It has been proved that smoking kills. In some countries it has been made illegal for people to smoke in public places except in certain areas. All countries should make these rules.
Do you agree or disagree with this statement?
Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your knowledge or experience.
Smoking is injurious to health. It can even cause deadly diseases like cancer. Many countries have already banned smoking in public places. In my opinion, others too should follow suit and ban it.
There are several benefits to banning smoking in public places. Smoking ban will definitely improve the quality of air we breathe. Cigarette contains nicotine which is a cancerous substance. In addition to cancer, smoking causes several other health problems. In fact, statistics have shown tremendous rise in the occurrence of mouth cancer among people who smoke regularly. Some studies have also shown that people who smoke more than 3 cigarettes a day have increased chances of developing cancer. Smoking may also cause other problems like heart attack and respiratory illnesses.
The biggest problem with smoking is that in order to suffer from its ill effects, you don’t necessarily have to be a smoker. Passive smoking also kills. It is particularly harmful for young children and pregnant women. If people are allowed to smoke in crowded public places like railway stations or bus stands, its harmful effects will have to be borne by all people standing next to the smoker. Banning smoking in public places is the only way to solve this problem.
Pollution is one of the biggest problems that we face today. Smoking not only aggravates this problem but it also causes the depletion of the ozone layer which protects us from sun’s harmful ultraviolet rays. It is evident that smoking plays a significant role in damaging our health and our environment.
In conclusion, I personally believe that all governments should ban smoking in public places. This might cause some inconvenience to chain smokers, but ultimately this ban will benefit them as well.
- Band 9 essay sample: Should mobiles be banned in public places?
- IELTS Band 8 letter sample: Problems with public transport
- Using not only/but also
- Band 9 essay sample | People now live in different places during their lifetime. Is this a positive trend
- Band 9 essay sample: Should governments invite foreign companies to open branches?
- Band 8 Essay: Public libraries are no longer required because of the internet
- IELTS Essay: Some people believe that advertisements targeting children have negative effect on them
- Should governments be held responsible for unemployment?
- IELTS Essay: Are public celebrations a waste of money?
- IELTS Essay: Should governments provide financial assistance to artists?
Essay on Arguments For and Against a Smoking Ban
1426 Words6 Pages
Tobacco is one of the most widely-used recreational drugs in the world; mainly in the form of cigarettes, but also in cigars and pipes, and in combination with cannabis and marijuana in 'joints'. Although most countries put age restrictions on its use, over a billion adults smoke tobacco legally every day, and supplying this demand is big business. As well as having serious health consequences for smokers themselves, the pollution of other people's atmospheres with cigarette smoke also makes this an environmental issue. Attitudes have changed rapidly over the past twenty years. In the developed world, public opinion has shifted against smoking. By the 1990s, the sheer weight of evidence had forced…show more content…
The law steps in to prevent citizens causing harm to others, whether deliberately or accidentally. However, it should not stop them taking risks themselves - for example, dangerous sports such as rock-climbing, parachuting or motor-racing are legal. It is also legal to indulge in other health-threatening activities such as eating lots of fatty foods, taking no exercise, and drinking too much alcohol. Banning smoking would be an unmerited intrusion into personal freedom.
2) Cigarettes are very different from dangerous cars or poisonous foods. As the proposition points out, cigarettes are not dangerous because they are defective; rather they are inherently, potentially, harmful. But people should still be allowed to choose to buy and smoke them. A better comparison is to unhealthy foods. High cholesterol or a high intake of fat can be extremely harmful, leading to heart disease, obesity, and other conditions; but manufacturers of these products are not punished. Consumers simply like the taste of fatty food. People should be allow to smoke cigarettes and to eat fatty foods - both these things are sources of pleasure which, while having serious associated health risks, are only fatal after many decades, unlike a poisonous food or an unsafe car, which pose immediate and high risks.
3) A comparison to hard drugs is inaccurate - tobacco is not debilitating in the same way that many