Question: Is vaping with e-cigarettes safe?

Title: Should E-cigs and vapes be regulated Content: 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/

Title: Should E-cigs and vapes be regulated Content: 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.

Title: Should the e cigarette be available to everyone Content: 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?

Title: Should E-cigs and vapes be regulated Content: 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.

Title: Should E-cigs and vapes be regulated Content: 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

Title: Should the e cigarette be available to everyone Content: 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.

Title: Marijuana is a healthier alternative for tobacco than E-cigarettes. Content: 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/

Title: Bloomberg's Ban on E-Cigs Content: 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.

Title: Should E-cigs and vapes be regulated Content: 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.

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

Title: Should the e cigarette be available to everyone Content: 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?

Title: Bloomberg's Ban on E-Cigs Content: 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.

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

Title: Should the e cigarette be available to everyone Content: 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.

Title: Bloomberg's Ban on E-Cigs Content: 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

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

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

Title: Bloomberg's Ban on E-Cigs Content: 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.

Title: Bloomberg's Ban on E-Cigs Content: 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.

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

Title: Should the e cigarette be available to everyone Content: 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.

Title: Bloomberg's Ban on E-Cigs Content: 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.

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

Title: Juul Is Bad. Content: 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

Title: Smoking should be banned in all public places Content: 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?

Title: Smoking Should be Banned Content: -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!

Title: Use of E-Cigarettes/Hookah Pens in underage citizens Content: 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.

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

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

Title: Use of E-Cigarettes/Hookah Pens in underage citizens Content: 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.

Title: Cigarette Smoking Should Be Banned Everywhere Content: Tobacco has been around for centuries and every year it become more deadly. Cigarettes have increased in deadly ingredients that harm the body and are known to kill. These toxins are unsafe and the nicotine makes them highly addictive. Many say, "So what if someone else smokes? It doesn't hurt me." Actually, it does. The U.S. Government approved nearly 600 additives, but the most deadly part of the cigarette is the gas it releases into the air after being lit. There are over 4,000 chemical compounds that are created after burning a cigarette and about 69 of those chemical compounds are known to cause cancer (1). It has been said that secondhand smoke is not real and does not harm others. If you smoked a cigarette in a room full of other people, they would breathe the same thing you are just like a candle that smells like flowers will be noticed. Subjecting someone else to those kind of toxins is wrong. Is it right to slowly poison your drinking water and share with your ignorant loved ones? No. Smoking in cars with young children has been banned in many places for a reason - it is dangerous and deadly. It is a coping skill or simple boredom cure that can be compared to a slow suicide. Do you think all of this is incorrect? Please, enlighten me. "Smoking harms nearly every organ of the body and affects a person"s overall health." -Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (1) http://www.tricountycessation.org...

Title: Cigarettes should be banned Content: They are bad

Title: Smoking (All types, Including marijuana and Vapor) should be banned. Content: 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!

Title: Marijuana is a healthier alternative for tobacco than E-cigarettes. Content: 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!

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

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

Title: Marijuana is a healthier alternative for tobacco than E-cigarettes. Content: 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!

Title: Should the e cigarette be available to everyone Content: 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.

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

Title: Smoking should be banned from outdoor public places as well as indoor public places Content: 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...

Title: Use of E-Cigarettes/Hookah Pens in underage citizens Content: 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.

Title: Should E-cigs and vapes be regulated Content: 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.

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

Title: Cigarettes are bad for my health. Content: 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!

Title: Smoking should not be banned. Content: It's true that our arguments should be more about morals and logic than stats and science, at least to a degree. But if the stats, facts and science contradict a person's "common sense," what is more reliable? I would go with the proven stats and science. You say "There is scientific proof that second hand smoking isn't harmful in anyway, there is also scientific proof that it is harmful. There is no conclusive evidence about any of the effects of smoking." Well, then we go with logic--my common sense saying "smoking hurts you." You even said earlier that smokers know what the drug does to you (and you tried to use that in your favor). Because of all these controversies in the stats and so-called facts, do you honestly think it's a good thing for USA to have selling up and down the streets? A ban would make more sense because me and less than half the nation agree that smoking gives no benefits to anything/one. An example for tobacco products (on this same topic) are the people who DON'T know if e-cigarettes are safe or not. I haven't brought that up yet even though the people that use them are considered smokers and it should be part of this topic. Sorry but I have to show more statistics: there are roughly 2 million e-cig users in America, and none of them are sure what the product is doing to them. Why should the government allow companies, who don't tell the public what the health equations for the product is, sell a new type of tobacco/cigs? That was wrong in the first place and something should be done about it. "Do you know why a pack of smokes costs so much? Because the government taxes them at extortionate rates. This brings me to another con of banning cigarettes, the amount of money the government brings in from them." It's a multi million dollar industry, yes, and this is one reason they haven't banned it yet. But marijuana is less harmful and it's still forbidden by law (what the h?). Let's get things straight. It generates taxes from the citizens of America, why would you support that? Besides, addiction to tobacco impacts poverty and development. In poorer countries, up to 30% of income is spent on tobacco, reducing funds available for nutrition, education and health care. [1] If you care about changing the poverty in this world than you should think about supporting a smoking ban. "Does all smoking lead to cancer? Nope." Really? Well it might not lead to cancer but it raises your risk of DEATH and you'll probably die EARLIER. "Suicide - 'The action of killing oneself intentionally' To be honest I dont only find this false but I also find it offensive to smokers, for someone that wants to help peoples health you sure aren't the nicest treating person calling them murderers etc....Homicide - "The deliberate and unlawful killing of one person by another" Once again this is very insulting towards smokers...You seem to not only not be a fan of people's rights to make decisions for themselves but you are also rude and insulting towards them." Do you still not understand what smoking does to your health? 1) I don't see how wanting a ban on smoking is taking away necessary rights, that just doesn't make sense, and 2) sometimes you have to be rude or even offensive in order to tell the flat out truth. It is deliberate when people smoke, but I do admit the people are innocent because addiction is a trap that consumes your life and thoughts quickly. "So even though I clearly stated at the start of the debate that I undrstand that smoking is a health risk you have chosen to try and humiliate me by finding non-existant flaws in my argument, that's sad." You should work on your spelling a lil' bit, just a suggestion. Then you should figure out your position because yes, you did admit how smoking is a health risk, but the whole of your part in Round 3 (and maybe 2) have seemed to be focused on how the side effects on smoking isn't that bad! "Oh yeah you may remember a time in history when the american government tried to ban something else, alcohol, back in the 20's and early 30's. How did that go? Oh yeah competing gangs started everywhere selling unsafe, untaxed alcohol to people stead of regulated, safe alcohol being sold." You're funny. I mean that in the weirdest way possible. First I'd like to mention that even in so-called safe places, alcohol can easily be overused and abused. In fact, because alcohol is only supposed to be sold in regulated facilities and by reliable companies, alcohol is one of the most stolen products in America. [2] This site says that it is estimated in 2020 for smoking to be banned. [http://www.everydayhealth.com...] Then we shall see what happens. It also says the majority of smokers in America want to quit, so when the ban happens they'll be forced to quit. In my opinion a ban would cause a minor revolution. Why? Because many people will either end up in jail, or be free from tobacco because they are forced to quit. What will happen then is a thing I'd like to find out because it would either prove you or me wrong. "The smoking ban removes freedom of choice." In some cases, that's a good thing. I am not exactly democratic or libertarian. Thank you for reading this debate also and I hope you choose logic over lies. SOURCES [1] http://ash.org... [2] http://www.minyanville.com...

Title: Cigarettes should be illegal. Content: You may be thinking why would I be con on this topic. Well I don't think it should be illegal. Instead we should at least CHANGE IT.The main reason people smoke cigarettes is because they shove as much nicotene as possible in there. Many people know the downsides of cigarettes, but they can't stop because of all the nicotene in them. If there was less nicotene people could quit far easier than now. Also cigarettes don't really need to have to have all those chemicals inside. The companies just do it to make more $$$$$MONEY$$$$$. The cigarettes companies make them unsafe and forcefully addicting. Do you really think that making it illegal is going to stop it? If you say yes was I could give you a list on illegal drugs that are being sold still and no taxes are being collected on them. Make them less addicting and more safe and just taxes them even more. So many jobs would be lost with no cigarette factories. Those people with no jobs are going to make unemployment shoot up as the Apollo missions to the moon.Parents are irresponsible and don't take watch to make surew their kids don't take there cigarettes.In conclusion with higher taxes on cigarettes, less nicotene,less harmful chemicals,economic benefit, and more vigilant parents far less people will die of smoking.

Title: Smoking should be banned from outdoor public places as well as indoor public places Content: 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.

Title: Smoking cigarettes should be made illegal. Content: Thank you for the debate. I will argue that cigarettes shouldn't be made illegal.Cigarettes are a ChoiceThe consumer has the option to not smoke. All the information regarding the horrible consequences of cigarettes is readily available to them. Even on the package it is told to them. Proof is here: http://en.wikipedia.org... Addicts become addicts completely on their own will. It is also not an addiction like cocaine. You can completely quit smoking or known as "cold turkey." This isn't safe to do after a heavy addiction to cocaine. In fact, to quit smoking, all you need to do is quit smoking. Here is proof from an unbiased site (many sites will advertise their product, but his provides genuine research): http://whyquit.com... Cigarettes are profit A lot of tax dollars come from cigarettes. A lot of businesses rely on cigarettes (and also plenty that rely on people trying to quit). To completely ban them, you would severely impact the economy in a harmful way. 17.6 billion dollars were made from taxes in the year 2012 from cigarettes in the United States alone. This information can be found here: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org... Here is a list of businesses that would completely go under if cigarettes were banned, or at least suffer in the United States: http://www.revenue.nebraska.gov... This is not including anybody that profits from helping addicts quit smoking.Second Hand SmokeSecond hand smoke is indeed a real problem, however it can be solved. We don't need to ban cigarettes to keep non smokers safe from them. We need to add more regulations where it is acceptable to smoke. Here you can see a list of laws passed aimed at protecting people from second hand smoke: http://betobaccofree.hhs.gov... Many of these laws prevent smoke from ever polluting the air in the first place. This is also a side effect of taxes. Higher taxes on a good decrease the amount of the good sold. You can argue that more regulations are needed, but banning smoking would do more harm than good.Sources1. http://en.wikipedia.org...2. http://whyquit.com...3. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org...4. http://www.revenue.nebraska.gov...5. http://betobaccofree.hhs.gov...

Title: Should cigarettes be banned Content: The fact that cigarettes are harmful and kill people is not something which is up for debate. It is a well know fact there is propaganda and advertising that is in fact harmful. However the fact that they harm you is no reason as to why they should be ban. Someone who commits suicide and is successful can't be charged. Some one who survives is given treatment. So wouldn't it seem more reasonable to provide help?ï¿½ Cigarettes do not kill immediately in the way of suicide, the cause illness that do.ï¿½ The fact that they are addictive is also irrelevant as to reason why they should be ban because it goes hand in and with the fact that there harmful. If they where addictive but not harmful then it wouldn't matter. To much of anything would kill you.ï¿½ Then my opponent sated that the government did something to try and lower obesity. In their acknowledgement that it is wrong however it was not ban. Limiting food size can be looked upon the same way the government taxes cigarettes. This in no way helps the argument that cigarettes should be illegal. ï¿½One in 8 Americans is obese, which cause a number of ï¿½illnesses related to death http://www.surgeongeneral.gov...

Title: It Should be Illegal to Smoke on Public Property in the United States Content: 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...

Title: The ban coffe,tobacco, alcohol, and fast food Content: I believe these products are not only unsafe, but a detrimental to society. Ban- Making the possession, sale, cultivation, production, use, and paraphernalia of the said items illegal. All these products are addictive. When combined, they are much more addictive and dangerous. 1) Tobacco is extremely dangerous. It contains nicotine, methane, arsenic, carbon monoxide, methanol, ammonia and over 2000 other chemicals. Keeping tobacco legal tells children it is okay and even cool to destroy their bodies with tobacco. Nicotine is one of the most dangerous substances to humans. Tobacco companies will never tell you nicotine is deadlier than cyanide. That's right. Nicotine is 8 times as deadly as cyanide to a non-smoker and 4 times as deadly to a smoker. About 90% of lung cancer cases are related to smoking. The average smoker smokes 13 to 16 cigarettes. Some smokers spend over $9490 dollars a year on cigarettes. Some people give up their food or their children's food to afford cigarettes. Cigarettes are probably the most widely used addictive substance. 2) Coffee contains over 1000 chemicals. Coffee and all other caffeine containing products should be illegal. Caffeine is a stimulant and an addictive substance. If you advocate keeping caffeine legal, you may as well advocate the legalization of cocaine. I have met plenty of teenagers and adults addicted to caffeine. It's use can induce rage paranoia, nervousness, restlessness, inability to sleep, and even induce heart attacks. When someone tries to quit, they often experience headaches, lack of energy, and mood swings. 3) Alcohol contains acetone, ethanol, and methanol. It is a dangerous substance that causes numerous cancers, including liver cancer. We have no idea how many cases of drunk driving have occurred in the past because most get away with scot-free and others get a slap on the wrist for putting lives at risk. It is addictive and induces violence and rage. People act irrationally when drunk and commit action which they later regret. 4) Fast food encourages unhealthy eating. It makes them people obese and unhealthy. It is a huge factor in heart disease , high blood pressure, and high cholesterol. It does long term damage to individuals leading to countless diseases and it should be banned.

Title: Use of E-Cigarettes/Hookah Pens in underage citizens Content: 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...

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

Title: kids shouldent vape Content: 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

Title: Smokeless Tobacco Content: 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.

Title: This house would ban the smoking of cigarettes Content: In the motion this house would ban the smoking of cigarettes: What I mean is that the smoking of cigarettes should be completely prohibited. To smoke is to emit "a suspension of particles in a gas." The objective of this house is to prove that we should indeed ban the smoking of cigarettes with the central question that is "Should we ban the smoking of cigarettes? This house says yes; we should ban the smoking of cigarettes. The proposition gives out two reasons on why we should ban cigarettes, namely: I.) Smoking is dangerous for everyone. II.) Second-hand smoke kills innocent bystanders. Aside from that, there is also the fact that smoking is preventable. I. Smoking is dangerous for everyone. Smoke coming from smoking cigarettes is extremely dangerous, and it affects people around a smoker the smoker himself. It is said by the national cancer institute that cigarettes contain over 7000 chemicals, 250 of which are deadly and at least 69 cause cancer, some of these cancer-causing chemicals include the following : Acetaldehyde, Aromatic amines, Arsenic, Benzene, Benzo[^5;]pyrene, Beryllium (a toxic metal), 1,3"Butadiene (a hazardous gas), Cadmium (a toxic metal), Chromium (a metallic element),Cumene, Ethylene oxide, Formaldehyde, Nickel (a metallic element), Polonium-210 (a radioactive chemical element), Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), Tobacco-specific nitrosamines, Vinyl chloride. This matters as we are guaranteed the safest possible environment by the government, and with such dangerous chemicals polluting our air, the cleanest possible environment cannot be achieved without the banning of smoking. Therefore, we must ban smoking. II. Second-hand smoke kills innocent bystanders. Second-hand smoke does not discriminate. It will not choose to slowly kill the smoker, nor will it choose to not let itself into a bystander's lungs, and this is the problem. All people in all places have the right to health, this, according to the UN, means that governments must generate conditions in which everyone can be as healthy as possible. Second hand smoke generated from cigarettes however, directly violate this right by contributing to making an unhealthy environment, an environment that from which a lot of people die from. In this case, governments have to ensure healthier environments around the world starting with the ban of smoking. Data provided by the WHO, for example, shows that more than 600,000 premature deaths occur every year just from exposure to second-hand smoke, and more than 5 million from direct smoking. In other words, the right to health of innocent bystanders are being offended by smokers, this is why the proposition strongly believes that it is an uttermost responsibility for governments to ban smoking.

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

Title: No cigarettes should not be banned. Content: I believe cigarettes should be banned because they are an everyday cause to cancer. It is also one of the main reasons people die. I from personal experience think it is a good thing for them to be banned because many people die each day from it. I also think they should be banned because some people can be pressured into taking a cigarette when they are young.

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

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

Title: Tobacco Smoking Should be Completely Outlawed. Content: Hello Complexity,I will be taking Con in this debate.Being a non-smoker myself, I will not argue that smoking cigarettes is good for health, but will merely explain to you why it should not be completely outlawed.I completely agree that Smoking is harmful for health and it should be banned in *public* places as it exposes other non-smokers to a variety of carcinogens.I will also say it is morally wrong to smoke cigarettes as it harms one's body, which is a God given gift.Nevertheless, i still feel *all* drugs should not be controlled by the government as what poison I put inside my body is none of the Government's business.This is why it must be tolerated as a necessary byproduct of freedom of choice, just like how pornography and prostitution are tolerated in most civilised societies.I'll give you another anology, Junk food(Fast foods) like Burger King,KFC etc are the leading cause of Obesity and heart disease in the western world.Obesity has a much bigger impact than tobacco smooking as it affects even small children. Junk food (like tobacco) has little or no nutrients other than a lot of fat and a killer dose of carbohydrates.Many people(especially obese children) woulld benefit if a ban was passed on Junk food.[1][2]But I am sure you would agree that the government must not ban Junk food as it is aginst the basic idea of individual liberty that many countries are based on.Frankly speaking, the government is not a grandmother to tell it's citizens what they can and cannot consume. Unless there is proof of a direct link between the substance and violent anti-social behaviour that can harm other citizens. it should not be banned.Also Nicotine, the main psychoactive agent in tobacco has been used to treat certain conditions like ADHD(Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder) as well as certain cases of colon infections.It also improves mental function if used infrequently, provided the user does not get addicted.As much as i hate to write these things down, they are facts that cannot be ignored.[3]Tobacco companies also generate a lot of Tax revenue each year.The government is already spending billions to control drug abuse, banning it will put a further strain on its resources, and will not really work.Many of those who smoke weed(like me) will tell you that banning it will actually deregulate distribution, and make it cheaper and more easily available for teens.Banning cigarettes would be a disasterous idea if you really want to reduce its effects in the country.Thus, cigarettes should be controlled, and the government should inform it's citizens about its harmful effects, but it should not be banned.Sincerely, CynicalDiogenesSources1.http://calorielab.com...2.http://www.worldometers.info...3, http://en.wikipedia.org...; - read the medical uses section in this one.

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

Title: Cigarettes should be illegal Content: :)

Title: Smoking should be banned from outdoor public places as well as indoor public places Content: 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.

Title: Cigarettes should be illegal Content: I thank you charizard for debating with me. I shall now refute your points and extend my argument. On the issue of choice, the governments responsibility to protect it's citizens outweighs its responsibility to protect freedom in this case. Yes, people can inform themselves about the dangers of smoking yet the mere fact that this education is necessary... The fact that there exists a product that effects health so negatively that it requires a warning label should be a screamingly red flag to legislators/the american people. The sad fact is that cigarette companies are too powerful. So powerful that even our schools can't fight them. Most children are taught at a young age that smoking is bad for them ( you do not see anti-rockclimbing or parachuting organizations) I wonder why we must invest so much time and energy and MONEY into warning children about a problem that could simply be eliminated. To address the blackmarket issue I will begin by agreeing with you. A blackmarket will undoubtably crop up. But since it is the cigarette companies who add addictive and dangerous chemicals to their tabacco (since they are huge and have the money, power & resources to do so) blackmarket tabacco would actually be cleaner/safer than the tabacco produced by companies. As for peer pressure, we must remember that it is media and ADVERTISING that first influence the peers. I would underline advertising if I could. Cigarette companies finance the idea that smoking is "cool". If cigarette companies were eliminated we can assume that the media portrayal of smoking would be very different. Not just the illegal status would effect film-makers but social opinion as well. And even if it were the case that cigarettes maintained their "cool" status, the illegal product (as mentioned before) would undoubtably be safer. Cigarettes are also completely useless to society.

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

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

Title: Should cigarrets be illiegal. Content: Alright, I'll give you my reasons why cigarettes should be illegal. First off let us examine the FDA, Food and Drug administration. They are the people responsible for regulating products that come into the United States and deciding whether or not they are healthy. In the past they have stopped products with to much metal content, dangerous additives, dangerous supplements, health hazards in general. You argue that since some people know of the health risk therefor it is fair game however it can be seen of the American public, through the FDA, that some health risks are too great to be legal. Which brings me to my first point, "Cigarettes are proven to be highly addictive, as well as a cause of multiple types of cancer, heart disease, respiratory disease, circulatory disease, birth defects (which include mental and physical disability) and emphysema." -This coming from Wiki through the CDC and Science Weekly. How do we as a society allow such an entity to exist in its current form? This is a product commonly found with over 100 additives in it that cause these harmful effects, is their no way to regulate some of those additives and decrease the effects? Profit > Life? Onto my second point, it causes birth defects. Even if I agreed with your freedom of choice idea this defeats it. While I don't mind abortion all that much because the baby will never know this world birth defects are quite a different story. To retard, or mentally disable a human being in some way for all of life is simply abhorrent. My third point, second hand smoke. This is once again one of those times when people don't have the choice. Now its dependent on whether someone happens to be smoking around you or not. The symptoms: -Cancer -Ear infections -Throat infections -Nose infections -heart disease -lung problems -asthma -premature birth -allergies -SIDS, Sudden infant death syndrome. Babies occasionally die. -Worsens Bronchitis -Increased risk of Tuberc -Risk of Crohn's disease. -Overall increased risk of death in both adults, where it is estimated to kill 53,000 nonsmokers per year, making it the 3rd leading cause of preventable death in the U.S. and in children -Wiki I rest my third point on the fact that its the 3rd leading cause of preventable death. My fourth point. We are a society that disallows suicide on a moral level because it is akin to self murder. Yet we as a society allow smoking, in essence a slow and sometimes painful suicide for monetary profit. This is wrong. My fifth point. Cigarette butts are the number one most littered item in the world. They are not biodegradable. "In the 2006 International Coastal Cleanup, cigarettes and cigarette butts constituted 24.7% of the total collected garbage, over twice as much as any other category" - Wiki And with that I suppose I will rest my case for now. I stand open for my opponents rebuttal.

Title: Smoking tobacco should be illegalised completely. Content: Thank you very much! I would like to place my own opinion on the summary of the argument so far. FOR: 1) Smoking tobacco is harmful for the smokers and those around them. Counter: Can be applied to any activity, eg. binge eating, which is preposterous. Agreed: However, it is the same for any drug which has successfully remained illegal. Compromise, NHS charge patients for self-inflicted illness. 2) It costs the NHS a lot of money and therefore costs civilians a lot of tax. Counter: Medical insurance is compulsory in America. Can be applied to any activity eg. public education, which is preposterous. Disagreed: Different health systems in UK and US. Smoking tobacco not only costs the health service but also includes all my other points and is therefore more extreme. 3) Smoking should be banned to reduce the risk of influencing a new generation. Counter: Can be applied to any activity eg. cussing, lying, pornography, drinking, unfaithfulness and rude behaviour, which is preposterous. Disagreed: Smoking tobacco not only runs the risk of influencing a new generation but also includes all my other points and is therefore more extreme. AGAINST: 1) Many families survive by growing tobacco. Counter: Whilst legal, money made from the cutting of the health service budget by the government would mean a decrease in tax and therefore families would gain money in aspects of tax. Disagreed: People will continue to smoke despite the ban. Decrease in tax revenue. Counter: Health service budget would still be decreased I assume. 2) Increased crime rate. Counter: Money does not necessarily have to be spent on prisons etc. Like other consuming of illegal drugs, a fine could be placed and therefore the government would have more money to spend on worthwhile things. No response so agreement assumed. 3) Creation of organised crime would occur. Counter: Times have changed due to the smaller fear of speaking out for moral actions. Disagreed: Times have not changed, organised crime exists to this day. Counter: Referring to the Prohibition, rebellion was a matter of mob gangs and killing. Today, rebellion is continuing to smoke marijuana and is therefore less extreme than cases long ago. 4) Freedom is valued, we should be allowed to put our lives at risk by the lifestyle we choose. Counter: I believe the human right is "to do what a person wishes, if it does not harm others". Smoking harms others. No response so agreement assumed. 5) It would be unfair to not provide smokers with addiction treatment which would be a huge burden on the tax payer. Counter: The money the government can cut from the health service budget can care for this. Disagree: People will continue to smoke despite the ban. Counter: I assume a budget cut would still take place. 6) A ban on smoking would not prevent smoking. Counter: There are good people in this world who abide by the law. See previous arguments. Disagree: Tobacco is highly addictive, a ban would not prevent it's use. Counter: Other illegal drugs are still used today. Fines placed would increase the governments money! OVERALL: I think my argument is still strong and a good indication of why smoking tobacco should be made illegal. I believe that many compromises can be made, however. Such as, self-inflicted illness should be paid for by the patient rather than tax payers. I believe I have made some valid arguments and I remain with my views. I hope I have been persuasive in getting my points across. Thank you for this debate, it's been a pleasure! :)

Title: Marijuana should not be legalized. Content: It is a common fact that Marijuana has less harmful effects than alcohol, cigarettes, and guns. Although Marijuana is illegal, people continue to sell it as well as smoke it through the black market, and regardless of it becoming legal or not, people will continue to smoke it no matter what the government says. If Marijuana becomes legal, the cops will have less petty things to worry about and may concentrate more on crimes as well as drugs that are actually harmful. Contrary to popular belief, there is an enormous amount of money associated with the taxing of Marijuana. Marijuana is NOT addictive, yet it is completely and utterly legal to smoke cigarettes that ARE in fact, addictive and cause cancer among other side-effects. Not only do cigarettes kill you, they kill the people around you as well. Marijuana is not only a natural herb, it is ten times safer than any other Illegal substance known to man. Marijuana is one of many controversial issues facing America today. It should not be a crime to smoke something natural, and less harmful than products that do indeed harm people that are legal. The number of crimes in the state of West Virginia increase more and more each day, and an estimated half of those crimes are due to selling and possession of the substance. Marijuana is NOT illegal to smoke, it is however, illegal to be in your possession. It's a complete contradiction that shouldn't even exist. There are millions of American's that smoke Marijuana and are not classified as criminals or "bad" people. According to Dr. Melanie Dreher, a famous Reefer researcher who has done countless studies on the effects of Marijuana on the human body and the use of consumption during pregnancy, proves with her countless studies that children being born to a Marijuana consuming mother, has found no link to any form of birth defects and that the children tend to be smarter than children born of non-using mothers. Thus proving, Marijuana has far more advantages than disadvantages. It is fact that there has never been any form of studies done in The United States proving or disproving whether or not Marijuana is harmful or not. However, there have been numerous studies in other countries PROVING that Marijuana does not harm you. In fact, there are several benefits of medical marijuana. It's also true that Marijuana can also benefit someone who's facing a mental illness. It's a proven fact that the use of Marijuana during a woman's pregnancy can decrease nausea and excessive vomiting and can actually help maintain a healthy appetite, and improves the child's birth weight. With all of this being said, America is one of the very few countries that has yet to legalize Marijuana without even considering the scientific resources.

Title: smoking Content: Cigarette smoking should be banned in the United States Key Terms: Second hand smoke: a mixture of the smoke exhaled by smokers and the smoke that comes from the burning end of a cigarette, cigar, or pipe. Also known as environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), passive, or involuntary smoke. http://www.medicinenet.com... Claim 1: If the government does have a stronger voice and can make choices regarding the health of our country, cigarette smoking should be banned in the US. The safety and health of each individual should be most important to a society as a whole and according to the National Cancer Institute cigarette smoking causes a lot of harm to the body. The National Cancer Institute also found that 87% of lung cancer deaths were caused by tobacco and is also a cause of lung and heart disease, stroke, and cataracts. Cigarette smoking may also cause pregnancy problems which can cause harm to the mother and the baby. Yes, people do participate in activities that may cause themselves harm, but second hand smoke causes harm to those who do not choose this activity. For instance, children do not have the option to ride in the car with their parents. If their parents smoke in the car, they take in the second hand smoke and may have complications or health issues in the future. If all of these affects of smoking can be prevented, they should be. On regards to obesity and fatty foods, yes there are not laws saying we can not eat them and we can eat whatever we choose, but restaurants are incorporating healthier choices and even nutrition labels. A tax on sodas and sugary drinks was also purposed. If there was a tax on unhealthy foods and 3,000 lives would be saved, think of number of lives that would be saved from the banning of cigarettes. The government does have the responsibility to protect its population, but also defend their freedom of choice and that is understandable. But when lung cancer and any other disease can possibly be prevented it should be. http://www.cancer.gov... Claim 2: Many people who do smoke are law-abiding citizens who want to quit and would not commit crimes because cigarettes are banned. Smokers can not be correlated with increased crime rates and if those who did smoke, quit, who can determine they are likely to commit crimes? That is an unfair assumption to make. Yes, people may obtain new habits to prevent them from smoking, but instead of something as outrageous as committing crimes they may change their eating habits, find new hobbies, or frequent the gym more often. Here are a few suggestions for quitting and committing to it. http://www.cancer.org... Yes, smokers do choose this habit, but they do not always choose to be addicted. According to the American Heart Association, Nicotine is an addictive drug. It causes changes in the brain that make people want to use it more and more. In addition, addictive drugs cause unpleasant withdrawal symptoms. The good feelings that result when an addictive drug is present — and the bad feelings when it's absent — make breaking any addiction very difficult. Nicotine addiction has historically been one of the hardest addictions to break. Once we are addicted, it is up to us to quit, but we do not always choosing to be addicted. If we are addicted it is not so much are decision to continue to smoke, so banning tobacco use would be beneficial in eliminating the addiction and obstacles of quitting that smokers face. http://www.americanheart.org... Claim 3: If governments are responsible for the tax revenue they obtain from tobacco sales, they can be responsible for finding new areas for revenue and ban smoking. They government cares about the health of a society as a whole and has the power to encourage and even force smokers to quit. I will agree the government will lose revenue from these sales, but health should be most important. Banning smoking would benefit the health of the American people and encourage healthier lifestyles which should make even more reason for this issue to be considered.

Title: Cigarettes should be banned from society Content: Cigarettes should not receive a complete, immediate ban from society. I would like to scope this argument to the entirety of Australia, and define the topic as a complete ban of cigarettes. Meaning all use and possession of cigarettes will result in a heavy fine and possible community service and jail time. As the negative speaker I strongly disagree with this and believe that cigarettes should not receive a complete ban from society. I also believe that the effects of a complete ban of cigarettes will increase the level of crime in Australia, as well as create an additional struggle on the economy from the importation of the substance. The complete ban of cigarettes also will create another band of drug crime, and the illegal manufacturing of cigarettes will become unsafe as no standard amounts of nicotine or other chemicals will be controlled by regulations, such occurrences have repeatedly been recorded across other drug crime including that of cannabis and illegally manufactured supplements. However I believe that cigarettes should become more controlled in the factory process and use of cigarettes. This means there will be increased government promotion of e-cigarettes as a temporary alternative, and the ban of the use of cigarettes in all public places, as well as an increase taxation and a differing, safer formula in smokes overtime. I also believe that the job is not to completely ban cigarettes, but instead change and regulate the manufacturing process so a decrease in harmful substances and nicotine in each cigarette to create a controlled smoking environment that will assist in the deduction of smokers. I also feel those whom have placed 'cigarette user' on their medical records should receive an increase in mandatory checkups to maintain knowledge of possible diseases and to advertise counseling for cigarette users. I agree that cigarettes are an unhealthy way of life that circulates through families as a part of society, but I also believe that banning of dangerous substances in the past has led to an increase in long term effects and a complete, immediate ban is not a safe option. Cigarettes should not receive an complete, immediate ban from society. Thank you.

Title: We should make cigarettes more lethal. Content: prove it

Title: Marijuana is safer to consume than both alcohol and tobacco Content: 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.

Title: It Should be Illegal to Smoke on Public Property in the United States Content: Con asserts that second hand smoke inhaled outside on public property is safe, even if there is a slight amount of risk. He goes to the conclusion of the US Surgeon General Report, but in the report it is also said " The evidence for underlying mechanisms of respiratory injury from exposure to secondhand smoke suggests that a safe level of exposure may not exist" (1) Not to mention, the Surgeon General Report also referred to there being no safe level of second hand smoke in their follow up release "The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: Secondhand Smoke and What It Means to You", saying, "There is no safe amount of secondhand smoke. " (2) However, a more convincing claim was in the actual report when they claimed "For infants, children, and adults with asthma or with more sensitive respiratory systems, even very brief exposures to secondhand smoke can trigger intense bronchopulmonary responses that could be life threatening in the most susceptible individuals. " (1) So, even if Con's assertion was correct that most people can't be overly harmed by brief intakes of secondhand smoke, there is a minority that could see major health problems from having more smoke in the air. Con then asserts that outdoor smoking has little risk because air currents carry the smoke away, as it dilutes and therefore is not overly harmful. However, a study by Stanford University showed that inhaling smoke in the air can be much like inhaling smoke indoors. Wayne Ott who helped run the study said "if you're at a sidewalk caf", and you sit within 18 inches of a person who smokes two cigarettes over the course of an hour, your exposure to secondhand smoke could be the same as if you sat one hour inside a tavern with smokers. Based on our findings, a child in close proximity to adult smokers at a backyard party also could receive substantial exposure to secondhand smoke. " (3) Therefore, this study shows that it can be just as dangerous to be with someone smoking outside as it is inside, which following the logic quoted by Con from the Surgeon General Report ("[e]liminating smoking in indoor spaces fully protects nonsmokers from exposure to secondhand smoke. "), then smoking on outdoor public property should be eliminated. Also, one has to account for all the indoor buildings that are public property, that people work in. (4) The Science Daily article shows that merely being around someone smoking can cause harm, as "Exposure to the secondhand smoke produced by as little as two cigarettes was found to almost completely stop the function of a cell's sodium pump within a few hours. " (5) Once again, reinforcing the idea that there is no safe level of exposure. Even though the exact level of harm is unknown, it is known that it is harmful, as "The competence of the cell's sodium pump, i. e. , its inability to regulate sodium, is predictive of cell damage, disease progression and ultimately, survival. " (5) Not knowing the exact level of how harmful something is, but knowing it's harmful is not appealing to fear. Con himself did the opposite when he claimed he didn't know at what level second hand smoke becomes dangerous. Same with saying something could be harmful in the long run. I was using Con's logic that the more frequently you're exposed to smoke, the more harmful it is. Therefore, in the scenario I suggested of a person who has to frequently go to an area with a lot of smoke, means by Con's logic could potentially be very harmful in the long run. For example, say someone has to ride public transit everyday to get to work and everyone smokes there. Just because something's illegal doesn't mean it is enforced when there is nobody around to enforce it. However, if someone is around, it becomes a health risk as explained above. To conclude, second hand smoke poses multiple health risks in any environment, so therefore it should be illegal to smoke on public property, because being a potentially lethal health risk, it violates one's unalienable right to life. 1-. http://www.surgeongeneral.gov... 2-. http://www.surgeongeneral.gov... 3-. http://news.stanford.edu... 4-. http://www.wisegeek.org... 5-. http://www.sciencedaily.com...

Title: cigarettes should be illegal Content: Cigarettes are very bad for you, there not healthy at all it should be illegal i will provide evidence in my next case

Title: Smoking Ban Content: I would like to clear this again: we are not debating whether cigarettes are healthy, but whether total ban is the solution to smoking problems. Rebuttals Okay. Given that you believe that total ban on cigarettes is the solution to smoking problems, but I tell it is not so. It would just create more problems as history had taught us especially during the Prohibition period in the United States where there was a ban on selling and consumption of alcohol. Like Volstead law (ban on alcohol), your proposal of total ban on cigarettes would just create disrespect for the law. As Abraham Lincoln said, “Prohibition goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man’s appetite by legislation and makes crimes out of things that are not crimes.” Another, it would just create black market and organized syndicates selling unregulated cigarettes. This is very dangerous to the people. Remember: where there is demand, there will be supply. It would also overburdened police, courts, and the penal system. Total ban on cigar, like in the Volstead law, would also harm people financially, emotionally, and morally. Lastly, like ban on alcohol, total ban on cigarettes would prevent from seeking help those people are suffering from disease caused by smoking. Reasons why you failed in this debate:1. History will repeat itself with your proposition. Look what happened during the prohibition period.2. Your idea is so drastic.3. Your expected results are uncertain.4. You failed to consider moderate solutions like increasing tax on cigars and promoting healthy lifestyle.5. All the sources you cited about the hazard of smoking are irrelevant because we are not debating whether smoking is healthy or not. This debate is about the total ban which you underachieve.

Title: Cigarettes should be illegal Content: I propose that cigarettes should be illegal. They contain poisonous chemicals and kill nearly every long-time user.

Title: Cigarette Adds Should Be Banned From The Media Content: 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.

Title: Cigarettes should be banned for children Content: Yes. Cigarettes should be banned for Children. Why? For they are still on the development stage and it is not good for them to smoke because they will have have higher rates of lung infections such as bronchitis and pneumonia. Children who smokes have have higher rates of admission to hospital.

Title: Smoking Should be Banned in Public Places. Content: It is well known that Smoking isn't the best of things for your body, but if you wanted to have a good V.S. Evil argument (as you clearly are trying to make this argument) than you should try to debate something such as Abortion, or Legal Marijuana. Tobacco is not nearly as hazardous as crack, weed, pot, or just about any other drug for that matter. In addition, all adults should have the right to harm themselves (to a certain extent) if they so choose, just as long as it does not harm others.Despite Pro's Mis-guided argument, smoking in OPEN public places has not been shown to have any lasting effects, as the Cigarette smoke does not linger as long as pro may think, and in addition, forcing smokers to smoke at home home will dramatically increase deaths from second-hand smoking, as an A.C. unit is far inferior to the wind and general openness of the outdoors. If your idea (Which by the way, Violates rights and contradicts both law and common sense) is to be put into action, both children and adults will die from the smoke that cannot be cleared from inside a house.In addition to the lives killed by your half-thought plan, 660,000 American workers will be left jobless, as the Tobacco industry will sharply decline. Even more workers will get laid off from convenient stores, and pubs.In Conclusion, trying to take away Smoking in ALL public places(I re-assert my point) is overstepping certain bounds, and by doing so you will cause riots, boycotts, and anger in many loyal citizens, who by the way are not harming anyone by smoking.

Title: Smoking should be banned Content: While I agree with all of the points you made, I'm also a supporter of freedom. The restrictions we already have on smoking are sufficient for keeping those who do not wish to smoke safe from those who do. Also, tobacco is the most heavily taxed product in the US and the tax continues to increase. The tax revenues generated from smokers pay for things like public schools, and emergency services, and libraries.

Title: Cigarettes should become illegal-completely Content: Drugs twist your mind, you really want that drug! Meth Addicts will do anything EVEN KILL to get more Meth. Violent protests would ravage the area, while others will get it illegally smuggled, if you just quadruple the taxes on them, then so many more people would try to protest, get it illegally, or even make it themselves. By banning cigarettes, you are legitimately putting a halt to a whole lot of people who are THINKING about smoking, but you can't do it with addicts. Instead, crack down on illegal smuggling of drugs, and tax the cigarettes like ten times the original amount. You will have an end result of "stopping smoking" without stripping people of their freedoms. Governments should gladly ban things that cause unnecessary safety hazards. Smoking is not a hazard, so don't ban it.

Title: The sale of cigarettes should be banned Content: I've no reason to ban the sale of cigarettes -- I believe that victimless crimes are okay to a certain extent. Some 42 million people smoke cigarettes, it's almost impossible to just ban them out of the blue -- it's extremely addicting and would provide headway for an underground or blackmarket sales system. I'd rather them ban public smoking, littering via cigarettes, excessive smoking with or around children, etc. I think it is okay to hurt yourself as long as you don't hurt others. To do this, just increase the penalties for indecent smoking. Banning cigarette sales is good in theory, but would undoubtedly be horribly executed and would provide a more chaotic and irritable society.

Title: Should cigarettes be banned Content: Rebuttal my opponent said smokers being inconsiderate is not a relevant reason why smoking should be illegal however second hand smoke kills thousands of people yearly this is a relevant reason because innocent lives are being taken due to this highly addicting product. Second hand smoke comes from both the smoke that smokers exhale (called mainstream smoke) and the smoke floating from the end of the cigarette, cigar, or pipe (called side stream smoke). It may seem pretty harmless, but second hand smoke actually contains thousands of chemicals — from arsenic and ammonia to hydrogen cyanide — many of which have been proven to be toxic or to cause cancer (called carcinogens). High concentrations of many of these chemicals are found in second hand smoke. In fact, secondhand smoke significantly increases a person's risk for: respiratory infections (like bronchitis and pneumonia) asthma (secondhand smoke is a risk factor for the development of asthma and can trigger attacks in those who already have it) coughing, sore throats, sniffling, and sneezing cancer heart disease So secondhand smoke doesn't just impact a person in the future. It can cause problems right now, like affecting someone's sports performance or ability to be physically active. http://kidshealth.org... my opponent says people have the right to smoke however they do not have the right to pollute the air and potentially causing illness to others. Just because it is legalized does not mean its rights. for example abortion is legal however that does not mean its right. my opponent then says if banned it will cause people to par take in illegal activity however this is why we pay axes for our police to stop this activity. Once again cigarettes should be illegal because it causes death, people throw there buds all over the place and it is a health hazard.

Title: People Shoudn't Smoke Cigarettes Content: It's true that not all people may regard the risks as smoking as vital to their understanding, or even care about the risks. But because those risks are present, it's imperative that one not take a risk that knowingly is purposely fatal to their health. When debating topics such as these it's important to universalize. Yes, everyone is different, but when debating what could be considered an ethical or moral dilemma, one must take into account everyone, not just one person or themselves. The categorical imperative is certainly not a universally accepted set of moral or legal standards. However, I feel it important to discuss a matter such as cigarette smoking through the eyes of an imperative that prides itself of attempting to create maxims that will be accepted by everyone as a maxim that should be willed. Even according to Samuel Pufendorf, humans are created with duties: two of these duties being duties toward others and duties toward oneself. Smoking cigarettes violates both of these duties. According to Pufendorf, we have a duty toward others. Smoking near someone and subjecting them to second hand smoke is almost as dangerous as smoking a cigarette itself. About thirty four hundred non smoking adults die of lung cancer as a result of breathing in second hand smoke. This in turn violates Pufendorf's notion of duty toward others. In a sense, one can be guilty of taking another's life if that person dies from second hand smoke of their cigarette. Knowing this, one should not smoke cigarettes. Also enforced by Pufendorf are the duties toward oneself. He explicitly even says "No person could give himself live…it seems that man by no means vested with such a power over his own life as that he may put an end to it when he pleases." Smoking cigarettes can be likened to committing suicide because A. One knows that smoking can cause lung cancer and other fatal diseases, which in return causes B. Death. By one willingly smoking cigarettes, they willingly defy duties to themselves, for they are in a sense killing themselves. It may be a slow death, but the eventual painful death will be committed by their own volition. Again, I'm not suggesting that Pufendorf's notion of duties be considered universal moral or legal law, but instead a reference as to how smoking is not an action a person should partake in. http://www.cancer.org...

Title: Tobacco Rights Content: Defenses: 1a."Suicide is not criminalized but instead the state can take preventative measures if they feel you are in danger of hurting yourself and others with malicious intent ot reckless endangerment, I like I stated before. This is not like cigarettes at all." Oh yes cigarettes is not reckless endangerment, your just killing yourself because you addicted to something thats made with nicotine which makes you dependent upon come on really your saying smoking is not putting yourself endanger and others around you. You have to be blind. 1b." That is the same with junk food though. People will buy the products knowing they are detrimental to health and do not support a healthy lifestyle. This does not prevent them from having the choice to do so – same with cigarettes. If a consumer was barred from everything that has negative affects on health, there would be severe consequences to both the economy and availability of products." Oh junk food again, let me ask you cigarettes are food? No, Drink? No, have any good effects besides give you a nicotine high? No, well at least fast food actually fills you up. Nor are they loaded with carcinogins, and have a slim chance of making you sick unless you actually eat it for break feast, lunch, and dinner. Then again why am i defending fast food? Why not make fast food illegal or make them change their food and make them healthy. These are people profiting off of people by giving the addictions and killing them. When do we draw the line? how about we draw the line at cigarettes, a concoction designed to kill people. You can at least tell food companies to try to make healthier food , can you make cigarettes healthy? No you cannot, they are made to kill people. 1c. "That's not important. Even though chemicals are intentionally used in chemicals to make it addictive and hurtful to your health, that is not grounds to criminalize them since it is the consumers choice. The only thing the state should do is make sure the consumer is educated in those affects so they can make an informed choice. " Yes, informed choice to smoke a stick like no ones ever been pressured to smoke cigarettes seeing how most smokers smoked before legal age and became addicted, to kill yourself to fit in. Then with cigarettes with their promotions on movies. Its been proven that cigarettes in movies in the past year infulence 100,000 kids to smoke cigarettes. Then they have promotions like appealing to women with brand call divine and lusious with pink packaging. Lets not talk about flavored cigarettes, those have finally become illegal with only menthol left. The only reason cigarettes are legal to day is every congress men/women are all bought out by the tobacco industry. 1d."The high levels of MSG and fats are addictive and harmful to health – these are added however since they increase the chance of the consumer coming back for more. And even if the product isn't pumped full of carcinogens and other harmful chemicals, it still has the same negative affects over time. To criminalize tobacco on these grounds would lead to the criminalization of fast food since a precedent would be set." If your so concerned about fast food how about opening a debate about that however eaten in moderation is ok and im sure obesity is more curable than cancer. Also maybe fast food companies should be sued, for all these things in their food and after while maybe they will see that they need to change their product but cigarettes are not able to change or be sued they are too rich to powerful in governmental arena. These people live off killing people, fast food not as much a tobacco industry. At least a Big Mac gives some nutrition, cigarettes do nothing but give you an addiction and kill you. 2a. "Again she's comparing fast food to smoking which as I have said earlier that tobacco is nothing like them yes both can have bad effect but fast food does not make you crave it for the rest of your life." "And your point is? Craving something for your entire life is not legal grounds for criminalization." Wow yes they are selling cancer sticks that make you addicted and kills you , why is hard narcotic's illegal if we allow cigarettes? They are the same the difference one's legal ones not. 2b. "This has been defended above...." "Still not proven." Proven. 2c. "yes, he can be prosecuted but really will a prosecution stop his kids from getting cancer from his smoking? No it won't you might get revenge but the damage has already been done." "The chances of cancer are not grounds for prosecution. That's like taking my neighbor to court since his car produces CO2 and I might be hurt when inhaling the fumes." Faulty argument seeing how CO2 don't kill people unless in large concentrations in an enclosed room. Plus I have seen people been taken to court for second hand smoke. If they have presented a clear pressence of danger to cause harm in the future or other wise is a crime. Ok moot point well how about this we are allowing people to kill themselves for money, simply put. Is that what a government is a money sucking mob boss who says pay your protection money ok here have a cig it will only cause you to have cancer and pay money out the yeng yang for them. No a government obligation is to protect its people, not use them for money." "They can protect the people when they have legal grounds to do so. However, such grounds cannot be found in this case since tobacco is the choice of the consumer." Yes, its a person's choice to smoke themselves to death, Nicotine never had anything to do with people doing that now does it. Plus cigarettes laws are not enforce seeing how most smokers which is a common fact that most smokers were below legal age. Also that they were not pressured by friends and other circumstances like second hand smoke addiction. I object this so called link has been refuted since burgers are not specifically made with deadly chemicals that cause cancer which is in fact more deadly than having a meal at Mc D's and possibly obesity is more curable than cancer will ever be. So we are to allow our people to kill themselves for the economy? Heck legalize hard narcotics then you'll make a killing the economy will be booming geez after you think about legalizing all these harmful drugs would benefit the economy ten fold and who cares if a couple thousand or more die from it as long as the economy prospers." "I've already explained the connection between junk food and tobacco. The people are allowed to make decisions for which products they choose to consume – even with disastrous affects since they do so without malicious intent. Until cigarette smoke has been used as a weapon to hurt those around you, there is no legal grounds to criminalize the product." Again i have brought down the connection and shown it for what it really is, also my point about hard narcotics still stands, cigarettes are addictive and kill people everyday. Most smokers at this point wish they could quit but can because they are addictive. I could understand this choice thing if they were not addictive but they are it addiction levels is up there with crack and our blissfully ignorant kids that have been coherced and pressured and have seen a cool advertisment or seen a cool move with a cool character smoking infulences them to at least try it then after that point they can never come back. Addiction cloaked by the word choice, why treat drug addicts anymore it was their choice why not lock them in jail for their "choices".

Title: Cigarettes should be illegal Content: Yes that is all very true. But if it is illegal it will reduce the number of smokers and therefore lowering the number of deaths. Cigarettes nearly killed my father and if they where illegal he wouldn't be getting into them in the first place.

Title: Cigarettes should be illegal Content: I look forward for a nice debate. Yes cigarettes do cause cancer,and destroy your lungs. I must ask there are a lot of things that can give you cancer. Alcohol for example shows evidence of head and neck cancer,Esophageal cancer,Liver cancer,and much more. If we ban smoking that is not gonna stop people from smoking. If we ban smoking millions of people will still smoke cigarettes. If we ban smoking it will just be another illegal drug selling in black markets and in illegal ways. Smokers will just find ways to attain cigarettes. A ban on cigarettes will make America lose money. The federal government excises at least 8 billion dollars on cigarettes. Continent stores sells at least 438 thousand dollars just only on cigarettes. There is about 145 thousand convenient stores in the US. There are no strong evidence that second hand smoking exist. Gerry Silvestri of Medical University of South Carolina and member of the National Cancer Institute"s Screening and Prevention Board. Says "What this study basically showed is what people kind of knew already: At low passive exposures the risk is not that great," While that"s good news, it shouldn"t stop anyone from saying, I don"t want to be a in a bar or any place else with someone who is smoking. Banning cigarettes meaning banning cigarettes on private places such as bars,restaurants,and houses. The restaurant owners has every right to choose to let people smoke in there private business. Same apply to bars,and yes the house people owns. This is why cigarettes should not be illegal.

Title: Smoking ban is unacceptable Content: =Rebuttals=Pro claims that "asphalt is as dangerous as smoking", however, the resolution is exclusively about smoking and not anything else that could potentially be dangerous. The difference between asphalt and cigarette smoking is also significant. One of them is essentially what people do for pleasure [as with alcohol consumption,etc.] while the other fulfills a practical purpose and is a basic necessity if we are to have roads and pavements. Pros argument is entirely negated by the fact that asphalt is an integral part of construction. Without it, we would not have the same transportation, recreation [I.E play/sports grounds], agricultrure, and builing construction such as floorings that we currently do have. [4.] There are countless objective advantages to asphalt, the main one being that it enables everyday commuting and is cost efficient. Overall, asphalt is also safe; meaning that Pro has outlined a rather large fallacy. Asphalt is regularly come into contact with and no way has it ever negatively impacted people to the same extent that smoking has. And once more, I'll reiterate that it does fulfill a practical purpose. A total of 90% of all paved roads are are paved with asphalt. [5.] Unlike asphalt, cigerette smoking is directly inhaled and is thus one of the most widely reported on health concerns there is. Pro also states: "You say that smoking is the main cause of births and asthma exacerbations, but it is only one of many."Firstly, I didn't actually say that it was the "main cause". Rather I included actual studies that found second-hand smoke to one of the larges components in premature birth and asthma attacks. The studies concluded that there was a 10% reduction in premature birth/asthma exacerbations, as well as a 5% one in children being born unusually small. Another study conducted by the American Heart Association and Journal of American College of Cardiology found that there was a 17% reduction in heart attacks in European and American cities that had implented a ban. [6.] "Smokers are not only an expense for the government because all of the money we use on cigarettes is basically taxes."Not exactly, as highlighted in the previous round; the financial costs to smoking are extremely high. Pro further argues that a ban would lead to less financial benefits, but again fails to link a source that *really* supports this assertion. Not do smoking bans have huge financial benefits to the health sector, one could also argue that it benefits public business as people who do not smoke are more likely to come to restaurants and bars that disallow it, therefore actually adding to customer. It's unlikely that workplaces would be as impacted as Pro seems to imply, particularly in "aiding" hospitals as these are the places that have benefited financially with a smoking ban. On the contrary to losing money, they would gain it. The figure $92 million, in America alone, offers good proof of this. Two years after a ban had been implented, another British report concluded that: "Results show benefits for health, changes in attitudes and behaviour and no clear adverse impact on the hospitality industry." [7.]I'd point out again that Pro has yet to support earlier arguments made. Namely that "it is a human right to smoke." Along with "We are allowed to be the person we want to be and we make our own happiness."Pro should particularly expound on how it is a "human right" to smoke. Both statements are clearly built on fallacies. [4.] http://www.eapa.org...[5.] http://www.eapa.org...[6.] http://edition.cnn.com...;[7.] http://www.bbc.co.uk...

Title: Cigarettes should become illegal-completely Content: Quick Note, Doing any of these signs: * ` ^ will signal a footnote at the bottom of the argument. Cigarettes are bad, we all agree on that. More than twenty countries were part of the British Empire. http://en.wikipedia.org... Most of them are no longer colonies and have become independent. Why? Because they want to be free. To keep the freedoms of the people. So by taking cigarettes you are stripping the people of their freedom. Freedom: The quality or state of being as the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice of action. By completely banning cigarettes you are legitimately putting constraint on the people's choice of action. Cigarettes are also don't alter your point of views as meth, heroin, or cocaine does. (Those are a harm to public safety, and should definitely be banned and enforced) But chances are, if you strip cigarettes from the public, the addicted ones will do a lot to get them back, before they are completely rehabilitated. If you enforce the laws around cigarettes, instead of actually banning them*, then you will end up with an ending result of lower cigarette purchase and usage rates, and you haven't stripped the people of their cigarettes! Thank you for this great debate, and I wish you the best of luck in the second round. (Or third round, whatever you prefer) *outlaw any advertisements of cigarettes, double the tax of cigarettes, turn the open streets into smoke-free zones without letting the media know, etc

Title: Tobacco should be banned Content: It is impossible to ban tobacco in the sense where you can't *use* it in your home, but you can ban the *sale* of it. [There is no legitimate legal basis for preventing people from smoking tobacco in their own homes, where the dangers of SHS are nonexistent] Sure, if you live alone in your own home (not an apartment), the dangers are nonexistent. If you have a girlfriend, wife, children, or if you live in an apartment, the dangers are higher. "If you don't quit smoking for yourself, do it for your children"-Anonymous. Your children didn't choose you as a parent. I do think a public ban is good (but a total ban would be better). Smoking releases thousands of toxins into the atmosphere, and countries with a stricter smoking ban (i.e., Ireland), have noticed a considerable change in air and living quality. It is easier to breathe, and bellows-driven devices (like filters and accordions) do not need to be cleaned as often. {1} {2} There has to be a line between protection and rights. The majority of new smokers (destined to become hooked) are uninformed, think they're invincible, and/or don't think they will ever become hooked. Banning/regulating smoking will kill the habit. Smoking truly is a disease itself; we are fooled into it by our family and friends who also smoke. If citizens have the right to put stuff in their bodies without being required to know what it does, should we just get rid of the FDA? Should we unban Red 2 and other toxic chemicals, and allow food joints to add as much trans fat as they want, simply because we are the ones (often unknowingly) choosing to harm our bodies? Should the government allow the sale of a sweetener known to be highly toxic, as long as there is a basic warning on the package? Should we allow dealers to ferment their stool and sell it as "Jenkem" on the street for a dollar (this exists in some parts of the world)? Put yourself in the shoes of an asthmatic or allergy sufferer who must be exposed to the secondhand smoke, or someone who regrets smoking after losing their mouth or tar lungs. Look up how much tar is in a year's worth of cigarettes. Watch a video on how cigarettes are made. Look up "Pig lungs soaked in cigarette tar". Find out how much land is used for tobacco production; land that could have been used for feeding the growing population. Do you still want those cancer sticks in our society? The ultimate question: Do you smoke? CITATIONS 1. http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com... 2. http://abcnews.go.com...

Title: Smoking ban. Content: My points: 1. Smoking causes a danger to both the smoker and bystanders 2. It is an unnecessary habit. No one needs to smoke, it is a very destructive habit. 1st hand smoke: Smoking causes a danger to the smoker. "Cigarettes contain more than 4000 chemical compounds and at least 400 toxic substances.When you inhale, a cigarette burns at 700"C at the tip and around 60"C in the core. This heat breaks down the tobacco to produce various toxins."[1] With at least 400 toxic substances/chemicals, this is basically death in a cigarette. This alone would give you a greater risk of lung cancer and other serious diseases. It also affects the person's physical performance. A smoker may have trouble running at a descent pace, walking up stairs, and other basic activities. Cigarettes also contain tar, a cancer causing substance as well as nicotine which can cause high blood pressure, heart disease, and atherosclerosis. This decreases life expectancy and may have the person raking up medical expenses. 2nd hand smoke: Second hand smoke poses the same health risks as smoking directly from a cigarette. This puts your loved ones at risk, as well as other people in the general area. As with first hand smoke, second hand smoke can cause lung cancer, heart disease, and atherosclerosis. It also decreases life expectancy. Here is a link showing peoples stories on how smoking negatively affected their life: http://www.cdc.gov... Pretty serious health complications by any standard. 3rd hand smoke: Third hand smoke has the same severe health risks as second or first hand smoke. All may lead to severe health complications which may lead to hospitalization. [3] [1] http://www.netdoctor.co.uk... [2] http://www.cdc.gov... [3] http://www.no-smoke.org... Second argument: Smoking is a unnecessary habit, just like smoking weed. Both have health compilations( weed does, I am learning about them currently in my health class) that not just affect you, but other people. Are there any legitimate reasons to smoke? Back to you.

Title: Smoking Ban Content: To simplify the debate: Pro wants to ban all forms of smoking in no specific place. This means that the idea alone of smoking must be banned. With your first point which concerns the health of all the smokers, I would say that that is fact. No one can say that smoking is healthy, because clearly it is not. But the questions are: Is total ban the solution to this social problem? Can total ban really be effective? Is this proposed solution realistic or even possible? Questions above will be answered later. I personally believe that smoking is dangerous to health. I hate smokers because they destroy their lives, the lives of others, the environment, and many others. But the solution of total ban is a wrong move. All the arguments that you presented in this debate are useless. We are not debating whether smoking is healthy or dangerous. It’s a fact that smoking is dangerous. So, do not expect me or anyone to debate that smoking is good to your health. I rather would debate the idea of a total ban that you proposed. The idea of total ban is that the manufacturing, selling, and consuming of cigarettes in all forms and whether public or private must be prohibited, otherwise face imprisonment. This sounds not a good idea. The total ban of cigarettes is not good for many reasons. First, it would have a severe negative economic impact. Those people who work in that industry would lose their jobs. Also, the government can no longer collect tax revenues from legitimate tobacco manufacturers. Instead, black markets of cigarettes will occur that the government would not be able to tax. Having said that, the economy will suffer. Second, countless people would go to jail because they cannot stop their addiction. Smoking is addiction. Many people tried to stop smoking but they failed. Banning smoking would not stop that addiction, but it would only made them find a way to acquire cigarettes in a black market. They will continue to smoke because it has been their way of life. Hiding in a place that they will not be caught by police is what they will do. A life of a drug addict or criminal afraid of police is what they will acquire. With that, many of them would be imprisoned which would also result to an overcrowded jails. What we need to do to help smokers get away with their addiction is to increase tobacco tax and encourage and promote healthy life, not your proposed total ban which is very hard to implement and would have grave personal and economic impact. Thank you.

Title: cigarettes should be illegal Content: I accept.

Title: Cigarettes should be illegal Content: I accept.

Title: Tobacco Should Be Banned In The U.S Content: Tobacco should be banned in the United States. I stand affirmitive to this resolution under the moral of public safety. For the sake of my opening arguments, I shall be focusing primarily on the health risks that tobacco poses to both the user and those that are around the drug when it is in use.Now, everybody and their mother's uncle has most likely heard about the health effects of tobacco through either the education system, countless amounts of anti-smoking propaganda on television, or even through word of mouth. The fact of the matter is, all of these ring true and it is under these reasons that I stand affirmitive to the resolution. sgr_figure2_400.jpgThe above picture depicts many, if not all, of the different chronic diseases and cancers that smoking tobacco can cause in a human being. [1]Also according to the CDC (Center for Disease Control), smoking tobacco causes more deaths each year than HIV/AIDS, illegal drug use, alcohol use, motor vehicle injuries, and firearm-related incidents. So, what exactly does this say about tobacco? Well, let us delve further into just what exactly makes tobacco so dangerous.Addictive TendenciesThe chemical inside of tobacco that makes it so addictive is a toxin called nicotine. This toxin is considered the "most addictive of all drugs." [2] What nicotine does is stimulate the same areas of the brain that methamphetamines and cocaine do. What makes it so addictive is how our body develops a tolerance of nicotine much faster than these other two drugs. "Neurochemically, the body adapts to the toxins in tobacco a few hours after smoking – which quickly makes smoking necessary in order to feel "normal.'" In its purest form, nicotine is a poison. In fact, just three drops of pure nicotine would be enough to kill an adult. [3] Thankfully, only 1mg of nicotine is inhaled per cigarette that a person may smoke. Nicotine is the least concentrated in chewing tobacco.Wait, but hold on. There's only 1mg of nicotine per cigarette. That doesn't seem like much right? Let's take into consideration that there is approximately 20 cigarettes per pack. This would be an intake of 20mg of nicotine per pack of cigarettes. The lethal dose of nicotine is considered to be 50mg/kg.[4] Now, allow us to assume that the average cigarette smoker smokes approximately 1.5 packs a day, this would mean that they are having an intake of 30mg of nicotine each day. Over half of the lethal dose is ingested daily. While the smoker may feel stimulated by the nicotine, they are slowly beginning to kill themselves through this addictive drug. That brings us to the next part of our analysis.What makes tobacco so deadly?For this part of the argument, we shall analyze smokeless, also known as chewing, tobacco. As according to a WebMD article from 2009 [5], there are many more toxins in chewing tobacco than we thought:"Researchers have identified new toxins and cancer-causing substances in smokeless tobacco and snuff, in addition to other known carcinogens, such as nitrosamines. Researchers say sales of moist snuff have doubled since the 1980s, and that many smokeless tobacco users mistakenly believe the products are less hazardous to their health because they do not expose the user to tobacco smoke. But their study, presented today at a meeting of the American Chemical Society, shows some of the most popular smokeless tobacco and snuff brands contain an additional 21 smoke-related polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), which are potent toxins and carcinogens." Now, on the other side, what is it about cigarettes that makes them so deadly? What are some of the chemicals that can be found in cigarette smoke? The following is a list of toxins/chemicals found in cigarette smoke and other places they may be found or other things they may be used in [6]: - Formaldehyde :: Used in the embalming process of dead bodies.- Benzene :: A chemical commonly found in gasoline- Vinyl chloride :: A chemical used to make pipes- Arsenic :: A deadly poison that is found in many pesticides- Cadmium :: Used in batteries- Carbon monoxide :: A poisonous gas that can be found in car exhaust- Ammonia :: Used in household cleaners and bleaching productsNow, for the above reasons, I stand affirmitive to this resolution. In my rebuttals, not only shall I refute what my opponent may offer as his opening remarks, but I shall dive even deeper into the health risks tobacco proposes towards not only the smokers/chewers, but the masses as well.I look forward to seeing my opponent's constructive remarks.Sources:[1]http://www.cdc.gov...;[2]http://www.pamf.org...;[3]http://www.quit-smoking-central.com...;[4]http://www.cdc.gov...[5]http://www.webmd.com...[6]http://www.cdc.gov...

Title: smoking Content: Thank you for approaching this argument with reasonable claims: First on your claim of second hand smoke: The evidence for second hand smoke is very slim, because very few controlled studies having been carried out. It may be true that those who live with heavy smokers for a long period of time may have a very slightly increased risk of cancer. If a child is riding in the car with a smoker, a window is very suitable for getting rid of unwanted smoke, and unless a person is completely brain-dead they will know not to blow some in the direction of a helpless baby or infant. It is true that smoke-filled environments can be unpleasant for non-smokers, but there are ways around this - smoking rooms in offices and airports are an example. Some bars and restaurants may choose to be non-smoking establishments, giving customers the choice to select their environment. Allowing people to make their own, adult decisions is surely always the best option. Restricting smoking in public places may sometimes be appropriate. So if you are a non-smoker, you are more than welcome to not enter an environment where people are smoking cigarettes. Not everyone who smokes is willing to quit, everyone knows the danger of smoking cigarettes...yet they continue to do it. So why would they all of a sudden be okay with the government taking away this choice they had, and have to give up a habit cold turkey? As I showed earlier, there is proof that after the ban of alcohol the crime rates went up and it caused riots. If everyone went to the gym instead of indulging in an unhealthy diet, the world would be a much skinnier place. You cannot tell someone to quit smoking and instead expect them to go to the gym, it is very unlikely. As for cigarettes being addictive- yes they are but the knowledge that so many smokers give up this habit every year is testament to this. Many other substances and activities can be addictive (shopping, caffeine, cleaning) but this is no reason to make them illegal. People are able to abstain if they choose to live a healthier life, but many enjoy their use as part of their everyday existence. The government is not worrying about the health of people who choose to smoke, having cigarette companies is not only a tax revenue builder as I stated earlier, but it creates thousands of jobs for people in our country. From the farmers, to the production, to delivery to sales, cutting these jobs would be more harmful to the overall health and well being to our country than to ban smoking altogether. As far as having a healthier country, the government is better off advocating smoking than banning it "The National Bureau of Economic Research recently released a study by RAND Corporation researchers that looked at two of the major health swings of our lives—tremendous reductions in smoking and alarming increases in obesity. Common sense might argue that less smoking would reduce government spending and obesity would increase it. Wrong. Both trends cause higher government outlays, the researchers found. In fact, from a purely fiscal standpoint, they concluded, a truly cost-effective policy would be to help people to lose weight—by taking up smoking! " http://www.usnews.com...... Banning smoking would cause a tremendous upheaval, and add more problems to our countries already problematic state.

Title: smoking should be banned Content: Rebuttals (For points): You stated that smoking is a good way to relieve stress. However, as you may know, there are HUNDREDS of other alternatives to relieve stress in less harmful ways like, in our case, using DDO. There is also reading a book, or eating (but not too much) or sleeping. It is absolutely impossible for a person to take a ciggarette and light it then realize "Oh flip. I just smoked when I could just have slept or went out with my friends." NO it is impossible for that to occur. Then there is the common, but effective "right to choose" point. My response to this is, as I have earlier mentioned in my points that it is the government's job to create a healthy and lively enviroment to live in (Even though they are really "succeeding" in that right now" and ensure people live a safe life. To say that its their problem if they catch cancer is ignoring the government's duty and, to add on, is COMPLETELY immoral. For example, if you see a person about to commit suicide would you try to stop him or just continue walking and see him shoot himself or jump off a building? I would pick the first option. This links back to your their problem statement showing that you have absolutely not a care for others and would just let them die. (This is also destroying your rebuttal to my health and influence point.) For the second round, you mentioned taxes going to the government going to healthcare. Unfortunately, not all taxes go to healthcare. A small percentage of taxes in America goes to healthcare and at the current rate, I dont think we will be making significant progress anytime soon. Then you mentioned the good effects of smoking. Well your first point contradicted yourself by saying taxes can go to healthcare. This way, you only have to go the hospital to cure yourself from IBD. Also, I dont think that losing weight is going to be worth it from dying. Rebuttals (For your rebuttals): You proposed a usually effective alternative to my litter point if not for the world we live in. The reason I say this is because when you go out, for a walk in a park, or a beach or any place, there is definitely a rubbish bin. However even if a rubbish bin is in plain sight, for some unknown reason, people decide that the floor is a much better home for the garbage rather than the rubbish bin 3 feet away from them. You know its true. So I dont think that your alternative is going to work because of our current behaviour unless you plan to surround people in rubbish bins which raises another problem. Transportation. Point: Fires According to historyandheadlines.com, smokers are 7 times more likely to have a house fire than non-smokers. About 1000 Americans die each year from smoking related home fires. The NFPA says smoking causes 90,000 fires per year in the US, and that 90% of wildfires in the US are caused by smoking thus making health not the only factor for death by smoking. Taxes cannot cover better fire fighting water... This shows that smoking is worse than it seems and needs to be banned right away before it takes the lives of many people. I await your rebuttals to mine in the following round. No new points in the last round so take out whatever is in your storage room of arguments in the next round. Good luck and I hand the debate over to the negative.

Title: Ban all tobacco products Content: At age 18 people do know right from wrong and perhaps know that smoking is "bad" and that they shouldn't do it. Do they still go for that cigarette? YES. They do not understand to what capacity it will harm them. Using tobacco products to relieve stress at such a young age is not the most effective way and definitely not the ONLY way to relieve stress. Just the idea that using tobacco products could kill automatically erases the possibility that it can help someone. Heavy use of government power does not have to b abusive and it doesn't not have to turn to harming people. The goal is to slowly and progressively do away with the products so that there is minimal damage and forceful action. Tobacco products should be banned for the health and people own good.