IELTS Essay Topics with sample answer.
IELTS Writing Task 2 Sample 9 - Many office authorities impose restriction on smoking within the offices premises
- Last Updated: Wednesday, 28 September 2016 14:26
- Written by IELTS Mentor
- Hits: 90894
IELTS Writing Task 2/ IELTS Essay:
You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.
Present a written argument to an educated reader with no specialist knowledge of the following topic:
Many office authorities impose a restriction on smoking within the office premises. Some governments have even banned smoking in all public places. This is a good idea but it takes away some of our freedom.
What are your opinions on this?
Use your own knowledge and experience and support your arguments with examples and relevant evidence.
You should write at least 250 words.
Model Answer 1:
(Agreement: Smoking should be banned in office premises and public places)
There is no scope of argument that cigarette smoking is harmful both for the smoker and people around him/her. Cigarette smoking has two major effects on non-smokers-injurious passive smoking and smoking display that has an invitational or persuasive effect on non-smokers. I believe banning smoking in public places and offices not only will discourage smoking but will also keep the smoking practice out of site, though it might apparently look like transgress into smoker’s freedom. But I believe any harmful activity of a particular person or group of people can not be a definition of freedom. If smoking right in any place is a definition of freedom then why not other drugs? In m opinion, every public place including office must be smoking free.
There are several reasons that government and private authorities are being strict on smoking in offices and even public places. Firstly, this is an accepted fact that smoking is injurious and deadly to health in several ways. Secondly, smoking causes health hazards to non-smokers who inhale smoke passively from the smokers. Thirdly, smoking has a strong psychologically influence on others, particularly on children and young who learns from their elderly. Fourthly, in many countries, the cost of health care and insurance has gone up due to smoking related illnesses. So health authorities and governments are trying to have been seen that due to the restrictions, the habit of smoking is on a decline among office goers.
Though non-smokers think that restricting smoking in offices and public places is a good idea, smokers often view it as an intervention into their right. Smokers argue that cigarette smoking has a direct relation to their workplace performance, though passive smoking can cause objections from colleagues. But considering the harm of smoking it should be banned.
Though pressure groups such as tobacco companies may discourage restrictions on smoking, since the advantages of ban outweigh the disadvantages, mass public support such bans. Moreover, offices have the right to regulate staff behaviour and activities and governments too can ban smoking in public places for a greater societal benefit.
In conclusion, restricting smoking in workplaces and in public is a good idea. I can also understand the opinion of smokers that banning smoking in such places limits their work speed but I believe with little practice and determination they can overcome it. So I strongly support the idea of prohibiting smoking in any public place including the office premises.
First of all, if a government only bans the smoking in public places and allows the production, marketing and selling of cigarettes in the country that point out a question if the government at all wants to ban the cigarettes. Why would not a government restrict the selling of cigars but would only refrain the smokers from having it? Rather government should ban this vile product in the whole country so that people no longer have the option to smoke. A smoker would naturally smoke as s/he gets addicted to the nicotine of a cigarette. Allowing them to purchase it and then not to smoke it is kind of ridiculous idea.
Secondly, many offices restrict smoking in office premises and this is also a controversial idea. Why hire smokers when you have such a strict restriction on smoking? Rather those offices should update their hiring policy and should not hire smokers as many educational and religious organisations do. Smoking in no way acceptable but restricting this only in office premises is in a way allowing the employees to go outside and harm some other people rather than the office staffs. Instead of this, the offices can either arrange a separate smoking zone with proper ventilation facility or allow the smokers to smoke there or should hire non-smokers.
In conclusion, the cigarettes should be restricted in the production and sales level but not in the way of stealing peoples’ freedom by restricting them in particular places while letting them easily purchase them. Where is the good will when a government freely allows the product, distribution and selling of tobacco and collects taxes from the tobacco companies and at the same time restrict smoking to show that they are doing well for people?
Model Answer 3:
Use of tobacco products has become popular after the industrial revolution. Cigarettes are so cheaply available that people do not bother to think about it before lighting one in every minute. Society is engaged in very long debate, whether smoking should be banned completely in public places or not. Some argue that it would encroachment to one's freedom, while others support this idea. I think smokers should be allowed to smoke only in designated areas away from the public.
According to world health organisation, smoking is biggest cause of oral and lung cancer. Even second-hand smokers, people who inhale smoke releases by smokers, are equally prone to the disease. Therefore, looking at this risk, smokers and non-smokers should be segregated. In countries like the United States of America, designated smoking areas are built and smoking in public places is banned and fines are imposed if anyone is found using cigarettes in public place.
While it may be easy to argue that banning smoking is intruding to one's freedom. But forcing one's smoke to other non-smokers is even a bigger crime. Advocates, who fight for the ban of smoking, ask that why should an innocent bystander suffer from the smoke released by smokers? Therefore, it can easily be concluded that banning smoking is public place is not attached to freedom; it is rather imposing the right of freedom.
With above points, in conclusion, it can be concluded that with alternative options for smoking location made available, smoking can be banned at all public location without creating any controversy.
( Written by Ramanuj )
There are numerous reasons why smoking should be restricted in the offices and in similar places where people meet or work together. To begin with, many non-smokers work in an office or gather in a train station, so the smoke of cigarette is pernicious and irritating for them. Besides, if the smoking is allowed inside the office or in public places like an auditorium, then the passive smokers will suffer from same ailments, as smokers will. Finally, an office is a hub of many professionals and allowing smokers to smoke freely would be the violation of non-smokers’ freedom in one hand and unprofessional in another hand. To continue it, employees spend most of their time in their workplaces and if smoking is banned there, then willingly and unwillingly many of them will stop smoking. In a long run, it is going to give them the benefit, as they will understand that it is not such a hard nut to crack for them to quit smoking. In addition, it will also save the time which is spent for smoking by the employees; instead, they will devote that time doing the office work. The same argument is valid for banning the smoking in the public places as well. Ultimately the banning should be implemented to save the non-smokers, smokers and the environment.
However, another aspect of this statement also deserves the attention. To start with, as the people who are in the habit of smoking feels disturbed and interrupted on banning the smoking in the offices and other public places. They feel that it affects their performance and thus they have the right to smoke as capable adults. I would like to opine that, the banning should not be implemented all of a sudden and the smokers should be given the chance to quit smoking before banning it in offices and in public places.
In conclusion, not a single positive aspect of smoking is proven so far while there are hundreds of detrimental effects are already scientifically proven. Thus banning something in public places which will bring benefits should be cordially welcomed.
To begin with, everyone has the right and freedom to make independent decisions about the affairs of life. However, any particular action or personal choice of the person must not become a cause of inconvenience to others. The habit of smoking is one vivid example of this, where active smokers not just damage their health but the toxic elements of cigarettes cause harm to passive smokers.
This negative externality associated with cigarettes has forced the organizations to impose a ban on smoking in office premises, as it hampers the health of all people who share the same premises. Likewise, government enactment of penalty or fines on people smoking in public spaces derived from the same principle that the right of one person should not override the collective rights of many people.
To resolve this problem, separate designated areas can be made for smokers to satisfy their needs without causing a nuisance for others. For instance, smoking openly is prohibited at the airports but smoking areas are made for the convenience of all passengers.
In conclusion, smokers and non-smokers both have rights which need to be protected and guaranteed, but no action of one party can be legalized which tramples the rights of another party. And smoking should be limited to designated areas where non-smokers are safe from its harmful effects. The prohibition of smoking in public areas and offices is just and does not infringe on the right of any individual, it is for the best of all people.