Question: Is vaping with e-cigarettes safe?

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 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: 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: 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: Djarum Black Cigarettes are better than any other Cigarettes. Content: Look, yes, all cigarettes are unhealthy, so when determining which is the best, you have to consider degrees of unhealthy, and its side-effects. You wouldn't call a cigarrete that has a higher percentage of causing cancer the best would you?

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

Title: cigars vs cigarettes Content: we shouldn't smoke either of them. it is bad for you body because it is not good for your lungs or your blood cells. if you want to have bad breathing than that's your fault.

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: 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: Should cigarrets be illiegal. Content: Cigarrets should not be illiegal, even thou I dont smoke and think that it is a terrible habit, the cigarrets companies KNOW this and therefor made a public announment in every package that says that IT IS A HEALTH RISK that enduces cancer. So, the comapnies are giving the comsumers a choice with knowlegde. It is a fair game!

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

Title: Cigarettes Should Become Completely Illegal In America Content: 1. The source was right there, the first one.2. As I said in No.4., even if people don't smoke in the public, the smell could travel from place to place and people will inhale it anyway, without even smelling it. 3. "...it is not threatening to to the public as a whole." It is. It's harmful to the environment. Because people keep cutting down trees without knowing how to make it grow back again, we're running out of trees by the minute. We don't have enough trees to breathe in the carbon dioxide and breathe out oxygen. If we lack oxygen, we won't have enough clean air and it will cause Global Warming. The Earth will start heating up and soon, our planet will be too hot for anything to live!4. Sometimes you can't smell it. I've been educated, you know. It's not like I'm using fibs in my arguments. It can happen.5. "The people who smoke probably don't care about your teeth." You should have used "their" instead of "your". Nose rings are different. Cigarettes are a drug.6. Diapers are different. Cigarettes are drugs. Of course they hurt your health. Over 440,000 people from the USA and 100,000 people from the UK die each year because of smoking. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com...;7. When I say appetite, I mean, the flavour/taste of the cigarettes. I'm not saying they're food or anything."All of your sources are off topic..." Why? They're the sources I used for my arguments. "Freedom of America" You can't risk your life just for freedom. I'm not saying that the people can't get their freedom, but I'm saying that you can't risk your life just to keep using a harmful drug, which is harmful to both people and the environment. People, as in smokers and passive smokers. "Drugs affect the mind so bad that people will KILL FOR DRUGS." That is why people shouldn't use them. "So think about how hard it is for cigarettes to be completely abolished by banning." It's hard, so that's why people created nicorette. Yes, both cigarettes and nicorette have nicotine, but nicotine itself is not harmful. It's the tobacco in the cigarettes that are harmful. If people get addicted to the nicorette, they'll forget about the cigarettes. Well, it only works for some people. And there's another thing that they use called nicotine patches. http://www.netdoctor.co.uk...;You got anything to say, Con?

Title: Legalize Marijuana for ALL uses. Content: I wouldn't have made such polar arguments like my first 2 if I didn't have some evidence to back it up. The myth that Marijuana is not safe is one of the biggest. There has not been one single overdose from Marijuana, and in fact, Marijuana does NOT cause respiratory problems like Tobacco does. From personal experience, Marijuana actually opens my bronchial tubes (you'll just have to take my word). This study concluded Marijuana does not cause lung trouble. . http://ajrccm.atsjournals.org... Marijuana is VERY healthy. In fact, it's been found to REDUCE cancer rates in the lung and brain. Just read these: . http://www.webmd.com... . http://www.ehponline.org... . http://americanmarijuana.org... Marijuana doesn't make you stupid either. In fact, it makes your brain work harder. What you choose to have it work on is up to you. (again, this is from personal experience) It also is not linked to psychological problems. . http://men.webmd.com... Marijuana is what you make of it. It is safe if YOU are safe and unlike alcohol, it doesn't impair your judgment of being safe. On Marijuana, you are in control at all times. Marijuana's health benefits have been known for a long time. Marijuana was made illegal by Richard NIXON. If it wasn't made illegal for being unsafe or unhealthy, then it was made illegal to fight against the hippies. To fight against American culture. People of all ages, professions, income levels, and backgrounds use marijuana, so it does NOT limit one's role to function in society. Also, because of how harmless Marijuana is, the punishment for having it is outrageous! Possession can result in fines going up thousands of dollars and prison terms lasting YEARS! All for what? Marijuana is SAFE and HEALTHY and its criminalization is thus UNJUST. I know many people who would never break any REAL laws, so why should they be thrown in jail along with the rest of the criminals just for smoking or selling Marijuana? You said that interacting with people who sell marijuana (and assumably other drugs too) puts you at a higher risk for trying harder drugs. Well, if Marijuana was sold at Walgreens, you wouldn't be mingling with those characters. In fact, they'd be out of the job. And finally, the price of Marijuana is way too high. I can get into how legalization will actually benefit the economy, but I'm not going to. Yes, I am a US citizen too. I am a marijuana user. I am in control of Marijuana, not the other way around.

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: The Production and Selling of Cigarettes is Murder Content: Good luck to you also. Do you agree with smoking at all?? How ISN'T it murder?? Or manslaughter. It kills, does it not??? Do you know what is IN those things?? The following chemicals are contained in cigarettes: Acetic Acid: vinegar Acetone: nail polish remover Ammonia: cleaning agent Arsenic: poison, used as an insecticide Butane: lighter fluid Cadmium: found in batteries DDT: insecticide outlawed by the US Government in the 1970"s because of human teratogenic (birth defect) properties Ethanol: alcohol Formaldehyde: substance used to preserve body tissue; a known carcinogen Hexamine: barbecue lighter Hydrogen cyanide: gas chamber poison Methanol: rocket fuel Naphthalene: moth balls Nitrobenzene: gasoline additive Toluene: an industrial solvent Vinyl chloride: plastic piping (http://www.med.upenn.edu...) You know ... I am a female, and so I do paint my nails and do HAVE things like nail polish remover. On the bottle, CLEARLY it says: CAUTION Keep out of reach of children Do not swallow ----- Main POINT Read safety directions before using Highly flammable Poison - not to be taken ---- another main point! I mean obviously it isn't instant death. It's slow and dragged out. Making people look older and their teeth gross and decreasing the healthy function of the lungs. I'm fifteen, I probably shouldn't know some of this. But my parents are both smokers, and it's hard to know that they're dying from something so stupid. I also apologise for not knowing how this site works :) I joined ... Today :D

Title: Should the smoking age be raised to 21. Content: It is very true what you say about teens and how their going to find a way to do it illegally. However if we enforce laws against these teens and show them what the consequences are from purchasing these cigarettes many would refrain. This is a start towards building for a healthier tomorrow as many teens today are destroying their bodies with the deadly toxins that cigarettes contain.

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

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 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: We Should Ban Smoking Content: I would like to inform you of the harms and dangers of smoking both cigarettes and tobacco. 1. Cancer Smoking leads and causes to many cancers. Lung cancer and throat cancer are only examples of the many. (http://www.cancer.gov...) 2. Danger to foetus Smoking has adverse reproductive and early childhood effects such as infertility and low birth weight, as well as a higher risk of having birth defects such as congenial limb reduction. (http://www.cdc.gov...) 3. Smoking is associated with adverse health effects. Women who smoke have an increased risk for hip fracture than women who never smoked. Postmenopausal women who smoke have lower bone density than women who never smoked. It is estimated o increase the risk of stroke by 2 to 4 times, men developing lung cancer by 23 times and women developing lung cancer by 13 times. (http://www.cdc.gov...) (http://circ.ahajournals.org...) 4. Smoking harms the body Our body produces antioxidants to help repair some damaged cells. Smokers have lower levels of antioxidants in their blood than nonsmokers, therefore their body repairs damaged cells at a slower rate. Smokers' eyes sting, water and blink more than nonsmokers, which means they have eyes that are easier to be irritated. They are also affected by dental problems such as gum disease (gingivitis). Smoking can cause asthma and shortness of breath, which affects the ability of the smoker to do exercise. Asthma attacks can cause death due to suffocation. Smokers get gangrene and leukaemia easier, due to a weaker immune system. There are so many medical terms and diseases listed above. All this seems so surreal. I have never seen a smoker affected by the diseases listed above. Well, let me show you how real the harms are by listing these facts and numbers. Smoking causes an estimated 90% of all lung cancer deaths in men and 80% in women. Both numbers are pretty high, and, here we are talking about DEATHS. On a global level, researchers report that there were 1,690,000 premature deaths from cardiovascular disease in 2000. In the same year, there were 850,000 lung cancer deaths. that means about 637,000 of these were smokers, which is 230,406 more than the population of the Hawaiian Islands excluding O'ahu in 2010. So, who cares if I want to harm my own body? How does that concern you if I want to? Well, the thing is when smokers exhale, they breathe out smoke, known as second hand smoke. It causes all of the diseases and harms your body in all of the ways listed above. YOU might want to harm your body, but non smokers do not. While you are enjoying your cigarette or tobacco and neglecting the harms it does to your body, passerby breathes in the second hand smoke, and all the adverse health effects mentioned could happen to them, although they did not choose to smoke. When you smoke, you are in fact forcefully harming others' bodies as well! We all have to breathe, and when we do so while walking past a smoker, we breathe inn second hand smoke, as we all have to exhale, and gas (smoke) moves from high concentration (the tobacco/cigarette) to low concentration (the surrounding air, where nonsmokers can breathe it in!). Then nonsmokers get health problems they do not want because of it. It is unfair, really, robbing us of our rights to protect our health. Certainly you can harm your own body by smoking, but when you do so, you harm others, which you are by no right to do so. It is violating the rights of people who choose not to smoke. I look forward to hearing your arguments and rebuttals. Other References: http://www.quit-smoking-central.com... http://www.quittersguide.com...

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

Title: Resolved: Tobacco use should be banned in the United States Content: Refutations The Counterplan . http://www.nature.com... . http://www.usatoday.com... . http://tobaccofreeca.com... These studies prove secondhand smoke can "from a neighboring apartment can travel through ventilation systems, pipes, walls, open windows and doors, electrical sockets and even tiny cracks in plaster and drywall. ". Studies " found smoke residue on surfaces and in the air of both smoking and non-smoking rooms in 30 California hotels where smoking was allowed. ""Volunteers who stayed overnight in the smoking hotels also ended up with sticky nicotine residues on their fingers, whether they stayed in smoking rooms or not. ""Cigarette fumes probably become lodged on the hair and clothes of parents as they smoke outside, says Matt. The particles could then be brought back inside the house, where they would hang in the air or settle in dust. Family members may then inhale them directly or unwittingly transfer them from hand to mouth. Infants are particularly at risk as they spend most of their time indoors and often put objects into their mouths, says Matt. Contaminated dust can settle on toys, carpets and bedding and may remain there for months, he adds. " Tobacco use is never safe, really. Con's counterplan is flawed because he never provides any evidence of smoking in specific rooms to reduce the risk of secondhand smoke, which is proven to travel everywhere still. Con says "This counter-plan does not harm to pollution and also to non-smokers. " Smoke is a gas and will disperse and travel, thus proving his counterplan is faulty. Do you expect smoke to just stay in one place? Right here you can vote Pro, as his counterplan is shown to be worse. This means the secondhand smoke argument from my case is inevitably extended,as secondhand smoke is proven to still be a problem. Con also tries to refute my case through saying that nicotine is not addictive. His first site says "Cigarettes, as usually used, are addictive. That 90 percent of those who stopped smoking did so on their own should be put in the context not just of the 40 million who have stopped, but of the 50 million who are still smoking. Surveys indicate that more than 70 percent of smokers want to quit. Indeed, every year, one American smoker in three tries to quit, but 90 percent fail by year's end. Even for those who have abstained for a year, one-third relapse. " But more importantly HIS OWN SOURCE states "The tobacco companies torture these and other numbers in a desperate attempt to avoid facing the medical reality: smoking is addictive and can cause serious illness. " By his own reference, Con says that tobacco is addictive. Con just conceded the argument. His second site is funded by smokeless tobacco companies, meaning they probably have an agenda. The website itself attempts to say that tobacco use is safe and is complete bs. I couldn't reach his third source for some reason. His fourth source says that nicotine ALONE does not cause addiction; the study poiints to pyrazine. Fine. So it's not JUST nicotine, pyrazine also causes addiction. This still means that tobacco causes addiction. Again, con admits tobacco is addictive, through pyrazines. His fifth source says "People simply are obviously addicted to something else in the cigarette smoke than nicotine alone. " and admits that cigarette smoking is addictive, but points to things other than nicotine. I reitarate: So what? Tobacco has many addictives, nicotine being one of them, pyrazines also. I point back to my statistics that show that 85% of smoker tryied to quit but cannot. . http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... "Addiction is a persistent, compulsive dependence on a behavior or substance. " From this definition we see that tobacco is most definitely addictive as it creates a reliance on smoking to function and makes users crave tobacco and be unable to leave. So yes, tobacco is addictive. Economic "Pro never rebutted my argument that if we ban smoking, the government will have a big loss of money because of smoking, because smoking does big jobs for the economy in the US. " Actually, I did. Remember when I said that "if a company is creating chemical weapons to kill innocent people, than that company ought to be shut down, Same for tobacco. It is unfortunate for the workers but is necessary morally and for the sake of our country. " Obviously, if there is a company that is causinig death to millions of people, the company and said product should be banned. Short term job loss does not equal millions of lives. I believe it is CON that never refuted this. Extend my other studies proving 100- 193 billion loss. A pack of cigarettes, which brings a 6.36 stimulus, will end up costing $35 to society in the long run. Long run over short term. . https://www.medicare.gov... This 193 billion dollar cost is footed by society because non smokers pay taxes, and this money goes to medicare, which is government paying for medical bills. Since most smokers are poor, they receive Medicare aid. Therefore, nonsmokers foot the bill for smokers. Liberty This argument has already been addressed three ways. First, by the framework: a government's duty is to provide for the well being of its citizens, that is why a government exists. There is a reason we try to prevent people from committing suicide, even though it is techinically "their choice". Under Con logic we shouldn't help people attempting or about to attempt suicide because it is their freedom. Pro believes that sometimes choice should be secondary to the common good. Second, by addiction: It is true that some smokers may want to smoke, but 85% of smokers have tried to quit but can't. Smoking at this point is not a choice; they are forced to by nicotine and pyrazine. Third,secondhand smoke. Con never proved why his counterplan would work through evidence, while I proved it would not work because smoke travels. Remember my evidence that says smoke can move throughout buildings or stay on the smoker. LIberty has been refuted. Corruption There's no evidence for this. Prove it. Dependent Fits under economic. Short term or long term? True some jobs would be lost but remember that a government's moral duty is to protect the well being of its citizens. Lives outweigh jobs. Besides, a company producing toxic poisons that kills millions a year should not exist, no matter how many jobs they have. Alright, since Con added corruption, I will add something also: Environmental. . http://tobaccofreeca.com... " In 2005, an estimated 135 million pounds of cigarette butts were dumped into the U. S. environment.2 Cigarette butts are the most common toxic waste found in cleanups and the number one item found on California highways.3 4 And contrary to popular belief, they do not decompose completely.5" Cigarettes have toxic chemicals in them that threaten aquatic ecosystems when they leak out, according to( Slaughter, E. , Gersberg, R. , Watanabe, K. , Rudolph, J. , Novotny, T. E. , "Toxicity of Cigarette Butts, and their Chemical Components to Marine and Freshwater Fish, Atherinops affinis and Pimephales promelas,"). . http://www.mparks.org... "cigarette filters, cigar tips, and tobacco packaging accounted for 38% of worldwide debris". These numbers are from Ocean Conservancy's International Coastal Cleanups A ban would be effective, as "Smokefree beach laws help reduce butts on beaches by 45% according to the Audubon Society". Banning will reduce the vast litter amount. . http://www.lcc.edu... "Globally, approximately 4.3 trillioncigarette butts are littered every year. Smokers in the USA account for over 250 billion cigarette butts, in the UK 200 tons of butts are discarded, and Australian smokers litter over 7 billion cigarette butts annually. In most Western countries cigarette butt litter accounts for around 50% of all litter. Every littered cigarette butt can take anywhere from two to twenty-five years to biodegrade. Dropped cigarette butts have been the cause of house and apartment fires, as well as some of the largest and most destructive forest fires. Fires caused by cigarette butts claim the lives of about 1,000 people and injure about 3,000 people each year. " . http://tobaccosmoke.exposurescience.org... "When people congregate in an airport baggage area or enter a smoking lounge where many brands are smoked, the average amount of PM2.5 mass emitted per cigarette is about 14 mg (see Reference 3). Although 14 mg may not seem like a lot of mass emitted, each cigarette weighs only about 0.9 grams total, making it an extremely potent source of air pollution for its weight. As we shall see in subsequent chapters of this booklet, the 14 mg of particles emitted by each cigarette is really a large amount of particulate matter mass, causing extremely high indoor air pollutant concentrations when a cigarette is smoked at home or in a car. The chapter "Where does the smoke go? " presents calculations that you can do yourself to illustrate that a single cigarette smoked indoors is a potent source of exposure to toxic pollutants, causing concentrations indoors that are often higher than the federal air quality standards designed to protect public health in ambient air outdoors. " . https://www.ncdps.gov... Cigarettes cause air pollution, which will happen even if smoked inside, as ventilation ensures it flows outside. Cigarettes are a major source of litter pollution, which costs millions to clean up. Litter costs around 11 billion to clean. If we use the cigarette litter estimate of 38%, this is 4.18 billion a year. Conclusion Tobacco use is a terrible thing, one that causes pain, addiction, and death, even to those who do not use it. It wreck the environment and costs society. Remember how Con's own evidence proved tobacco was addictive; this turn should be weighted in this round.

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: Second hand smoke is BS Content: Hello! I am glad to be debating with you on this subject. I believe that second-hand smoke is bad for your health. Good luck and may the better debater win!

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

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: This house would not ban smoking #3 Content: Countermeasures 1) Harm Harm from cigarettes is clearly emphasized from the given examples. Pro countered it by stating that even cars and factories and alcohols can do harm, but is not banned, but why cigarettes? I had addressed it that there are things that is useful and that is not useful. Second, all things can harm, as said, there are things that are useful like cars, though it causes accidents, its all because of the accident itself, not the car. Its the way of driving or other factors, not the car. Alcoholic drinks, on the other hand, has healthy benefits, and moderation can give these benefits. Cigarettes, on the other hand, will do nothing but to harm. Cigarette itself contains toxins that can harm. No matter what you do, when you start smoking cigarette, whether you'll like it or not, you'll have the effects. 2) Individual choice As said, if smoking will not be promoted, then, it will be eliminated, in fact, even without banning. Cocaine is another matter to be discussed, and pollutants as well. Cars and pollutants, by the way, scientists can make ways to make cars free from pollutants, which would mean, we have the control over the harm brought by the car's pollutants. Note: The best challenge here is to make a cigarette that will not harm the smoker and non smoker. But obviously, what we are talking here is the cigarette that harms, so, it calls for a ban. If an alternative that won't harm people, then, let it be. BEFORE ANYTHING MAY GO WRONG AND MISUNDERSTOOD: "But obviously, what we are talking here is the cigarette that harms, so, it calls for a ban. If an alternative that won't harm people, then, let it be." I am NOT agreeing with Pro not to ban cigarettes, and the cigarette that is referred to this argument is that usual cigarettes, the one with too much chemicals. " If an alternative that won't harm people, then, let it be." I am referring to the alternate cigarette, but still, it does not mean that I do agree with Pro, as Pro is standing with the usual cigarettes, while my stand here is the alternative cigarette if there will be. Thanks. 3) Money Pro seemed to repeat the argument of "ban other things like cars since it causes harm, too". I have addressed that topic anymore, its the "useful vs not that useful". Cigarettes vs Alcohol: Alcohol has benefits IF taken moderately, cigarettes will really harm you even the moment you just tried and even when you inhale the smoke from someone. Economy and employment may be affected, still, there are more ways just to save this possible workers that can be unemployed, or the best way is that cigarette factories will stop making cigarettes, rather, make a new use for tobacco, or just simply, change their company. With that, no people or workers, or only few will be unemployed. Thanks and God bless

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

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

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

Title: Smoking should be permanently banned worldwide. Content: Pro did no more than restate that smoking posed hazards, and from that incorrectly jump to the conclusion that because of the potential hazards it ought to be banned. I showed the error of his logic by providing a list of activities that posed hazards for which choice is allowed: riding motorcycles, skate boarding, surfing, and putting butter on popcorn. Anyone could expand that list with a hundred more. Pro attempted to distinguish smoking from other activities, claiming "Smoking cigarettes or cigars even in moderation may cause a plethora of severe problems." In fact, if a person rides a motorcycle, surfs, or skateboards even once, they could suffer a serious injury or death. Activities that require learning special skills are more dangerous to novices. There is no evidence that smoking a cigar to, say celebrate the birth of a child, has an appreciable chance of killing you. That's not the case with many other activities. Being hazardous is not grounds for banning. Pro argues, "Making a universal ban will restrict production and a means to harm yourself." Correct, and such is the case with motorcycles, surfboards, skateboards, automobiles, and popcorn butter. The point that Pro evades is that he does not have the right to make the trade off of risks and rewards for other people. I posed the case of a old guy who is fully knowledgeable of smoking hazards and decides that the pleasure of smoking is a worthwhile offset to his other pains. I challenged Pro to make the case for the state overriding his choice. Pro ignored the challenge. That's no surprise, because there is no sensible case to be made. One justification for prohibiting individual choice is that it protects society from indirect bad consequences. I pointed out that insofar as smoking poses hazards to others, reasonable restrictions can be made to protect others. Pro made no counter argument. Therefore Pro's case is solely that he ought to be able to judge what's good for you, and then impose his will upon you for your own good. I offered a few sentences noting that Pro's resolution proposed banning all smoking, but that he only argued against cigarettes. He then argued that cigars are physically addictive because nicotine is addictive. Nicotine is addictive, but if the smoke is not inhaled, there is not enough to cause addictions. Pro provided no reference for any of his assertions in the entire debate. Cigar tobacco is processed in such a way that the smoke is extremely acrid. To "prove" cigars are just like cigarettes, they find a few Eastern Europeans who inhale the smoke. It's nonsense. My quotation from Kipling was to show that individuals cherish making their own decisions, even if most of us disagree with those values. I have no problem with Gandhi making other choices. We all ought to get the right to make our own choices, and for that reason the resolution is negated. "If there are no cigars in heaven, I won't go." -- Mark Twain

Title: Even if you don't belive in the mormon church, everyone should have their standards Content: Hello. This is a topic that I wish was discussed a little more often. Thank you! I will be happy to go through each of these. Don't Smoke: This one I agree with. The nicotine contained in the cigarettes makes the unhealthy habit addictive. Smoking is known to cause lung cancer, yellow teeth, and can make someone appear older than they actually are. Are there any other reasons besides these that you think we shouldn't smoke? Don't drink: I don't completely agree with this standard. Of course, alcohol should not be consumed in large doses to the point when people's speech and actions are affected severely. Small doses, however, are okay as long as no harm is being done. Don't do tobacco: Again, the nicotine makes it addictive so I agree with this one as well. Eat meat sparingly: From arguments I've seen online, humans are omnivores. They were originally meant to eat plants however their system can digest meat as well. The things people eat (other than humans) should be up to their decision whether we agree with it or not. Don't swear: I avoid swearing for the most part. It makes someone seem immature. I don't feel that everyone should follow this, though, as it can express emotions in a different manner than normal words can. Be modest: This I agree with for people, however, it's a person's choice to choose how they dress. Everyone's definiton of modesty is different too, so it can be up to someone's opinion. Again, thank you for covering this topic! Hope to hear your response soon. :)

Title: The F.D.A. should not ban flavored Tobacco Content: Hello. I would like to start by thanking my opponent for starting what I am sure to be an interesting debate. I would like to start off my argument by summing up my opponents points from each paragraph, and after each, I will give a short rebuttal. 1. There was a new law passed that gives the FDA power to regulate flavoured tobacco products I would like to point out that just because they have the power, doesn't mean that they will automatically ban it. 2. Some tobacco products were omitted because they are not flavoured. There is not really much I can argue here. It is a fact. 3. My opponent's first dip was non-flavored, and he is now addicted. Great. Nicotine is powerful. No matter what kind you tried first, you will most likely try more because your body wants the nicotine. 4. If you try different kinds of tobacco, you will have the same effect. That argument states again that nicotine is powerful. I agree. The premise is not whether they would get addicted or not. The premise is that the FDA should not ban the flavored tobacco. You have not provided any evidence that they shouldn't. 5. Kids would try all different kinds of chew I disagree, and I will argue that later. 6. My opponent is in the marines, and EVERY SINGLE PERSON has a dip in. Also, he has shared his preference. I disagree again. Not every single person has a dip in. Furthermore, who cares what kind you like? Contention 1 Kids are more likely to try and get addicted to tobacco that is flavored than tobacco that is non-flavored or "natural" flavor. Kids are given a lot of information in elementary school. Two of those things are: 1. Fruits are good. 2. Tobacco is bad. When a child starts to develop more, they start to make associations with their surroundings. If they have grown up eating fuits, and liking them, or eating a lot of fruit candy and liking it, they will be more likely to try more fruity things. If they associate the good thing, fruit, with the bad thing, tobacco, they will be much more likely to try it than if they were to associate the bad thig with a neutral thing. I was a little bit rushed for this argument, so i hope it is good enough. I look forward to your response.

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

Title: Should 15 year olds be alowed to hookah Content: Should 15 year old be able to smoke hookah even though its vapor

Title: smoking Content: I do agree with some of your stances, but there is evidence that second hand smoke can cause cancer and even death. According to an EPA report on second hand smoke in California in 1997, 53,800 people died from second hand smoke exposure. Also, children are at risk to many smaller, chronic diseases as a result of second hand smoke. I am not saying they will die from it, but they are certainly affected. I am aware that maybe going to the bar every once in a while and inhaling second hand smoke may not have nearly as much affect on you as constant, more long term exposure, but it is still unhealthy regardless. Many public places do have special areas for smokers and I think that is a start in the right direction. One issue I have found and many others have as well that in restaurants that have smoking and non-smoking areas, they are not exactly separated. There are barriers, but they do not necessarily keep smoke from drifting in the non-smoking sections. People do have the decision to enter or not enter these environments and you made a good point about that, but people should not feel limited either. This website contains valuable information on second hand smoke and studies that have been done: http://www.no-smoke.org.... Your points about smokers and their willingness to quit is very valid. I will say, although it would not necessarily be fair to forbid smoking and have smokers give it up cold turkey, perhaps the government instead of one day just taking it away, give smokers time to quit. People are very aware of the harm cigarettes can do to them which in some sense does makes it ok. For instance, I do not smoke and I do not choose to smoke because of the harm I think it will cause on my body. I know people who do smoke and know the precautions, but choose to anyways. It is up to the person and their rights. This idea is not relevant to my argument, but I wanted to point out that my opponents point on this topic is valid. On the other hand, I did want to point at that people do have very different reasons for why they smoke. Maybe they smoke to decrease stress, keep weight off, or any other unknown personal reason. I was suggesting that there are other ways to eliminate these issues. Studies have found that exercise does affect stress relief positively and according to the ADAA scientists have found that regular participation in aerobic exercise has been shown to decrease overall levels of tension, elevate and stabilize mood, improve sleep, and improve self-esteem. There are other ways to achieve what we intend to get from a cigarette, not just going to the gym, which may not be what many people need or want to do. But other forms of distraction, for instance, may be beneficial when trying to quit. http://www.adaa.org... Many people are able to quit smoking and that is a very good statistic to see when it is easy to believe a lot of people cannot quit or have a really hard time with it. Shopping, caffeine, or even cleaning as you mentioned are not necessarily harmful to the body, but I do understand the point you are making. People do have a right to choose, but it is encouraging to see that people do have the ability to quit. I do not agree smoking should be legal, but I do know that is a hard task to achieve especially when people are given the right to do things they wish, regardless of the outcome. Smoking does cause harm to our bodies and others as well, so smokers and non smokers would benefit from the banning of tobacco. The government, I believe can possibly find other means to supply jobs although it was stated that cutting the jobs related to the tobacco industry would be "more harmful to the overall health and well being to our country than to ban smoking altogether." I am well aware that banning smoking would be a hard feat, but the government could aid in assisting those who want to quit and perhaps advocate how harmful it is. At some point, with hope, a huge amount of smokers will quit and banning tobacco will be easier to achieve.

Title: It Should be Illegal to Smoke on Public Property in the United States Content: RE: "Con asserts that one will never be exposed to the amount of smoke to do enough damage." This was not asserted. The assertion was that "the amount of second hand smoke encountered on public properties and public easements such as sidewalks, parking lots for government buildings, and city parks, etc. isn't substantial enough to jeopardize public health."RE: "The evidence came from a study from the US Surgeon General's Report, which was cited in my previous argument."My apologies for overlooking the relevant text when I first perused the sources. I have found it now. Foe's argument in support of this proposal is largely based on his assertion that "there is no safe amount [of secondhand smoke] that one can be exposed to". Contrary to foe's claim that this assertion is based on evidence that "came from a study from the US Surgeon General's Report", foe's assertion is based on a paraphrased version of a finding of the Surgeon General from a Cancer.org article titled "Secondhand Smoke". For reasons discussed below, the paraphrased version of the Surgeon General's conclusion found within the Cancer.org article is bad evidence and should be disregarded.The Cancer.org article stated that the Surgeon General found as follows: "There is no safe level of exposure to SHS" [1 - (SHS presumably means secondhand smoke) - emphasis added]This was not a finding of the Surgeon General. In fact, the Surgeon General never concluded in any report that there is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke. The relevant finding of the Surgeon General was from the "Major Conclusions" section of the 2006 Surgeon General's Report: "The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke." Here are the Surgeon General's words - "... there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke." [2 - Page 11 - emphasis added]Given that this statement was one of the "Major Conclusions" of the Surgeon General's report, it's reasonable to assume that the words were chosen very carefully. The Surgeon General did not use the word "safe." The term used by the Surgeon General was "risk-free". "Risk-free" and "safe" do not have the same meaning and are not inter-changeable. "Risk-free" means absolutely zero risk. "Safe" is a qualitative term that does not mean absolutely zero risk - There are many safe activities which are not risk-free activities. (e.g. Absent unusually hazardous road conditions, it is safe to drive a mile or so to the local post office even though there is the risk of a car accident). To replace the term "risk-free" with the word "safe", as Cancer.org apparently did, is to insert a judgment in to the Surgeon General's report that the Surgeon General did not make. Replacing the term "risk-free" with the word "safe" significantly alters the meaning of the Surgeon General's conclusion. For this reason, the inaccurately paraphrased version of the Surgeon General's conclusion found in the Cancer.org article "Secondhand Smoke" is bad evidence and should be disregarded.Given that the Cancer.org article was the only evidence foe presented in support of his or her assertion that "there is no safe amount [of secondhand smoke] that one can be exposed to", foe has not demonstrated that the level of exposure to secondhand smoke occurring outside on public property jeopardizes public health in any significant manner.I agree with the Surgeon General's conclusion that "there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke" [2 - page 11 - emphasis added]. However, I still assert that there is a safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke. (To help illustrate: Because of the risk of falling down, there is no risk-free walk from the bedroom to the kitchen. Yet, it is safe to walk from the bedroom to the kitchen.) Contrary to foe's claim that this assertion goes "against the findings of the US Surgeon General Report", this assertion is not inconsistent with the Surgeon General's conclusion. It is, however, inconsistent with Cancer.org's paraphrased version of the Surgeon General's conclusion.I am sure that no reasonable person would dispute that inhaling and exhaling a single molecule of each chemical found in second hand smoke is a safe level of exposure. Scale up this infinitesimal level of exposure to, for example, one milliliter of second hand smoke. Scale the example up further to one liter, to thousands of liters, to millions, and the level of exposure becomes unsafe at some point. At what point that is, I do not know. However, the available evidence indicates that the point at which the level of exposure becomes unsafe is significantly beyond the level of exposure typically encountered outside on public property in the United States. (See debate round 1, ¶ 4)This is especially true given the differences between indoors and outdoors. Consider that there are typically air currents which carry the smoke away from the smoker. The smoke will mix with the air and become diluted. Smoke typically rises up in to the sky since it is hot. Contrast this with indoor smoking where the smoke cannot escape beyond the ceiling and lingers in rooms for hours and even days. Consider also that people outside are typically traveling from one point to another, and do not inhale secondhand smoke for extended periods of time. Indoors, people will breathe the same air over and over for extended periods of time. Given these differences, it doesn't take much imagination to understand that outdoor smoking causes a much lower level of exposure to secondhand smoke compared to indoor smoking. It is difficult to understand why it is reasonably necessary to prohibit smoking outdoors when, according to the Surgeon General, "[e]liminating smoking in indoor spaces fully protects nonsmokers from exposure to secondhand smoke." [2 - page 11]It isn't clear what assertion foe's reference to the Science Daily article is supposed to support or how it would support any of foe's assertions. The study doesn't appear to be related to the degree of risk from exposure to secondhand smoke outdoors. Rather, the study was about how the sodium pumps of cell cultures respond to the presence of cigarette smoke. The significance of reduced sodium pump function is unclear. ("more research is needed to understand the consequences of sodium pump inhibition by cigarette smoke" [3 - final paragraph from article]Additionally, foe's appeal to the fear of the unknown is not convincing. ("The level to which this can be harmful is unknown... "; "... it can be dangerous to one's health."; "it could be harmful in the long run."; "We also don't know what the future of cigarette smoke could hold."; "... could easily become more of a health risk." - italics added) Sound public policy must be grounded in established facts, not fear.Furthermore, foe presents a woefully inadequate solution the problem that banning smoking on all public property in the United States would restrict smoking in remote locations such as the middle of the Nevada desert. Foe's solution is "[i]f there is no one around, there is no reason to assume the law will be enforced". This is not a reasonable solution. A more reasonable position would be to reject the proposal as unreasonably restrictive.Sources -1 - Secondhand Smoke - http://www.cancer.org...2 - The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke - http://www.surgeongeneral.gov...3 - New evidence of harmfulness of second-hand smoke: Cancer causing agent present in gaseous phase of cigarette smoke - http://www.sciencedaily.com...

Title: smoking should legal Content: You forfeited the round so I will just continue with my argument. Like I previously stated, one cannot simply get out of the way of smoke. In fact, an estimate of 46,000 of non-smokers die from heart disease, all because of SHS. Though the argument that I would like to expand on is the one regarding children. A child would not recognise cigarette smoke as something dangerous, they may not like the smell and move, but more often than not they would probably carry on playing. It's unjust to keep your child cooped up inside just so smokers can pollute their lungs out in the open. Children who are exposed to SHS are more likely to suffer from serious complications and they are more likely to be hospitalised even if it's just the flu. I would like to repeat that smoke is not easy to get away from, even if you're inside it can get in through an open window and I don't know what kind of world you live in but in mine that is not okay. Source: http://www.cancer.org...

Title: Cigarettes Should Become Completely Illegal In America Content: I voted you down because I agreed with the other side, but the other side really did convince me. And why does it have to be in America? I don't even live there! Please be aware of where people live before you start talking! No.1. Doctors have proven that smoking takes an average of 11 minutes off your life every cigarette you smoke. No.2. Smoking not only harms the smokers, but the people around them as well. When the people around the smokers inhale the smoke, they harm their lungs. Inhaling the smoke exhaled by a smoker is known as passive smoking. No.3. Smokers can also contract lung cancer from smoking. No.4. The smoke can travel from place to place. Sometimes, people are unaware of the smoke coming towards them, since they can't smell it. They will inhale it anyway. Breathing even just a little bit of tabacco is harmful. No.5. Your teeth get yellow. No.6. Your breath will get bad. No.7. It's not truly pleasant for anyone, whether they are smokers or passive smokers. Yes, people might find that the flavour/taste of the cigarettes is pleasant, but it affects the smokers' health in the bad way. You should know that it’s not just affecting your appetite in the good way that counts, but the way it affects your health. For something to be truly pleasant, it has to affect your health and appetite in the good way. Sources: http://news.bbc.co.uk... http://www.health.gov.au... http://www.quitnow.gov.au... http://pediatrics.about.com... http://www.drchetan.com... http://answers.yahoo.com...;

Title: Smoking should be permanently banned worldwide. Content: The resolution says that smoking should be banned universally, but only argued against banning cigarettes. Since cigars are generally not inhaled, they have many fewer health hazards than cigarettes, and cigars are not physically addictive. Since they are not addictive, cigars are often only used on special occasions, posing little hazard. Moreover, while smoking marijuana is usually for recreation, it is also legitimately use by chemotherapy patients under medical supervision. It should therefore be left to medical professionals to determine when use is appropriate, not universally banned. Note that heroin and other narcotics are allowed for medical use. Smoking cigarettes poses health hazards. There are also health hazards associated with riding motorcycles, skate boarding, surfing, and putting butter on popcorn. There is in each case a trade off between the pleasure an individual gets from doing something and the hazards of the activity. There is justification for the state to restrict the circumstances of the activity if there is some danger to others, but within those bounds it ought to be up to the individual to decide whether or not they take they risk. That is the case with smoking. There is no question it poses risks, but the individual ought to judge those risks ad decide for himself whether they are worthwhile. Pro argues that teenagers are especially poor at making judgments about risk. If that is the case, then that is a good argument for having special laws to prevent smoking by teenagers. It is not an argument for a universal ban. If grandpa gets to be 85 and suffers from arthritis and the gout, and he wants to sit in the backyard puffing away, from where does the state derive the authority to stop him? He is mature enough to make the decision and his smoking poses no credible threat to society. Four independent studies have been done on the health costs of smoking. All show there is no dollar cost. Smokers die young, and what they thereby save in medical costs offsets the costs of treating the extra illnesses they suffer in their shortened lives. http://www.usnews.com... When put on the spot, anti-smoking advocates admit they don't count the offsetting savings. Studies on the effects of second hand smoke use dubious protocols to get the answers they seek. However, even if true, that only argues that non-smokers be shielded from second hand smoke. That can be done by isolating smokers or by using clean-room air filtration technology to make the smoke undetectable to others. Pro asserts that smoking is generally bad, and then leaps to the conclusion that it ought to be universally banned. A universal ban is unwarranted and unjustified because people ought to assess the risks for themselves: "A woman is just a woman, but a good cigar is a smoke." - The Betrothed, Rudyard Kipling

Title: Smoking should not be allowed in public places. Content: Basically all he said against my points were that they were nonsense. So pull those points threw because they were untouched. >>Thank you for your good intentions, but I DON'T WANT YOUR HELP! If I wanted to quit smoking, I would. Furthermore, it is not the government's responsibility to help me or anyone else quit smoking. <<< For those who want the help and want to quit can't. Smoking is a hard and dangerous habit. So, you shouldn't make this debate about you. the next paragraph. True. We may know the effects and even the fact what is in it, but think of this. You have kids. You smoke. You know the effects and know that it's terrible for you. But your childern see you smoke and they see you as their hero. They are very likely to take smoking up. That exmaple can work in the public eye. Childern see their favorite celebity smoking on tv or in the movies. They are very likely to do it. Thus, smoke shouldn't be allowed in public places. By the way. What are you talkin about. I didn't post aguements? I debate in a different way. I'm an LD debater, so im just taking this as one debate. So, basically i think we are debating differently. Again sorry for late replys, I have a lot of work to do to get ready for my big debate turnament. Thanks for the pacients.

Title: Djarum Black Cigarettes are better than any other Cigarettes. Content: While I agree that the flavor and the longevity of Black are spectacular, they are incredibly unhealthy (for a cigarette). There have been several cases where smoking blacks in succession have caused people to cough up blood. Also, the addition of cloves makes the smoke thicker and further unhealthy.

Title: This house would not ban smoking #4 Content: I will briefly rebut the argument that Con gave me. REBUTTAL All Con said during his second round was that cigarette is harmful. He listed various ways that cigarette can be harmful. In this debate discussing about the total ban of cigarette, there are two things that Con has to show: 1) that harm of cigarette calls for radical action of ban, 2) that the ban is a plausible action. Con failed to fulfill both criteria by only giving medical argument, omitting the explanation as to why such medical factors call for ban. Con’s entire round 2 can be rebutted in different layers. Just about anything can harm one’s health. Smoke from factories, electricity and cars kill people in many ways. Just because something is bad, it does not equal to a ban. Just because cars emit smoke, cause accidents and require factories in the process of manufacture, we do not ban cars since benefit outweighs the harm. Again, smokers are aware of these harms of smoking and yet they still choose to smoke. Moreover, cigarette provides recreational activity to individuals. Additionally, Con failed to combat other benefits that we lose by banning cigarette and benefits we gain from keeping cigarette. By banning cigarette, we are also hugely limiting freedom and rights of citizen. We are also oppressing industry that worth hundreds of billion dollars, placing workers of this humongous industry out of work and losing billions of tax revenue. Despite all these drawbacks in several aspects, does it still worth to ban cigarette? Con obviously failed to answer this question. I look forward reading round 3.

Title: This house would not ban smoking #3 Content: I will briefly rebut the argument that Con gave me. REBUTTAL All Con said during his second round was that cigarette is harmful. He listed various ways that cigarette can be harmful. In this debate discussing about the total ban of cigarette, there are two things that Con has to show: 1) that harm of cigarette calls for radical action of ban, 2) that the ban is a plausible action. Con failed to fulfill both criteria by only giving medical argument, omitting the explanation as to why such medical factors call for ban. Con’s entire round 2 can be rebutted in different layers. Just about anything can harm one’s health. Smoke from factories, electricity and cars kill people in many ways. Just because something is bad, it does not equal to a ban. Just because cars emit smoke, cause accidents and require factories in the process of manufacture, we do not ban cars since benefit outweighs the harm. Again, smokers are aware of these harms of smoking and yet they still choose to smoke. Moreover, cigarette provides recreational activity to individuals. Additionally, Con failed to combat other benefits that we lose by banning cigarette and benefits we gain from keeping cigarette. By banning cigarette, we are also hugely limiting freedom and rights of citizen. We are also oppressing industry that worth hundreds of billion dollars, placing workers of this humongous industry out of work and losing billions of tax revenue. Despite all these drawbacks in several aspects, does it still worth to ban cigarette? Con obviously failed to answer this question. I look forward reading round 3.

Title: Cannabis should it be legalized Content: Is marijuana safe? No, there"s no such thing as absolutely safety. The drugs you consume to make your headache go away have side affects: Common side effects of ibuprofen include: nausea (feeling sick) vomiting (being sick) diarrhoea (passing loose, watery stools) indigestion (dyspepsia) tummy (abdominal) pain Less common side effects include: headache dizziness fluid retention (bloating) raised blood pressure gastritis (inflammation of the stomach) a stomach ulcer allergic reactions "" such as a rash worsening of asthma symptoms by causing bronchospasm (narrowing of the airways) kidney failure So when you compare cannabis to legal prescribed drugs its just as bad and if it had "Serious dangers are associated with legalized marijuana use" They would not on any circumstance prescribe it to patients. One the fact of "Increased risk of injury or death in a car crash" Alcohol is far cheaper in places than cannabis her you can buy a gram of cannabis for "12 odds but you could also buy a bottle of vodka for around the same price and the vodka would do Far more long term damage and short term than cannabis examples: it has memory loss affects long and short, vomiting which can lead to death if your asleep and you vomit, in some cases people turn really violent and attack other people and the worst in my mind is its numbs your body people are far more likely to do stupid stuff while drunk it gives them a confidence boost and tricks them into thinking there fine. So should we ban Alcohol ? I mean it would save more lives wouldn't it. "In 2012 there were 8,367 alcohol-related deaths in the UK" that were proved to be related to alcohol. But for cannabis its has zero yes zero direct deaths and personally I have never heard of a stoned driver because they're to lazy to move anywhere. And smoking should be illegal not cannabis "About 100,000 people in the UK die each year due to smoking. Smoking-related deaths are mainly due to cancers, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and heart disease." the side affect of smoking are the worst. I am sure everyone has heard the old smoking vs cannabis arguments so ill not really go in depth about it. The crime drop wasn't related to cannabis it was overall crime "Between January 1 and April 30, violent crime and property crime in Denver "" the most populated city in Colorado, in terms of both people and weed dispensaries "" dropped 10.6 percent compared to that same span one year earlier, official statistics reveal. Homicides have dropped to less than half of last year"s levels, and motor vehicle theft has shrunk by over one-third." The cost of charging and hold a criminal for cannabis "misuse" it costs "In the UK it is estimated that each new prison place costs "119,000 and that the annual average cost for each prisoner exceeds "40,000." Its ridicules you are sending someone to prison for up to 5 years in prison for possession of a plant so that's "200,000 to hold them there and "560,000 for intent so sell that money for 1 prisoner could be used else were like schooling or health care. Con you're full argument in round one was it was dangerous everything you consume in your body has an effect also it would be for adults of course so they will know the risks and are aware that it can have a negative affect. Thanks, I apologize for they sloppy writing and I hope to see a reply Sources: http://www.forbes.com... http://www.nhs.uk... http://www.statista.com... http://www.ons.gov.uk... http://www.patient.co.uk... http://www.theguardian.com... https://www.gov.uk...

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: Like smoking, extremely heavy perfume wearing should be prohibited in public buildings. Content: Thank you for the debate, first of all. This'll be my first debate as well, on the site and otherwise--unless you consider comment-type deals a debate and I really don't. Here's to a good debate and hoping we both learn a lot. Unfortunately, you haven't made much of a case. I'll get into what's specifically the problem, but I'll remind you that you have burden of proof and need to prove point one. If you can be more specific about what this health problem is--because at the end of the day you are trying to convince me and the voters that there is a problem that warrants taking personal liberties--you might have an argument. Response to point 1: How many people are allergic? 100 out of all Americans? 50% of Americans? What health risks? They need to be serious enough to get the law involved. How close must the exposure be? If you have to be a foot away from a person wearing extremely heavy perfume to be harmed, and exposed to it every day, that is a far cry from a small amount of exposure a good distance away killing someone. If it is a serious enough problem to warrant making it illegal, can you give me a compelling reason why the manufacturers can't use an ingredient that doesn't harm those allergic to it? Finally, you've failed to provide any proof whatsoever to back up your claim that "many people are allergic and can suffer health risks..." etc etc. Since a third of your argument rests on this being true, you should probably back this up. Not to mention the comparison here is weak at best. You're comparing extremely heavy perfumes to smoking. However, there is a much stronger case to be made for making smoking illegal that cannot be made for extremely heavy perfume. The reason for making smoking illegal is that it presents health problems for everyone exposed to it--everyone--especially children. I quote the Surgeon General: http://www.nlm.nih.gov... "There is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke: even small amounts of secondhand smoke exposure can be harmful to people's health." "A smoke-free environment is the only way to fully protect nonsmokers from the dangers of secondhand smoke. Separating smokers from nonsmokers, cleaning the air, and ventilating buildings cannot eliminate exposure of nonsmokers to secondhand smoke." Can you honestly say the same of perfume? Even if it does represent serious risks for those allergic to extremely heavy perfume at far distances, it cannot compare to something that harms everyone at any level. Response to point 2: Why should extreme unpleasantness mean something should be illegal? It is not illegal to smell foul, dress in bad taste, be Republican (just kidding!), allow children to run around irritating everyone, etc. It's possible there's legal precedent set for this but you'll have to prove it--and that does not make it right. Even then, it is one thing to ban something that everyone finds unpleasant and it's another to ban something that a single person does that is unpleasant. Personal liberties are harmed in the second scenario and not in the first. Response to point 3: Cursing in front of children is not illegal, neither is rudeness and it never has been. Conclusion: I encourage you to prove your claims in point one, and to make a compelling case for why personal liberties should be surrendered to keep from irritating people.

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

Title: Cigarettes do not cause cancer. Content: Alas, it appears that my opponent agrees with me that cigarettes do cause cancer. Unless he or she wishes to add something else, which I would be grateful for, I do not know what else to suggest, aside from the fact that scientific analysis does prove that tobacco is indeed carcenogenic.

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

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

Title: Argument: Natural gas can be harmful and even poisonous to ingest Content: "'Natural' gas may be harmful to your health". AEHA. - "AEHA-NS. and its coalition partners are investivaging the harmful effects of piper natural gas on environmentally induced illness/chemical sensitivity, asthma and allergies as part of the Environmental Assessment of the Sable Island Gas Project proposal....The effects of the transmission and use of piped natural gas upon persons with environmentally induced illness/chemical sensitivity (2), asthma or allergies can be significant and extremely harmful."

Title: Natural gas can be harmful and even poisonous to ingest Content: "'Natural' gas may be harmful to your health". AEHA. - "AEHA-NS. and its coalition partners are investivaging the harmful effects of piper natural gas on environmentally induced illness/chemical sensitivity, asthma and allergies as part of the Environmental Assessment of the Sable Island Gas Project proposal....The effects of the transmission and use of piped natural gas upon persons with environmentally induced illness/chemical sensitivity (2), asthma or allergies can be significant and extremely harmful."

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

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: Marijuana should be legalized in the US Content: I already posted this debate but my opponent was unable to post argu First off i'll start by saying under a government that allows the use of tobacco (specifically cigarettes) and alcohol, that same government should also allow marijuana (for recreational and medicinal purposes). I'll start with showing that marijuana is safer than cigarettes: Many say a marijuana is worse because it has no filter. But they do not realize that when you cigarette you smoke the whole thing down, whereas with marijuana, you take a few hits and then stop (usually). And you don't even have to smoke it. You can eat it, use a vaporizer, etc. there are a variety of ways to use marijuana, all of them safer than smoking a cigarette (or chewing tobacco, for that matter). Next, marijuana is safer than alcohol. Alcohol impedes your judgment as well as slowing down reflexes, etc. Most ppl are familiar with the effects of alcohol. Marijuana on the other hand, slows down reflexes, but does not impede judgment. You are aware of what you do and possible consequences when you are on marijuana. also, MJ only affects your memory while you use it. once you are done, you can remember what you did. alcohol, however, affects your memory long after you are no longer drunk. I am still randomly remembering bits and pieces of times i have been drunk. You can remember clearly things you do while using weed. Now i don't have enough time to finish an opening argument, so i'll continue to present points throughout this debate, which, by the way, is 4 rounds. mattshuster mattshuster Con ~ Round 1 hi, thank you for posting this topic and even if it's commonly used i still find it to be a very interesting debate i would ask that everyone who votes, would vote on the basis of who argues better and presents their case better not on whether you personally believe marijuana should/should not be legal. moving on first i would like to start of by laying out my case, since this is 4 rounds i won't use any of this speech to refute my opponent and will simply focus on my own. 1: despite the dangers of any other substance such as alcohol or tobacco, marijuana remains a dangerous drug. As the National Institute on Drug Abuse tells us within just 1 hour of using marijuana the users risk of a heart attack more then quadruples. It also impairs your ammune system's ability to fight illnesses, a side effect indeed, but one that can in the end lead to a permanent effect or disease. In the end they tell us that in general those consuming marijuana have more overall health problems then those using tobacco, and have about a 30% chance of a successfull rehab once addicted to marijuana. 2:even if marijuans can be found to be non-harmful, it leads more often then not to other more dangerous drugs National Institute of Health reports that "very few young people use other illegal drugs without first trying marijuana" Erich Goode, Drugs in American Society "The marijuana user has a statistically higher likelihood of trying and using a wide range of dangerous drugs than is true of the nonuser" Even if my opponent can prove marijuana has no other negative side effects then it being rapidly available still promotes the addiction to other drugs, clearly a harm in the legalization of it As my opponent said, I will add more as we go, with 4 rounds I felt no need to argue all my points in 1 speech

Title: The existence of harmful non-prescription drugs is a bad thing to our society! Content: First of all, I would like to address the fact that I don't care if you misspell a couple of words in your debate. It's fine if you do that, and I understand that spell check can be kind of crappy at times. I would just like the judges to acknowledge this fact, and possibly get a couple of points for it. Also, when you are referring to drugs, do you mean cigarettes? If so, could you address this in the following speech? If cigarettes are allowed in the debate, could you also allow the subject of E-Cigarettes too? Rebuttal: Clarification 1: I thank my opponent for giving the newer/updated source. I understand the fact that you were unable to give me the correct link. It is very informational. Rebuttal 2: Thank you for clarifying on the phrase "peer pressure. " I agree with the fact that peer influence is a better term for it. But I would like to quote you on one of your phrases: "when you start drugs young," which is one of the points/rebuttals that I brought up in my previous speech. First of all, this is exactly why schools bring up the subject of drugs when you are younger. Therefore, it has become far less likely that a younger individual would accept drugs, unless they are very messed up. I would also like to address the quote that you made: ". That statement you made at the end of your contention 1 seemed to have minimal backing to it. I couldn't see how drugs now don't pose any threats. You arguments didn't back this up. " First of all, I would like to ask what you meant by "Contention 1. " By contention 1, do you mean my first rebuttal to your argument, or did you perhaps mean my very first contention? Seeing as how you appear to be referring to my first rebuttal, then I will give reasoning for that. If you meant something else, could you address that fact in your next speech? While one might be taking drugs, there are tons of other solutions for drug addictions (i. e: Pondera, which was mentioned in my previous speech), so that is what makes drugs harmless. They don't pose any threats because the threat can easily become neutralized by revolutionary products like Pondera. Rebuttal 3: Thanks for clarifying on the subject. I did look around a little bit; it was very interesting. However, I think that you dropped my argument in that paragraph. I will assume that you agree with that statement, or you overlooked it. In case that you just missed it, you can make it in a future speech. Otherwise, I guess that argument goes to me. Rebuttal 4: You're correct, I went off on a tangent, and got off topic. I will give a rebuttal to this, and then we should just leave the particular subject, unless you wish to pursue the subject further. You said, "You could see how your products are killing so many people, and it happens, no matter whose fault it is. " Doesn't that mean that the government should ban car companies as well? After all, cars kill thousands of people every year, just like drugs. Also, when I mention inexperienced drug users, I was not using myself in the 'equation. ' I won't give much of a rebuttal to this argument, seeing as how it went off subject, and it is highly one-sided. Rebuttal 5: I will agree with the fact that the source is against the argument. I should have done more looking on the particular subject. I can't argue with the fact that my own source contradicts my own arguments. Arguments: I will specify on some of my topics once more. First of all, drugs control the population. They kill off the disobedient people that can't follow society's laws. As I have said before, they separate the wheat from the chaff. People who just want to experience drugs are even more stupid. They already know the consequences; they are easily persuaded. Stupid, and easily-persuaded people have nothing to contribute to our society, and should therefore die. Thanks for your time and consideration, judges and debater.

Title: Alternative medicine should be ban. Content: Currently if you buy cigarretes you get a warning saying: smoke killsbut if you buy homeopaty: you don't get any warning We are all the state, and we should stop thouse kinds of scams.

Title: If a business wants to allow smoking then the so be it, government should stay out! Content: lvisman you are repeating your self I fully admit that you have opened my eyes about how second hand smoke coming from a business that permits smoking can seep out the windows and doors and on to public property where people walk and those people could inhale the toxic fumes of cigarette smoke unwillingly and you and I believe that is wrong. So we got that far you and I agree on a common problem but we do not agree on solution. You keep pushing my point of if it is the right answer to make smoking in a business against the law because it affects innocent people outside the property line of the business why shouldn't it be against the law to drive a car, or run a lawnmower with neighbors around, or ride a dirt bike near people, or simply to hold a weed whacked next to your neighbors house and rev it in your hands because you like the sound of the engine, why shouldn't any of those things be against the law as well? You say " Overall, autos, factories etc, serve a useful purpose."(lvisman) What purpose does holding down the throttle of a weed whacker because you enjoy the sound serve, or what purpose again does going on a joy ride serve, there are so, so many more examples. You can't just push this point I am making under the rug, you do not give a valid answer you are just avoiding it. Your talking about a business that effects innocent people in the nearby street but again what about cars. Listen to what the National Safety Council has to say about car emissions, "Cars also emit several pollutants classified as toxics, which cause as many as 1,500 cases of cancer in the country each year." (NSC). According to the EPA "driving a car is the single most polluting thing that most of us do".(EPA) I think people such as your self lvisman don't give the majority of people enough credit. I would go about things in a different way. One suggestion would be to take 100% of the money collected from cigarette tax and put it back into educating people about how bad smoking is. I use so smoke little more then half a pack a day and no one needed to make it against the law for me to stop. The TRUTH commercials and other various information about how horrible cigarettes can effect a persons health is all I needed, well a lot of will power is definitely needed as well but I did it, my father who smoked much more then I did, did it, and if me and my father along with loads of other people who have quit can do it then anyone can do it because we are all humans just like everyone else except lvisman he might be an alien. Ha, just kidding, not really, but I think that my tax idea is pretty good. Just remember that making it illegal to smoke in a business does not stop people from smoking. My solution is a real solution that would not only help people to completely quit smoking but it would give people education, sense of achievement and no laws would be needed to do it. We shouldn't exploit people for their mistakes and take their money from taxes and use it somewhere else. Give the money back to the people with a problem in the form of education which would help people to quit. You have to have some faith in people. Laws are just going to outcast people and make them angry and depressed. Education will help people to stop their addictio for themselves and make them feel better about themselves in the process. What do you think lvisman?

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: 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: Smoking is good for health! Content: If it causes death, then why am I not dead yet, hmmmmmm? Smoking being bad for the health... it's all a scam!

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: Smoking is inherently violent/child abuse Content: Smoking cigarettes is inherently violent especially in the company of children who have no other options or the legal ability to move out. I'm not going to bother providing sources because it's just common knowledge that it causes all sorts of health issues even before the child is born. If you poison someone's drink, that's murder. If you hit someone, shoot, someone that's violence. And so is slowly destroying someone's pulmonary functions. against their will. A surgeon general report has found that a single whiff of cigarette smoke damages the lining of the blood vessels. There is an immediate health hazard.

Title: Smoking should be banned in all states in the USA Content: Many thanks to Pro for his response and for this great debate.Smoking and HealthPro said that the examples which I gave of dangerous things are not as dangerous as smoking. Really? Just one mistake in rock climbing, and your life will end in seconds. Moreover - even if we assume that the examples which I gave of dangerous things, are not as dangerous as smoking - it would be very mistaken to say that it doesn't exist things which are more dangerous than smoking. Indeed, there are numerous other things which are more dangerous than smoking. In fact, even drinking a lot of Soda can be more dangerous than smoking.[1]Pro said that I contradicted myself. This claim by Pro is ridiculous. Yes, I did say there are other things that also give negative impacts on your money, health, beauty, and the environment. And yes, I did say that just because A is illegal and is considered less dangerous than B, that doesn't therefore follow that B should be illegal too. But did I contradict myself by saying this? I don't see how I did. Pro doesn't explain how I contradicted myself; he merely just claimed it.Pro said that he agrees on freedom of choice, but that the government should care for the people's welfare. That's true. However, although the government has a responsibility to protect its people and their welfare, it also has a responsibility to defend their freedom of choice. Thus, since the government has a responsibility to protect its people, it should give out the information that this and that can harm you. But since the government also has a responsibility to defend the people's freedom of choice, it should also allow the people - after giving out the information that this and that can harm you - to choice for themselves if they want to use this thing or not.Smoking and BeautyPro said that coffee just costs you your beauty, and that he clearly didn't say that something that causes only this should be banned. But this is clearly not what Pro said in his second round when he first presented this argument. What Pro said when he first presented this argument is simply just that coffee costs you your beauty. I then responded by saying that this isn't a good argument to completely ban smoking, because then coffee should be banned as well. And if Pro wasn't trying to say that smoking should be completely banned just because of the fact that it can cost you your beauty, then why at all mention this in an debate that is about if smoking should be banned in all states in the US?Smoking and MoneyPro said that buying a cigarette is a waste of money, because it's like buying poison. Sure, but it should still be the choice of the individual to buy a cigarette by his own money if we wants to. Pro also said that other things that cost money can benefit us, like foods, homes, and clothes. However, as I have said previously, smoking can also give us some positive benefits and impacts.Smoking and IQPro said that the things which I mentioned are just bad in a couple of aspects, but that smoking is bad in many aspects. The things which I mentioned that can also lower your IQ, is alcohol and artificial food colorings. Sure, smoking - in contrast to these two things - is probably bad in many more aspects. However, this category is about IQ, so smoking being bad in many aspects really doesn't matter. Pro is trying to ignore the real case of this category. What Pro first said in this category is that smoking can lower your IQ. That's it. I then responded by saying that this isn't a good argument to completely ban smoking, because then alcohol and artificial food colorings should also be banned. And if Pro wasn't trying to show that smoking should be completely banned when he said that smoking can lower your IQ, then why mention it at all in the first place? This debate is about if smoking should be banned in all states in the US, so why give an argument if its purpose isn't to show that smoking should be banned in all states in the US? Smoking and FiresPro said that these things that can create fires have a few positive impacts on us. But this doesn't matter! What Pro first said in this category is that smoking can create fires. I then responded by saying that this isn't a good argument to completely ban smoking, because then numerous other things which can create fires should be banned as well. It doesn't matter if these things that can create fires have positive impacts on us or not.Smoking and BabiesPro said that women that are not pregnant can get pregnant in the future. Of course, this is true. However, I really don't understand why Pro is pointing out this self-evident fact. Pro also said that people are usually not aware that there are pregnant women near them, so not smoking in the first place is better. This may be true in a place where there is many women. However, what about a place where these is only men? Shouldn't we be allowed to smoke then? This is why this argument fails to show that smoking should be banned in all states in the US, something which means that people should not be allowed to smoke at any place - be it a place where there is only women or a place where there is only men.Smoking and ChildrenPro said that smoking doesn't just influence children, but that it can cost numerous other things that is bad too. But so does many other things as well, like for example eating a lot of fatty foods or drinking a lot of Soda.Smoking and DeathPro said that despite the risks of automobiles and surfing, if we are more careful, the risk can be lowered. Of course, the risk to die can be lowered if we are more careful. However, just with smoking, there is always a risk to die in regards to automobiles and surfing. So again, if we are to follow Pro's logic and ban smoking just because it can kill you, then these two things (although it can lower your risk to die if you are careful with these two things) should be banned as well. Moreover, it really doesn't matter if smoking can kill you, as long as it is your own choice in the first place to smoke. It's your life, and the government shouldn't tell you what you can't do with your own private life. Smoking and EnvironmentPro said that paper has a much more positive impact on us than smoking. However, I didn't say that paper doesn't have a much more positive impact on us than smoking. I only said that smoking does also have some positive impacts on us. In Pro's third round, Pro said that paper and other things which I mentioned have a positive impact on us, but that smoking does not. This is why I pointed out that smoking does in fact also have some positive impacts on us. It seems like Pro agrees with this now.Pro also said that banning smoking can help people who are trying to quit smoking. However, just completely banning smoking is not the only option that we have. For example, using nicotine replacement therapies and other medicines can very much help people who are trying to quit smoking. Moreover, what about people who are not trying to quit smoking? Should smoking be banned for them too?As for my argument that banning something like smoking would only lead to crime, this argument goes unrefuted. Pro only said that he know that crime is a side effect, but that the punishment shouldn't be tough, such as fines. This, however, has nothing to do with my argument that banning something like smoking would only lead to crime - let alone refute it.Smoking and EconomyPro said that it is very hard to say whether smoking is good or bad for the economy, because nobody knows exactly how much money non smokers take from the government. Of course, we cannot know exactly how much money non smokers take from the government. However, we can still know that they take more money from the government than smokers. I explained why in my previous round, and Pro didn't give any response to it.The resolution has been negated. Vote Con._______Sources[1] http://www.alternet.org...

Title: should cigarettes be displayed for sale. Content: None of that is a problem if they were banned. Advertising isn't illegal. Cigarettes aren't illegal. Outlawing advertising of cigarettes is downright silly. If they are deadly, and they are, BAN THEM!

Title: Cigars and Cigarettes should be banned and stopped being sold in shops. Content: Finding illegal ways of smoking could be OK, as long as it's not in public. Going through all that fuss of getting illegal cigarettes shows that they are willing to put their lives at risk, but I still think that cigarettes should be banned from shops. Even though people can find illegal ways to smoke, it will lower the amount of people who will smoke.

Title: GMO's are safe Content: Toxicology reports in many organisms provide evidence that suggests GMO's from multiple manufacturers are safe to consume. The notion that there is simply not enough long term data is false. The very few studies out there that claim GMO's are unsafe are flawed, from choosing mice that die of cancer in normal environments, to lack of validation methods, and of course just bad experimental design. To date not a single person has died as a result of consuming genetically modified food or acquired any disease.

Title: banning smoking Content: I am suprised that people only look at the negative sides of smoking has anyone tried looking at this?People often go with the general sentiment on things like these, most of what you hear is hogwash. Cases of cancer are linked with smoking, but it's not proof. Only 1 in 3 of us will get lung cancer. (By "us" I also include non smokers). Smokers are a persecuted lot, since this habit has been banned from workplaces, restaurants, buses, subways and planes. You don't think they'd outlaw breathing for christ's sake. Smokers have the only real community that's left in the workplace today. Smokers suffer from less stress, since they actually take a few breaks per day. That bruhaha about second hand smoking is a load of crap. it's just a phrase made up to get normal people who earlier didn't care about it, to go and further persecute the smokers. It's cool to smoke. Ever seen a hacker or a real artist with a health shake? Smokers support the economy by paying all those taxes, which *AHEM* some of us don't. Warning: The Surgeon General fails to warn you that non-smokers die every day Studies have shown that prolonged contact (as in several years) with second hand smoking can cause mild lung problems. Second hand smoke has no immediate harmful effects. Actually, why not just ban non-smokers? :D Too much is made of the 4000 chemicals that make up a cigarette. Several carcinogens found in cigarettes are found in peppers, carrots, strawberries, tomatoes, onions and grapefruit. Believe it or not, nicotine is actually "a surprisingly potent drug for a variety of diseases that afflict the brain, including Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and Tourette's syndrome." (An image makeover for nicotine: It shows promise against brain diseases, HealthCentral.com - Feb. 21, 2000) Smokers have a 60% lower risk of Parkinson's disease Nicotine has a positive effect on ulcerative colitis, which is an inflammation of the stomach lining, and this disorder affects nonsmokers more than smokers. Smokers actually recovered better from a heart attack than nonsmokers Smoking was found to reduce the risk of estrogen-dependent endometrial cancer (dunno what that means, it just sounds really cool) Schizophrenics (4 million Americans) who smoke can get enough nicotine stimulation to switch on a brain receptor that helps filter information. Stanford researchers have discovered that low doses of nicotine - a major component of cigarette smoke - appear to promote new blood vessel growth (in mice). ("Nicotine to be used to treat heart disease," Reuters Health, HealthCentral.com - Sept. 2000) Alcohol is even more harmful than smoking. Yet not much is said against it as compared to smoking. Half a bottle of wine can supply you with 32-40 times the amount of lead a whole pack of smokes can give you. "Sick smokers may burden a country's health care system but dead smokers save governments money" sorry I got carried away ? I rest my case :)

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: Resolved: Vaccination is Beneficial Content: I accept. Pro has made a large number of arguments, all of which do not apply. He has incorrectly sources this material. By adding ..] to the end of all of his sources they only take you to the homepage of the website listed. There are no articles, no videos, and no graphs available for view of his arguments. Since every argument relies on these sources, they are all deemed inadequate and should be stricken from Round 1. (If Pro wishes these to remain, they are considered plagarism and would be considered an automatic loss.) The only viable point in Round 1 by Pro is his contention: "My contention is that Vaccination is a critical public health measure and is both beneficial and safe." This is his argument and burden of proof. This contention deems vaccinations are beneficial and safe. However, vaccines are not safe as they can cause the disease they are trying to prevent. [1] [1] http://www.rifeenergymedicine.com...

Title: HeLLOOOO???? IT Content: Um... HELLO????? It's called the second amendment!!! The second amendment means you have the right to bear arms, and a cigarette is like a gun.Even though cigs are bad, they are classified as a harmful weapon that can cause serious injury or damage. Also, right now we are both breathing in campfire, barbecues, and even marijuana smoke! I do not see a ban on those items and I do not see a ban on cars? Do you? How about we just ban cars???? Also tabacco is a legal drug and so is marijuana, so you cannot just ban it! Also, I looked up that the smoke from smokers produces 0.00092% of carbon dioxide emissions in the world! I have tons more but I'm about to run out of battery, so my last point is that we are building our own natural disasters, like building power plants! Only two out of the 50000 power plants in the world produce more carbon dioxide than the smoke from smokers does in a year!