There is evidence that inhaling cigarette smoke causes health problems not only for smokers but for non-smokers who inhale other people’s smoke. In view of this, smoking should be banned in all public places, even though this would restrict some people’s freedom of action. What are your views?
It is widely acknowledged that both smokers and those exposed to secondhand smoke face significant health risks. While some advocate for a complete ban on smoking in public places, arguing that it would protect public health even at the cost of individual freedoms, I believe that a combination of higher taxation on tobacco products and the creation of designated smoking areas could be equally effective, without the need for an outright ban.
Banning smoking in public spaces could indeed minimize the health risks non-smokers face. Secondhand smoke has been proven to cause serious illnesses, meaning that even individuals who avoid smoking can suffer adverse effects if exposed to smokers in public areas. By enforcing a total ban, the prevalence of smoking-related health issues could decline significantly, as fewer people would be exposed to harmful fumes. However, such measures would undoubtedly infringe on personal freedom, as smokers would be restricted from indulging in a legal activity. This raises concerns about how far governments should go in limiting individual rights for the sake of public health. This is the clear case why many countries still fail to apply this approach. While some might argue that protecting public health justifies this loss of freedom, others contend that such restrictions could set a precedent for over regulation in other areas of personal choice.
Alternatively, I believe there are less drastic but equally effective ways to address the issue. One approach is to increase the cost of tobacco products through taxation. Higher prices can discourage individuals from smoking, both in private and public settings, as the financial burden becomes a deterrent. This method has proven successful in many countries, where elevated cigarette costs have led to a significant reduction in smoking rates. Another solution would be to create special smoking areas in public places. These areas would allow smokers to continue their habits without endangering others, thus preserving both public health and personal freedom. Japan, for example, has implemented such zones effectively, reducing the risks associated with secondhand smoke while respecting the rights of smokers. By adopting a similar strategy, other nations could strike a balance between public health and individual liberty.
In conclusion, while banning smoking in all public places could reduce harm to non-smokers, this approach comes at the cost of personal freedoms. A more balanced solution would be to raise tobacco prices and establish designated smoking zones, which would protect public health without overly restricting individual rights. These measures, when implemented together, could achieve the desired outcomes without causing unnecessary societal friction.
The essay is logically organized and ideas are connected well. The introduction and conclusion are clear and relevant. However, there are a few areas where the flow of ideas could be improved.
Suggestions
- Try to use a wider range of linking words to connect your ideas.
- Ensure that your arguments are presented in a clear and logical order.
The essay uses a wide range of vocabulary and there is evidence of less common and idiomatic language. However, there are a few instances of awkward or incorrect word choice.
The essay uses a wide range of complex structures. There are a few minor errors, but they do not impede communication.
The essay addresses the task effectively, presenting a clear position throughout. The arguments are well-developed and supported with relevant examples. However, the introduction could be more concise and focused.
Suggestions
- Consider revising the introduction to make your position clear more quickly. You could consider removing the phrase “This is the clear case why many countries still fail to apply this approach.” as it adds complexity without clearly stating your position.