Instigator / Pro

itsnotago

1515

rating

debates

86.67%

won

Topic

#5514

E-cigarettes should be banned for all children under the age of 16-17

Status

Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics

Better arguments

Better sources

Better legibility

Better conduct

After 5 votes and with 34 points ahead, the winner is...

itsnotago

Tags

Addiction

Law

children

Smoking

Parameters

Publication date: 06.11.2024 04:28PM
Last updated date: 07.15.2024 11:01AM
Type: Standard
Number of rounds: 3
Time for argument: One day
Max argument characters: 5,000
Voting period: One month
Point system: Multiple criterions
Voting system: Open

Contender / Con

salgado

1500

rating

debates

0.0%

won

Description

Pro must prove that e-cigarettes are dangerous for children
Since we are talking about banning, pro should propose for example a fine for children who smoke e-cigarettes while con must prove that a ban isn't necessary
Should this ban be put into action, if a child is caught using one, it faces repercussions but if a vendor is found selling one to a child, he faces bigger repercussions, possibly jail time depending on the nature of the crime
By e-cigarettes we mean vapes, iqos devices...
Burden of proof is shared

Round 1

itsnotago

06.12.2024 12:07AM

Pro

Greetings Con

I would like to first clarify the structure of the ban i’m proposing even though i somewhat stated it in the descriptions

The ban applies to both children under 16-17 who are caught smoking e-cigarettes and also to vendors who are caught selling them to children under that age. The children are punished with fines while vendors are punished with either heavier fines than the ones imposed on children or possibly jail time depending on the nature of the crime they commit.

However the real question is: Why should we place a ban?

My answer to that question is that e-cigarettes for example vapes etc. are dangerous both for children’s physical and mental health. I will be talking about the impacts on both throughout my case.

Health risks

1. Cancer: E-cigarettes contain toxic substances such as nicotine and other chemicals that can directly cause cancer. The most common type of cancer associated with vapes and so on is lung cancer. I recently came across a video that told the story of 15 year old girl, who was addicted to vaping. According to the video, the girl’s lungs burst open due to the amount of nicotine in them so in other words there are two possibilities. Either you die in a matter of months due to excessive consumption of such substances or you are condemned to a long and excruciating battle with cancer that doesn’t even guarantee survival.

According to the American cancer society, many devices also contain THC, a mind altering chemical also found in marijuana as well as Vitamin E acetate. These are mere examples of the dangerous substances found in smoking devices and the fact that the scientific world hasn’t yet recognised all these substances renders smoking them even more substances, especially when smoking cheap and low-quality products created and sold by shady companies

2. Variety of symptoms: Symptoms associated with e-cigarettes include but are not limited to coughing, trouble breathing, chest pains, nausea, vomiting. fatigue, fever and weight loss. Many of these symptoms require hospitalization depending on the vape or in general device the person is using

3. Harms brain development: E-cigarettes used during adolescence can lead to many problems in the brain of the adolescent for instance problems in their attention spans while they may also experience difficulty learning and controlling their impulses in the future.

These are examples of health risks associated with e-cigarettes. It is late at night for me in Europe and these are the findings of merely 30 minutes of research. Imagine the amount of problems and issues i would find should i conduct years of research

Sources used during this argument and following ones:

https://www.cancer.org/cancer/risk-prevention/tobacco/health-risks-of-tobacco/health-risks-of-e-cigarettes.html

https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/e-cigarettes/health-effects.html

salgado

06.13.2024 12:07AM

Con

Forfeited

Round 2

itsnotago

06.13.2024 09:51AM

Pro

My opponent has forfeited the first round, yet i will continue (next time i will remember to mention in the descriptions that we're here to debate and not forfeit rounds)

I analysed the healthrisks (physical danger) associated with e-cigarettes, now i will talk about effects on one's mental health

Addiction

Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are highly engineered drug delivery devices that create and sustain addiction. According to a study i found online-> in the brain, nicotine attaches to acetylcholine receptors and releases dopamine, which causes feelings of pleasure, upregulates acetylcholine receptors, and alters brain circuitry involved in learning, stress, and self-control, resulting in addiction and dependence. Adolescents and young adults are particularly susceptible to nicotine receptor upregulation and addiction because of enhanced brain plasticity. So addictive, in fact, that the National Institutes of Health call it as addictive heroin and cocaine. As a result of this addiction, vape users simply wake up in the morning and within 5 minutes of their waking, they start vaping and inhaling nicotine. As i previously mentioned, vapes and e-cigarettes contain tobacco, flavoring substances and a number of unknown to children. Tobacco can kill up to 8 million cigarette users each year which is quite scary considering that the number of users is increasing and the age of users is decreasing each year according to the statistics. Now let's about addiction itself is quite dangerous. When it comes to smoking, it can obviously drive you away from your friends and family, ruin you interpersonal relationships and also drive you away from your favorite activities and sports since you're too busy smoking all the time. Addiction to e-cigs can also affect performance in school negatively while it can also lead to a sedentary lifestyle

Sedentary lifestyles are basically the lifestyles that include sitting on the chair, looking endlessly at your computer, watching your life and precious time go by while you waste your health. In these cases, you ruin your health by eating high-calorie foods and smoking in order to get pleasure. This is very dangerous for one's physical situation and can lead to types of obesity, diabetes etc.

There is another category which is basically dependance on these cigarettes due to the sentimental support they provide. What do i mean by that? When you smoke for the first time, it's nothing. It doesn't make you feel anyway special. But it can gradually beome a habit and you can become havily attached to it and nicotine as a whole and in these situations, e-cigarettes have been proven to relieve from stress and anxiety, helping people calm down etc. However this dependance is so dangerous that if you don't smoke cigarettes for a long time, you will get the exact opposite results from the ones you were getting smoking the cigarettes. This applies to every addiction involvng substances.

This is what makes giving drugs and substances up so hard to do. Once they become a habit, you can't just delete them. It takes lots of time and effort to recover while there are physical and mental side effects to quitting. For example, many people once they quit see themselves having giant appetites in order to make up for the cigarettes they didn't smoke.

Conclusion

Addiction is always dangerous but when it comes to nicotine it is especially dangerous. That's why children should be kept away from e-cigarettes and find other ways to cure their stress and anxieties because these substances can really ruin a person's life and it's not cool in any way to smoke them.

Sources

Nicotine Addiction and Intensity of e-Cigarette Use by Adolescents in the US, 2014 to 2021 | Substance Use and Addiction Medicine | JAMA Network Open | JAMA Network

Why vaping is so addictive, according to doctors - CNET

salgado

06.14.2024 09:51AM

Con

Forfeited

Round 3

itsnotago

06.14.2024 11:01AM

Pro

extend

salgado

06.15.2024 11:01AM

Con

Forfeited

TheUnderdog

06.13.2024 08:21PM

#10

-->

@itsnotago

I am unconditionally opposed to imprisonment as a punishment for a crime because it's a free ride for prisoners that the taxpayer has to pay for. Find an alternative penalty (community service should be fine unless a minor dies from your drugs, then it's death).

Casey_Risk

06.13.2024 01:17PM

-->

@itsnotago

If you want to find more serious opponents, you should consider making your debates rated. New accounts can't join rated debates.

itsnotago

06.13.2024 08:10AM

-->

@TheUnderdog

Yea i agree to some extent, but these cigs have proven to be able to kill anyone as i explained in my healthrisks arguments so they're basically murder weapons even though the murder is never intended unless the vendor is some twisted fuck. Murder= some type of imprisonment or they either have to pay a giant bail. If it's their first offence, community service works fine i guess

TheUnderdog

06.13.2024 01:00AM

-->

@itsnotago

If a vendor sells those to kids, then they should do community service for some amount of time and if they run off, then you get the whip. If any youth dies from the drugs, then swift beheading. Their blood and organs would be useful.

itsnotago

06.12.2024 10:15PM

-->

@TheUnderdog

They technically are banned like it’s not ethical to sell nicotine to non adults but the vendors make it so easy for the children to get their hands on them. Both should be punished, it’s not only the vendors fault

TheUnderdog

06.12.2024 10:07PM

-->

@itsnotago

I think banning recreational drugs for people under the age of 16 is just common sense, and I'm very libertarian on drugs (I think 16 should be the legal age for weed, tobacco, and alcohol).

Best.Korea

06.11.2024 05:13PM

If the actual topic is "dangerous", then there is nothing to debate. Everything is dangerous per standard of high amount or significant cost.

Casey_Risk

06.11.2024 04:53PM

-->

@itsnotago

That makes sense to me. Don't get me wrong, I totally understand where you're coming from. However, the way you have framed the debate makes it unclear whether the underlying thing that needs to be proven is whether e-cigarettes are *dangerous* or whether they ought to be *banned*. Again it could be argued that even if they are dangerous, the government has no right to tell you what you can and can't do with your own body. I don't find that to be a particularly compelling argument, but some people believe in that very strongly and would argue along those lines. However, you say in the very first line of your description that Con MUST prove that e-cigs aren't dangerous. If you want Con to be able to argue that they shouldn't be banned regardless of the health risks, you should change that.

itsnotago

06.11.2024 04:47PM

-->

@Casey_Risk

I wanna debate the danger of smoking them and then explain why this danger requires a ban. I will propose a ban and opposition can dispute it

Casey_Risk

06.11.2024 04:37PM

-->

@itsnotago

Your title (and presumptive resolution) says that e-cigarettes should be banned for children under sixteen, but the first line of your description says, "Pro must prove that e-cigarettes are dangerous for children while con must prove they aren't." One could argue that they should not be banned even if they are dangerous. Do you want to debate the ban, or do you want to debate whether e-cigarettes are harmful? You should make that clear.

prefix

07.02.2024 09:40PM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

Con forfeited

Americandebater24

06.23.2024 04:51AM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

Pro made well-organized arguments, was the only one to both provide sources and participate so they get the better conduct vote and legibility

baggins

06.23.2024 04:32AM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

Full forfeiture

whiteflame

06.15.2024 03:53PM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

Given the full forfeit, the debate obviously goes to Pro. Since Pro requested some feedback, I'm also going to provide some here:

There's a lot of focus up front on how this plan will be implemented. I do think it's important to set a clear line (saying "16-17" leaves it somewhat vague and makes the question of why you'd set that limit all the more nebulous since you're giving a range rather than a specific age), but regardless of the age you set, it's important to recognize how your policy affects outcomes. You're suggesting a ban implemented via a set of fines. Considering you're talking about children who are most often lacking a steady income, it could be argued that the burden would fall on their parents rather than the kids themselves. Also, much as I agree that vendors could be targeted to prevent distribution, you talk a bit about flavors and don't mention how these are marketed. Part of the regulations that were placed on cigarettes were the result of noting how certain advertisements were clearly meant to entice kids to smoke. I think you'd have to do something similar with vaping and e-cigarettes.

As for the health hazards, I think you lay them out pretty well. When it comes to providing your sources, it's a good idea to make sure your reader knows what sources apply where, either by hyperlinking in the text itself (I saw you did that in R2) or by providing some kind of footnote system to reference. I'd also suggest focusing more on statistical data and comparisons to cigarettes, since a comparison to something that is already banned for this age group makes for a stronger case and the numbers can do more to establish the weight of your impacts.

JoeBob

06.15.2024 01:40PM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

Con forfeiture.