Vaping is a threat to young people

The argument

Due to the surge in e-cigarette advertising, nearly 80% of middle and high school students were exposed to vaping. It is now the most common form of nicotine intake amongst teens. When younger people start vaping, they are more likely to develop an addiction to nicotine, which can be harmful to their bodies. The rise in candy-like flavors and the nicely packaged e-cigarettes are marketed towards a younger audience susceptible to buying them. The low cost of the products and accessibility of smoke or vape shops makes it convenient for teens to buy them. In 2015, about 200 children a month were reported to poison control hotlines because of e-cigarettes. In 2019 in Wisconsin, at least a dozen people were hospitalized and treated for severe lung damage. The number of cases has been growing from teenagers to adults in their 30s. However, teenagers have been having the most damage in their lungs. Unlike cigarettes, vaping doesn't take long to damage the body. Some teenagers have had their lungs collapsed a short period after they started smoking e-cigarettes, which signals experts of the fast damage they can have on youth.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Although e-cigarettes do tend to harm the body, cigarettes are the main cause of why they exist in the first place. With the correct regulation of cigarettes, e-cigarettes products can be controlled as well. E-cigarettes are not threatening as they are an alternative for smokers, but it is the way they are marketed and advertised, which increases their usability amongst young people. Corporations should be careful in selling their products rather than shifting the blame on teenagers who are unaware of the impact vaping can have on their bodies. False advertisements have increased the vaping industry sales and affected the youth, but the right kind of awareness in classrooms and communities can reverse the damage. There should a strict age limit set in places where e-cigarettes are sold for safety regulation.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Advertising exposure is not use, and the premise moves between them. Nearly 80% of students seeing an advertisement is a marketing statistic, and the rate of regular use in that group is far lower; the claim that vaping is now the commonest form of teen nicotine intake is partly a measure of how far smoking has fallen. Flavours and low price also serve adults switching from cigarettes, so intent aimed at the young is inferred from features with another explanation. [Rejecting P2] The two harms are of very different kinds and neither is quite what it appears. Poisoning reports concern liquid swallowed by small children — an argument for packaging and childproofing rather than about vaping as such — and the cluster of severe lung injuries in 2019 was traced predominantly to vitamin E acetate in illicit THC cartridges rather than to nicotine products. Adolescent nicotine addiction is the real and well-evidenced concern, and it is the one the premise actually supports. [Rejecting C] The conclusion generalises from risk to the young to a verdict on the practice. The question asks for pros and cons, and the comparison the counter presses — an adult smoker switching, set against continuing to smoke — is left out entirely, so youth uptake stands in for the whole case.