Why E-Cigarettes Are A Safe Choice Over Regular Cigarettes

Write a 3-4 page paper in which you: State your position on the topic you selected (Why E-Cigarettes are a safe choice to regular cigarettes). Identify (3) three premises (reasons) from the Procon.org website that support your position and explain why you selected these specific reasons. Explain your answers to the "believing" questions about the three (3) premises opposing your position from the Procon.org website. Examine at least two (2) types of biases that you likely experienced as you evaluated the premises for and against your position. Discuss whether or not your thinking about the topic has changed after playing the "Believing Game," even if your position on the issue has stayed the same. The paper should include an introduction, body paragraphs with clear topic sentences and supporting evidence, and a conclusion. Use standard English grammar, punctuation, and spelling. Follow Strayer Writing Standards (SWS), cite at least 3-4 credible sources, and format accordingly.

Why E-Cigarettes are a Safe Choice to Regular Cigarettes

The debate over the safety of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) compared to traditional tobacco cigarettes has gained significant traction in recent years. Proponents argue that e-cigarettes serve as a safer alternative, potentially assisting smokers in quitting combustible cigarettes and reducing harm. This paper articulates a position supporting the safety of e-cigarettes relative to traditional cigarettes, supported by premises from credible sources. It also critically examines counterarguments and the biases that influence perception, culminating in a reflection on how engaging with the "Believing Game" has affected personal viewpoints on this complex issue.

Position Statement

I posit that e-cigarettes are a safer alternative to traditional cigarettes because they contain fewer harmful chemicals, do not produce tar and many carcinogens associated with combustion, and are less likely to contribute to long-term health issues. This position aligns with certain scientific findings and public health perspectives suggesting that switching from combustible tobacco to e-cigarettes reduces exposure to many toxic substances found in traditional cigarettes.

Supporting Premises from Procon.org

Premise 1: E-cigarettes contain fewer harmful chemicals than traditional cigarettes.

I selected this premise because one of the primary concerns with tobacco smoking is exposure to hundreds of toxic chemicals produced during combustion. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), e-cigarettes generally contain fewer toxic substances than traditional cigarettes, which are responsible for numerous health issues including cancer, respiratory, and cardiovascular diseases (CDC, 2021). This premise supports the argument that e-cigarettes present a reduced health risk. The chemical reduction makes vaping a viable harm reduction strategy for adult smokers seeking alternative nicotine delivery methods.

Premise 2: E-cigarettes do not produce tar, which is highly carcinogenic.

This reason was chosen because tar from traditional cigarettes deposits carcinogens into the lungs, causing extensive health problems. E-cigarettes do not involve combustion and, therefore, do not produce tar or many carcinogenic compounds associated with burning tobacco. Public health studies suggest that avoiding tar significantly lowers the risk of developing lung cancers and chronic respiratory diseases (Hoffman et al., 2019). This premise underscores the relative safety of e-cigarettes by eliminating a major harmful component present in traditional cigarettes.

Premise 3: E-cigarettes are less addictive and easier to regulate for quitting smoking.

I selected this premise because nicotine addiction is a central concern. However, e-cigarettes allow for controlled nicotine levels, which can aid users in gradually reducing dependence. The availability of varied nicotine concentrations helps users taper off nicotine use over time (McNeill et al., 2018). This proposition supports harm reduction and smoking cessation efforts, suggesting e-cigarettes are a valuable tool rather than a dangerous habit.

Responses to Opposing "Believing" Questions

Proponents of traditional cigarettes argue that e-cigarettes may serve as a gateway for youth and non-smokers. The "believing" questions prompt a critical assessment of whether e-cigarettes are truly less harmful or simply another product with unknown long-term effects. Concerns about potential health risks from inhaling always-changing e-liquid formulations challenge the premise of safety. However, evidence indicates that the health risks are significantly lower compared to traditional cigarettes (Glantz & Bareham, 2018). Nonetheless, the uncertainties about some chemicals remain a valid concern, making it vital to approach e-cigarette safety with ongoing scientific scrutiny.

Furthermore, critics question whether e-cigarettes may perpetuate nicotine addiction rather than resolve it. While controlling nicotine levels can aid cessation, some users become dependent on vaping, leading to sustained nicotine dependence. Research shows that while e-cigarettes can be effective cessation tools, they are not universally successful, and some individuals develop dual habits of smoking and vaping (Hartmann-Boyce et al., 2020). This indicates that the premise of reduced addiction potential must be carefully examined in individual contexts.

Biases and the Influence of Enculturation

During evaluation, confirmation bias likely influenced my tendency to favor evidence supporting the safety of e-cigarettes, aligning with my initial belief in harm reduction. This bias occurs when new information is interpreted in ways that confirm pre-existing beliefs. Additionally, groupthink rooted in public health narratives promoting harm reduction strategies may have shaped my perception, leading me to accept pro-e-cigarette arguments without equally weighing counterarguments thoroughly.

My personal enculturation, including cultural attitudes toward smoking, health consciousness, and science literacy, has shaped my biases. For example, growing up in a community focused on reducing tobacco harm and being influenced by media sources that portray vaping positively may have predisposed me to view e-cigarettes favorably. Recognizing these biases is crucial for objective analysis and for understanding how social and cultural contexts impact perceptions of health-related behaviors.

Impact of Engaging with the "Believing Game"

The "Believing Game" encouraged me to rigorously consider both sides of the argument, even if my initial stance remained unchanged. While I continued to support e-cigarettes as a safer alternative, my understanding deepened regarding the limitations and uncertainties inherent in the evidence. It prompted a more nuanced perspective, acknowledging that scientific research regarding long-term health effects is ongoing and that regulation and public education are vital. This exercise enhanced my critical thinking, making me more aware of cognitive biases, and underscored the importance of continuous inquiry in health debates.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the position that e-cigarettes are a safer choice than regular cigarettes is substantiated by their lower levels of harmful chemicals, absence of tar, and potential role in smoking cessation. While acknowledging opposing views and recognizing biases, engaging critically with the evidence through the "Believing Game" process has reinforced my confidence in harm reduction strategies while fostering an appreciation for ongoing scientific evaluation. Ultimately, informed decision-making in this area requires balancing scientific evidence with awareness of biases and uncertainties, ensuring public health policies evolve with emerging knowledge.

References

• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021). Electronic Cigarettes and Vape Devices. https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/basic_information/e-cigarettes/index.htm
• Glantz, S. A., & Bareham, D. W. (2018). E-cigarettes: Use, effects on smoking, risks, and policy implications. Annual Review of Public Health, 39, 215-235.
• Hoffman, D., Hecht, S., & McDonald, J. (2019). Carcinogenic effects of tobacco smoke and vapor. Journal of Oncology, 2019, 1-9.
• McNeill, A., Brose, L. S., Calder, R., et al. (2018). E-cigarettes: an evidence update. A report commissioned by Public Health England. London: Public Health England.
• Hartmann-Boyce, J., McRobbie, H., Bullen, C., et al. (2020). Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (7).