no reported cases of lung cancer or emphysema attributed to marijuana. I suspect that a day's breathing in any city with poor air quality poses more of a threat than inhaling a day's dose -- which for many ailments is just a portion of a joint -- of marijuana."[23]

The health risks of smoking marijuana are relatively minor

Um... Forfeit? I'll see what my opponent does next round.

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.

Just as we can trust fans to avoid screaming directly into their friends or other fans' ears, we can generally trust them to avoid blowing their vuvuzelas directly into the ears of fans and colleagues.

Fans can be trusted to use vuvuzelas safely.

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

Juul Is Bad.

I believe that smoking should be banned.

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.

My doctor, Dr. Faux Falls M.D. told me several times that smoking is indeed good for the health, as it has many chemicals which induce cancer, something he told me is very good for the skin, teeth, heart, lungs, bladder, liver and throat. Since he first told me that, I have begun smoking and have gotten skin cancer, which, according to Dr. Falls, improves my health!

Smoking is good for health!

Thank you for accepting my challenge.Mining ventilation is a significant safety concern for many miners. Without clean air, the miners might suffocate, and harmful gases, dust and heat may cause injury or death. Ignited methane gas explosions are very dangerous and common, which causes lethal coal dust explosions which can also bring along problems such as silicosos, asbestosis and pneumoconiosis. Also, the gases might displace air, causing asphyxaction. All these breathing and lung problems have a huge safety impact on the miners.Thank you.

Mining is relatively safe.

Adults and other smokers should not be allowed to smoke in a vehicle that has children , or young adults inside. Lung cancer not only affects smokers, but second hand smokers as well. I agree it should be up to the smoker if he/she smokes if they know the consequence and health risks involved but their choices should not affect another human beings health, especially a young child who may not have an understanding of how un-healthy smoking may be, or maybe too afraid to speak up and asked the smoker not to smoke. In a vehicle, the smoke would be allowed to circulate in the car, allowing more of the toxic materials in the smoke to affect a child. This should not be allowed. A child's body is still forming, not just on the outside but on the inside too. Smoke could damage and/or hurt a child's still forming tissue in his/her lungs.

Adults smoking in a vehicle with children inside

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.

Smoking is good for you, And I love it!

I know all powerful commands and laws come in groups of multiples of 5 but let's simplify what you're claiming. First, preserving clean air and pollution are shocking similar so let's just combine 5 and 1 to clean air and decrease littering. Next, 2 and 3 are very close so let's cut that down to just what 3 says. And 4 just plain won't work as an ex smoker I know that it will just make me smoke more in one designated place instead of smoking less. So were down to two points of preventing pollution and littering along with attempting to decrease health effects on non smokers. Most smokers don't just throw down their cig. buds if there's an ash tray within a seeable distance it will be placed there. Besides littering is already a fine and doesn't need to be specified to cigarettes. Now, as for pollution a hummer will pump out as much pollution as a cigarette will in ten minutes just by driving by. So treating this as a universal law we must ban any vehicle with as great pollution as a hummer. Moving in to the next portion of your argument (preventing effects to non-smokers) I have already stated that exhaust fumes are just as harmful as exposure to exhaust fumes and a few other activities that involve releasing gas like burning trash. So not only should burning trash be banned but we should ban driving cars with less than 20mpg. My last point will be that if a person wants to smoke, as smoking is an addiction and can by urge make you break the law, they will smoke. Just as anti-drug laws have almost no effect on drug use; smokers will smoke as they please with more awareness on officers a around them. In my experience they will make sure they wouldn't be bothering people but will still smoke of they feel the urge and avoid bothering those people by moving a few feet away.

Smoking is not a "right."

In conclusion, I would like to show that every single one of my round two (arguments) points were dropped. Only my rebuttals (round 3) were argued. This means my opponent concedes that if a smoking ban occurs:-Cancer rates will drop significantly-Deaths will drop significantly-Dangerous house fires will drop significantly-Risks of second hand smoke will drop significantly-Infants will be safer, as well as children and elderly-Workplaces will be safer, roads will be safer, and people would be safer overall-Animal testing will be (slightly) reduced-Decrease wildlife deaths-Decrease money spent on litter-Decrease contamination throughout U. S-Decrease pet consumption-SIGNIFICANTLY decrease litter-Water and plants would be saferSo in conclusion, my opponent concedes to all of my arguments. Therefore, I have met my BoP. Thank you for reading, and thanks to my opponent for the debate.

Your Choice

If you are not going to debate me, don't debate me.In the meantime, Mr. Conway Twitty.http://www.youtube.com...

Alchohol and Smoking are More Dangerous than Marijuana

I forget that my opponent is functioning on extremely limited time. In the interest of brevity, I will offer only an idealistic summation of my belief. Indeed, my opponent has presented strong evidence that if one was interested in preserving one's health and well-being one would not smoke, and that tobacco products should be regulated to the extent that their use does not effect other individuals who choose not to consumethem. However, this debate regards whether smoking should be banned. My opponent has not presented evidence that a well informed individual (knowing of the risks) should lose his individual autonomy to choose to "self destruct" as it were. I ask that further argumentation be framed through this contention- that my belief stems from the ideal that man's autonomy supersedes his personal safety (safety when it violates his own will).

Contender's Choice

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

Marijuana is safer to consume than both alcohol and tobacco

There was a time when I completely agreed with you. I understand how vaccines are supposed to work. I understand how herd immunity is supposed to work and how we are supposed to have eradicated many diseases via vaccination. The problem is things are always what they seem. Remember the tobacco companies? Everyone thought cigarettes were okay or even healthy. Doctors smoked, yet later we found out cigarettes were anything but healthy. There is always a chance you are correct, but simply spewing statistics won't change my mind. If you really want to change my mind, watch the three videos and tell me why they are wrong. My predictions based upon empirical evidence is that vaccines will be just like cigarettes. I don't know what your implying with your last sentence. I will tell you that my intentions are good and I want only the best for everyone. https://thinkprogress.org...

Putin banned western vaccines in Russia.

Again, please do not vote on this. If you do, you are a jerk. This is essentially a debate where we decided that there was too much confusion to debate the topic. I will report any votes on this debate since we both agree to a no contest.

Although I see your reasoning, let me tell you a couple things here buddy oh palSmoking from a bong has basically the same effects (if not more negatives) than smoking from normal cigarettes [1]. According to a "recent study," apparently "water pipe smokers showed respiratory symptoms nearly as severe as cigarette smokers" [2].I can't help but notice what you said either -"i get dizzy" - no matter what you're doing, being dizzy is not a good thing. You get dizzy from the herb and that feels awesome, but it's really not "good." "I have puked doing this a couple of times tho" - this in itself should kind of tell you what you're doing isn't that great. Puking from tobacco is not good. The filter in normal cigarettes is a lot better put together than just a water filter.Hope I helped?![1] http://www.forbes.com...[2] http://www.torontosun.com...

Can anyone give me a reason why smoking tobacco out of a water bong or pipe is worse than normal cig

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.

Well, forfeit then .

I apologize for my forfeit of the last round as I haven't been on in a few days. My opponent also forfeited a round so I suggest that neither of us receive the conduct vote. To summarize, my opponent has merely ranted about how dangerous cigarretes are without regarding how truly dangerous are other products or things advertized such as automobiles or the navy. My opponent also tried to argue that nothing good comes out of cigarretes except for short term pleasure. I don't actually see this as much of an argument in that if we just extend the time scale that would be true for pretty much anything. This argument seems a bit relative to me. My opponent brought arguments which I have refuted and has not provided any legitamite reason for cigarette adds to be banned from the media.

Cigarette Adds Should Be Banned From The Media

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

Smokeless Tobacco

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

Smoking is good for you, And I love it!

I have done this debate a few times, with less-than-challenging opponents. This debate is open to anyone, however please only accept if you are of the opinion that vaccines are bad or you consider yourself to be an 'anti-vaxxer'. I will borrow from my previous debates in my opening round, and from then on any responses will be driven entirely by this debate. - 10k characters- 4 rounds- 72-hour argumentation- 10-day votingThe resolution is as follows: On balance, vaccination is both safe and effective. I will contend that it amounts to criminal negligence not to vaccinate your children, and that the anti-vaccination movement should be held accountable for murder and crimes against humanity.

Resolved: Vaccination is, on balance, both safe and effective

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...

Smoking in public has to be banned

Cigarettes should be banned!

Toxic Smoke

To pro: It is okay if you take your time, as long as I finish this debate by July fourth, then all will be good.As far my rebuttal, well, a well-informed individual knows not to smoke and has thus chosen to limit their own freedom of choice. Why, the banning of smoke will have absolutely no effect upon those individuals' choices. Don't ban smoke? They don't smoke. Ban smoke? They don't smoke.I extend arguments about cigarette's dangerous chemicals, addictiveness, pretty much 92% loss of freedom of choice, showing the longetivity of cigarette's harm, second-hand smoking, thrid-hand smoking, and finally the financial burden of the families. All of these massive arguments have yet to been refuted. I ask my opponent to take his time on his next round and try to refute these arguments.

Contender's Choice

What I mean is that cigars and pipes are 100% tobacco. Most cigarettes are not 100% tobacco and contain 400+ other chemicals. The relevance is that they are all types of tobacco smoking. https://www.rstreet.org... No, we didn't agree that we're only talking about cigarettes, rather pure tobacco as a whole. The old age thing was just a joke, but... https://www.dallasnews.com... A very nice video you should watch:

Smoking Tobacco Isn't Bad.

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) .

Cigarettes are just as bad as cars.

Caution! Frequent use of the words "poop" "pooping". Viewers discretion is advised. Ok. Smoking Kills Ok, you have said that you can smoke when you poop. Smoking kills because it introduces tar and other harmful substances into your lung system and then causes those substances to deposit in your airways which in effect, restricts airflow - which can cause breathing problems and sometimes death. In some cases, it can cause a cell mutation in your lungs- possibly then creating lung cancer. Lung cancer can Kill. Pooping in that sense is therefore bad because it is providing more possiblities for you to contribute to a possible death. http://www.youtube.com... Why people don't nag you when you are pooping: Have you ever wondered why no one will talk to you while you are pooping. Because it would be awkward for that person. Many people view pooping as a matter which is regarded in a sense of privacy. Many people also dont find pooping to be the most pleasant of experiences. People wont generally talk to another person when pooping because it's just considered basic manners and common within both people This is all for now.

To poop or not to poop, that is the question..

This should be brief so I'll jump right in. My first argument can be summarized with this quote from the American Lung Association's website, "We caution the public against smoking marijuana because of the risks it poses to lung health. "[1] Marijuana contains 33 chemicals and cigarettes contain more than 7000. [2] While cigarettes are obviously worse, inhaling any chemicals will still harms your lungs. When the same amount of marijuana and tobacco are smoked, marijuana inhalation brings four times as much tar as tobacco into the lungs. [3] Also, people who smoke only marijuana, have more healthcare visits for respiratory conditions compared to nonsmokers. [4] I may put more arguments in later rounds, but I'll leave it at that for now. 1) . http://www.lung.org... 2) . http://www.lung.org... 3) . http://www.snopes.com... via the ALA 4) Polen MR, Sidney S, Tekawa IS, Sadler M, Friedman GD. Health Care Use by Frequent Marijuana Smokers Who Do Not Smoke Tobacco. West J Med. 1993;158(6):596-601.

Smoking Marijuana Is Bad For You

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

The Sale of Cigarettes and Tobacco Products Should be Banned- Speed debate

http://www.epa.gov..."Background/Statistics/ConclusionsIn early 1993, EPA released a report (Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders; EPA/600/6-90/006 F) that evaluated the respiratory health effects from breathing secondhand smoke (also called environmental tobacco smoke (ETS)). In that report, EPA concluded that secondhand smoke causes lung cancer in adult nonsmokers and impairs the respiratory health of children. These findings are very similar to ones made previously by the National Academy of Sciences and the U.S. Surgeon General.The EPA report classified secondhand smoke as a Group A carcinogen, a designation which means that there is sufficient evidence that the substance causes cancer in humans. The Group A designation has been used by EPA for only 15 other pollutants, including asbestos, radon, and benzene. Only secondhand smoke has actually been shown in studies to cause cancer at typical environmental levels. EPA estimates that approximately 3,000 American nonsmokers die each year from lung cancer caused by secondhand smoke.Every year, an estimated 150,000 to 300,000 children under 18 months of age get pneumonia or bronchitis from breathing secondhand tobacco smoke. Secondhand smoke is a risk factor for the development of asthma in children and worsens the condition of up to one million asthmatic children.EPA has clear authority to inform the public about indoor air pollution health risks and what can be done to reduce those risks. EPA has a particular responsibility to do everything possible to warn of risks to the health of children.A recent high profile advertising and public relations campaign by the tobacco industry may confuse the American public about the risks of secondhand smoke. EPA believes it's time to set the record straight about an indisputable fact: secondhand smoke is a real and preventable health risk.EPA absolutely stands by its scientific and well documented report. The report was the subject of an extensive open review both by the public and by EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB), a panel of independent scientific experts. Virtually every one of the arguments about lung cancer advanced by the tobacco industry and its consultants was addressed by the SAB. The panel concurred in the methodology and unanimously endorsed the conclusions of the final report.The report has also been endorsed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the National Cancer Institute, the Surgeon General, and many major health organizations.Classification of Secondhand Smoke as a Known Human (Group A) CarcinogenThe finding that secondhand smoke causes lung cancer in nonsmoking adults is based on the total weight of the available evidence and is not dependent on any single analysis. This evidence includes several important facts.First, it is indisputable that smoking tobacco causes lung cancer in humans, and there is no evidence that there is a threshold below which smoking will not cause cancer.Second, although secondhand smoke is a dilute mixture of mainstream" smoke exhaled by smokers and sidestream" smoke from the burning end of a cigarette or other tobacco product, it is chemically similar to the smoke inhaled by smokers, and contains a number of carcinogenic compounds.Third, there is considerable evidence that large numbers of people who do not smoke are exposed to, absorb, and metabolize significant amounts of secondhand smoke.Fourth, there is supporting evidence from laboratory studies of the ability of secondhand smoke both to cause cancer in animals and to damage DNA, which is recognized by scientists as being an instrumental mechanism in cancer development.Finally, EPA conducted multiple analyses on the then-available 30 epidemiology studies from eight different countries which examined the association between secondhand smoke and lung cancer in women who never smoked themselves but were exposed to their husband's smoke. Since the epidemiology studies are the major thrust of the tobacco industry arguments against the EPA report, these studies are examined in more detail below."Thanks for debating I guess...I will repost this topic later for a proper debate.

Smoking should be permitted in public places.

In my opinion, I think that smoking in public is a very bad idea. I think this because it will affect the health of children,adults and even OAP's.It could cause serious lung problems or even cause them to die.Also, yes they might already be breathing in the pollution but it wouldn't make the problem any better by smoking, if anything it would make it a lot more worse.

Smoking in Public

Paul Boxer. "It's up to parents to enforce a ban on violent video games." NJ.com. July 1st, 2011: "As policy statements from organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychological Association have made clear, violent media represents a real and compelling risk to the behavioral and mental health of children and adolescents. In fact, research studies have yielded the conclusion that the effect of violent media consumption on aggressive behavior is in the same ballpark statistically as the effect of smoking on lung cancer, the effect of lead exposure on children’s intellectual development and the effect of asbestos on laryngeal cancer."

Violent video games are real danger to young minds.

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...

Why Smoking Cigarette is bad for a person well being

1. Most video games aren't multiplayer. Skyrim, a popular game, is an extremely solitary experience. I've wasted hours completing idiotic quests as my social skills declined. 2. So can cigarettes, but it doesn't matter because, in the end, they cause more pain than they are worth. 3. These studies are pretty sketchy, and the authors were probably avid gamers attempting to justify their useless hobby. Having faster reactions and some largely useless skill is not a really of significant benefit, and, as you can see, there also exists numerous reports based on empirical data that have found a serious link with obesity and violent behavior. GG.

Video Games Are Good for You

I would encourage nobody to vote on this debate. You don't deserve a "loss" and I don't deserve a "win" when there wasn't really a debate. If you post an new debate and I am opposed to your position, then I will accept. That said, if your position is clear, then we might actually agree and thus not have a reason to debate. :)

Smoking (All types, Including marijuana and Vapor) should be banned.

I would like to begin my arguement with a theory. A family is very concious about their health. When they go to a restaurant, there are ussually two sides, smoking and non-smoking. they would obviously choose the non-smoking side. what if the only thing separating these to sides was a three foot barrier. they would still have a high chance of being affected by the smoke that could easily cross over the barrier to where they are sitting. EPA has discovered that 3,000 adults that do not smoke die because they are near people that do smoke. This affect can be even greater on teens because at least 10 million teens live with one or MORE family member that smokes. EPA also states that children with asthma are greatly affected by second hand smoke. also, if the teens see their parents smoking or an older person smoking in a public area, they would eventually think that it is okay to smoke and lead to circle of smoking in these areas. this could also help in the decrease of smokers and decrease the huge amounts of money spent on those who are severly affected by smoking.

The V.A. legislature should support Governer Kain's inititive to band smoking in restaurants.

Unfortunately, this is only a three round debate. I was looking forward to hearing your counter argument to mine. However; Debating with you was enjoyable and interesting to say the least. For my closing statement, nicotine free cigarettes are now an option. This takes away the addictive quality that tobacco products have. My opponent made the error of generalizing all brands as addictive which is simply not true. This makes his argument invalid.

cigarette equals

People should not smoke cigarettes. When placing a bet, one must consider the following: the wager, the risk, and the reward. The wager, in this case, is one's life, the risk being one's health and livelihood, and the reward a momentary relief of stress or a fleeting conversation at a bar. The bet is not in a smoker's favor. Society has been aware of, for many years now, the effects smoking can have on a person. To be quite blunt: smoking kills. It is as simple as that. If one wants to live healthily, they shouldn't smoke. It's been estimated that each cigarette one smokes takes twelve minutes off their life. Even the occasional cigarette adds up against a smoker. Minutes add up to hours, which add up to days, which add up to months, which add up to years. Smokers that smoke upwards of a pack a day are knowingly shaving time off of their already short lives. Eight out of ten causes of lung cancer can be linked to smoking. Therefore, if one is not a smoker, their chances of obtaining lung cancer significantly drop – and vice versa – if one is a smoker, their chances of obtaining lung cancer drastically increases. There is still no direct cure of lung cancer, and those afflicted on average die within five years of becoming ill with the disease. Smoking cigarettes simply isn't worth one's life, and people shouldn't do it. Quite obviously, cigarette is home to the poison nicotine. One drop, which would be seventy milligrams of nicotine injected into an average sized man, is deadly. Cigarettes can contain between .1 and .22 milligrams of nicotine. This alone is not enough to kill someone, but it does have immediate effects, which are an accelerated heartbeat and incessant hand shaking. Eventually with all of the cigarettes some smokers will smoke, they will reach that magic number of seventy milligrams, and their poor health will reflect it. People should not smoke cigarettes. Not only are cigarettes dangerous to a smoker's health, but to a smoker's surroundings, as well. Fires started by lit cigarettes cause an estimated twenty five thousand deaths a year in solely the United States. One can only imagine what that number would be worldwide. These deaths are in vain and absolutely could have been prevented if smokers realize they shouldn't stop. Over four hundred thousand Americans alone die each year due to cigarette related deaths. These annual deaths rack up more than AIDS, illegal drugs, murders, suicides, alcohol, and car wrecks combined. If people didn't smoke, these death tolls in not just the United States, but the whole world would go down. That seems like a pretty good incentive, no? People should not smoke cigarettes. http://1000-reasons.blogspot.com...

People Shoudn't Smoke Cigarettes

Tobacco should be banned slowly. At first, there will be great taxes and high regulations (i.e., no smoking in public), and then it will become stricter. Eventually a total ban of tobacco will come into play. [An individual has a right to decide what goes into their body] According to this argument, it should be okay to do cocaine, cannabis, bath salts, or drinking in excess. It's not just about the smoker, it's about the poor people who must be exposed to secondhand smoke. No one likes secondhand smoke, but most people have no choice because they have to go somewhere or are in a car. If you smoke at home, it could harm your roommate, family, or pets if you have any. You may not care about the health of those around you, but they do. If you live alone (no family or pets), it could harm whoever must walk into your house. According to the CDC, tobacco is the leading preventable cause of death. More than 440,000 tobacco-related deaths occur per year in the US alone. Of these deaths, 49,400 are from secondhand smoke exposure. Other risks: - Various cancers - Laryngectomy -Use of an artificial larynx, AKA robot voice. - Difficulty breathing - Oral problems -Bad teeth -Bad breath - Bad skin - Cardiovascular problems - Brain problems - Reproductive problems Many smokers were naive when they started. They thought "Oh hey, one won't hurt", and then they got hooked and regret it. Banning smoking will stop an addiction before it starts. I coundn't find any reliable sources that listed benefits to smoking. Citations: 1. www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/tobacco_related_mortality/

Tobacco should be banned

Pro says that "smoking harms people around the smokers." I already addressed this above and Pro offered no counterarguments. To reiterate my argument, smoking often does not harm people around them (in the case when there is no one around them) or it often only harms people who are aware of the dangers, have accepted the risk as rational adults, and could leave if they wanted to. If Pro wanted to argue that people should not smoke in certain situations in which people can be harmed unwillingly and do not have a reasonable ability to simply leave the situation, then I could agree with that, but that is not the resolution being debated.Pro says that "The cigarette's flavour might be pleasant for smokers, yes, but deep down, it affects your health in the bad way." As explained in my last argument, this is cost benefit analysis. A lot of decisions have both good and bad consequences. As rational beings, people can decide what risks they are willing to take for what benefit.Pro's anecdote proves absolutely nothing. First of all, I have never made the claim that people should smoke around children or others in a situation in which the person who is potentially harmed cannot just leave. Second, Pro provides no evidence that her father's smoking caused her brother's asthma. As a counter-anecdote, I also got asthma as a child. My parents did not smoke nor did my grandparents or anyone around me. Pro also seems to indicate that her brother got asthma because of one particular incident in which smoke got in her brother's face. While exposure to smoke over a period of time may contribute to developing asthma, it is medically ridiculous to claim that someone got asthma because of one time some smoke went in their face.Pro has failed to address anything I wrote in my argument and has simply presented an anecdote which not only does not prove anything at all but also is an example of a situation which my arguments did not condone. Even if I agree that one should not smoke around children (which I do) it does not affect my argument in the slightest.Pro has failed to provide any evidence or arguments that everyone smoking right now should QUIT IT.

Everyone smoking right now should QUIT IT.

In what follows now, I will refute Pro's arguments and show why they are fallacious. Smoking and HealthPro said that smoking can give over 25 health problems to the smoker. In short, smoking is dangerous and harmful for you. However, although it is true that smoking is dangerous and harmful, it is also true that there are many more other things which are dangerous and harmful, like for example rock climbing, rag racing, motorcycles, surfing, eating a lot of fatty foods, and skate boarding. What would be more reasonable: Completely banning all these things, or just give out the information that these things can harm you and then let people decide for themselves how they want to make use of their freedom of choice? You decide. The fact of the matter is that thousands of things are dangerous and harmful for you, but this doesn't justify the government to take away our personal freedom of choice. The government should only protect us from harm which its purpose is to feel pain - not harm which makes you feel good and happy, and which its bad effects will only come to you many decades latter. To ban smoking just because it is dangerous and harmful, would mean that we would have to ban just about nearly everything else too. Moreover, we should allow people to make their own decisions, even decisions that may be harmful to them, because the US value personal freedom. Of course, smokers should not be allowed to smoke in public places where it may be non-smokers, but they should surely have the right to, for example, smoke at their own home if they choose to do so. Smoking and BeautyPro said that smoking costs the smoker's beauty. However, so does coffee. [2] If we are to follow Pro's logic, then coffee should be banned. In fact, numerous things should be banned, because there are numerous other things that can cost your beauty. Moreover, I don't see how we are justified in completely banning something just because it may cost your beauty. Of course, the government should give the information that this and that may cost your beauty, but not taking away people's freedom of choice. It's your beauty, and if you choose to harm your own beauty, then no one should forcibly stop you from doing that. Smoking and MoneyPro said that smoking costs the smoker's a lot of money. However, should something be completely banned just because it costs a lot of money? This is surely an unreasonable and absurd argument. Thousands of things costs a lot of money, but this doesn't mean that we should ban it. If the individual wants to use his own money on things that costs a lot, then that's his choice. Smoking and IQPro said that smoking can lower your IQ. However, if you read the site in which Pro referenced this claim to, you will read that "It is unclear whether smoking causes IQ levels to drop or whether less intelligent people are simply more inclined to smoke. " [3] So basically, the site in which Pro referenced his claim that smoking can lower your IQ, doesn't even know for sure if it is smoking itself which lowers IQ or whether less intelligent people are simply just more inclined to smoke. This claim by Pro is therefore extremely weak. Moreover, even if we assume that it is true that smoking can lower your IQ, this wouldn't in way mean that smoking should be banned. Numerous other things can lower your IQ as well, like for example alcohol and artificial food colorings. [4] Should we completely ban all these things too? Of course not. Smoking and FiresPro said that smoking can create fires. Again, although this is true, in no way does this mean that smoking should be banned. If we are going to ban smoking just because it can create fires, then thousands of other things which can create fires should be banned as well. The fact that something can create fires only means that we must be careful with these things, not completely banning them. Smoking and BabiesPro said that smoking can cause stillbirth, premature delivery, and low birth weight to babies if their mothers smoke during pregnancy. This may be true, but this argument cannot show that smoking should be completely banned. If anything, it can only show that smoking should not be used by a women when she is pregnant. Also, remember that there exist men too. Men don't get pregnant and thus, this argument cannot apply to them. Thus, again, this argument fails to show that smoking should be banned in all states in the US, something which means that nobody - be it a women or a man - can smoke. Smoking and ChildrenPro said that smoking can influence children to smoke. But so does, for example, eating a lot of fatty foods, parachuting, motorcycles, surfing etc. Just because something may influence children, that doesn't therefore mean that we should completely ban that thing. If anything, it only means that we should try to smoke less next to children. Moreover, even if a child is influenced to smoke, it would be very hard for that child to smoke since you must be at least 18-years old in order to legally purchase cigarettes in the US. Smoking and DeathPro said that smoking causes approximately 600,000 deaths of passive smoker. It is true that many people die from smoking, but I contend that this doesn't justify completely banning it. Why? Because if we are to ban something just because it may kill you, then numerous other things should be banned too. For example, there is about 6,000,000 auto accidents in the US every year. Does that mean that automobiles should be illegal? People who surfe always have a risk of dying by drowning. Should we therefore ban surfing and not allow people to surfe? Of course not. Although something can kill you, it should be up to the individual if he wants to buy this thing. We should not stop people from taking risks for themselves, and nor should we take away their personal freedom of choice. Smoking and EnvironmentPro said that to produce cigarettes, trees, energy, and water is wasted. But this doesn't mean that we should ban cigarettes. Of course, things are being used in order to produce cigarettes, but this is true in regards to pretty much everything else. For example, a lot of trees are used and wasted in order to create papers - since a lot of trees are used and wasted in order to create papers, should therefore papers be banned? Of course not. Pro also said that smoking causes air, land, and water pollution. Although this is true, there are also several other things that cause air, land, and water pollution. For example, cars and trucks put a lot emissions of gases into the air. All animals release gases, like methane, which also pollutes the air. If we are to follow Pro's logic, then all animals, cars, trucks, and many other things should be banned because they harm the environment. The fact of the matter is that there is numerous things which are bad for our environment, but this doesn't justify banning it. Moreover, even if we ban smoking, this would help the environment in a very low level. Why? Because millions of people would still smoke. Indeed, smoking is so common now that there is hardly any chance that banning it would stop people from smoking, just like banning some kind of drugs haven't stopped millions of people from still using these drugs. In fact, banning something like smoking would only lead to crime, just like it did when certain drugs were banned - and not to mention the prohibition of alcohol in America in the 1920s. [5]The resolution is negated. _______Sources[1] . http://www.forces.org... Though the risks of smoking are highly publicized, the medical benefits of smoking are rarely mentioned. [2] . http://www.realbeauty.com...[3] . http://doctor.ndtv.com...[4] . http://www.increasebrainpower.com...[5] . http://idebate.org...

Smoking should be banned in all states in the USA

You make a good argument, although I think you may have misinterpreted mine a little bit. Maybe I wasn't clear, as I often am not. what I meant was that secondhand smoke at close range is not easily avoided, and any exposure at all to secondhand smoke is dangerous. Yes smoking does cause pollution, and yes, you are correct that it is a negligible amount. We do need to reduce pollution, but that is a different debate. Your other point was pretty good. Maybe I could avoid secondhand smoke if they banned smoking in public places, as they have in Utah, because I don't smoke, and I wouldn't allow anyone to smoke within 15 feet of my house, but what if someone was a smoker that had a child. That child would be unfairly disadvantaged. Compounds in tobacco smoke can cause learning deficiencies, among other things, so the child is already placed at a lower level even before they are born. It doesn't seem fair that, until the child moves out or the parent stops smoking, that child is absolutely disadvantaged. It is horrible for me to think about. Until the child knows that smoking is bad, they can't even tell their parents to stop smoking. Let me tell you a story. When I was about 2 (way too long ago), it must have been my dad's 35th birthday party. I don't remember it at all, but from what he tells me, he was smoking a cigar. He didn't smoke often but he sometimes had a cigar at parties. He had always told me that smoking was bad. A 2 year old version of me walked up to him and reminded him of what he always told me. At that moment, he put down the cigar and never smoked anything again. The reason I shared that story was basically just to show that kids are influenced by their parents' behaviors, and they want their parents to be healthy. Luckily, my dad wasn't addicted, but many parents are, and often times, smoking calms people a bit too much. If you have ever read the book "Kluge" by Gary Marcus (if you haven't, I strongly recommend it), you will know that a kluge in the human mind puts present above future, so the parent might say to the child that the cigarettes calm them, instead of listening to a 2 year old lecturing them about how smoking kills. On a fairly unrelated note, I'd like to briefly address the issue of how I would outlaw smoking if I were "his holiness the supreme divine dictator of the United States of America" (isn't that a nice title!). Obviously you couldn't just pass a bill that outlaws it. People are addicted, so that bill would work almost as well as prohibition. What I would first do is raise cigarette taxes unfairly. That would cut the numbers down to a reasonable amount, while giving the government a few bucks at the same time. What I then would do is issue every remaining smoker a registration card which expires in 3 months. The only legal way to buy cigarettes is to scan the registration card. The only way to renew it is to join a 12 step program, or something of the like. The cards will be taxed, and the amount of time it is renewed for is based on an evaluation by the stop smoking clinic of how hard you are trying. Once again, the government has an opportunity to make a few bucks. Obviously, however much some people try, they are so hooked that they will not be able to quit. Obviously, if they are that hooked, as long as they make a concerted effort to quit, they can still renew their card for the standard 3 months. Once only those people, and those willing to contribute a fair registration tax every month, will be left, the average life expectancy of smokers are much lower than non-smokers, so within about 50 years, the country will be smoke free. You make a good argument, and I look forward to your rebuttal on this one.

Smoking should be made illegal

(Con fails to rebut most of my arguments about the dangers of smoke). There's nothing to argue. Many things are dangerous, but are not banned. Alcohol is dangerous. Furniture can be dangerous. Pro basically says that because marijuana has reduced some of the use of it that it will do the same with tobacco products. That is false. It will only push the products underground and into the black market. Tobacco is really addictive and if people are kept away from their addiction, they can show the signs of being clinically addicted and sometimes be aggressive. Smoking should not be banned, it should be controlled in the public. Places like restaurants and bars should be able to chose to be smoke free or not. In public, government funded places it should be smoke free, but even then it's a hard thing to enforce.

Smoking Ban

Vuvuzelas can be blown directly into another person's ear, either accidently or sometimes on purpose (out of ignorance over the effects or out of malice to cause harm). In crowded areas, this occurs with relative frequency during the excitement of the game, particularly for fans seated directly in front of those blowing vuvuzelas. The damage that this can cause should be avoided by banning the vuvuzela.

Vuvuzelas are very dangerous if blown directly into the ear.