Ban Smoking in Public Places Essay
This is a ban smoking in public places essay. It is an example of an essay where you have to give your opinion as to whether you agree or disagree.
The sample answer shows you how you can present the opposing argument first, that is not your opinion, and then present your opinion in the following paragraph.
It is always a good idea to present a balanced essay which presents both sides of the argument, but you must always make it very clear what your opinion is and which side of the argument you support.
Ban Smoking in Public Places Essay
Medical studies have shown that smoking not only leads to health problems for the smoker, but also for people close by. As a result of this, many believe that smoking should not be allowed in public places. Although there are arguments on both sides, I strongly agree that a ban is the most appropriate course of action.
Opponents of such a ban argue against it for several reasons. Firstly, they say that passive smokers make the choice to breathe in other people’s smoke by going to places where it is allowed. If they would prefer not to smoke passively, then they do not need to visit places where smoking is permitted. In addition, they believe a ban would possibly drive many bars and pubs out of business as smokers would not go there anymore. They also argue it is a matter of freedom of choice. Smoking is not against the law, so individuals should have the freedom to smoke where they wish.
However, there are more convincing arguments in favour of a ban. First and foremost, it has been proven that tobacco consists of carcinogenic compounds which cause serious harm to a person’s health, not only the smoker. Anyone around them can develop cancers of the lungs, mouth and throat, and other sites in the body. It is simply not fair to impose this upon another person. It is also the case that people’s health is more important than businesses. In any case, pubs and restaurants could adapt to a ban by, for example, allowing smoking areas .
In conclusion, it is clear that it should be made illegal to smoke in public places. This would improve the health of thousands of people, and that is most definitely a positive development.
This essay is well organized and presented.
The introduction is clear - note how it follows the ban smoking in public places essay question - it paraphrases the information in order to introduce the topic and the argument.
The argument against a ban on smoking in public places is presented first. It is made clear that it is not the authors opinion by the topic sentence:
"Opponents of such a ban argue against it for several reasons".
And also by the use of the word 'they' to refer to the opponents.
The writer then clearly shows they are moving on to the other argument which is their own (and it has clearly been stated in the thesis that this is their argument):
"However, there are more convincing arguments in favour of a ban".
In this paragraph, 'they' is dropped because it is now the writers opinion.
You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.
Write about the following topic:
Smoking not only harms the smoker, but also those who are nearby. Therefore, smoking should be banned in public places.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own experience or knowledge.
Write at least 250 words.
Hi all :)
I'm going to take the TOEFL test on 12th May, so I may need your help more frequently. Could people take a look at my essay and give opinions about it? Thanks :)
In some countries, people are no longer allowed to smoke in many public places and office buildings. Do you think this is a good rule or a bad rule? Use specific reasons and details to support your position.
Essay (324 words)
In my opinion, it's really a bad rule to forbid people smoking in public places and office buildings. Although some people may argue this is done to protect the community's health, disallowing smoking can also lead to some other problems which are harmful for both smokers and non-smokers.
First, if handling properly, smoking will not be a threat for all people. When smokers engage to smoking, they understand well the harm of those cigarettes, and that's no need to forbid smoking just to protect their health. Also, to avoid the problem of smoking to the whole community, we can open specific smoking area in public places and office buildings. If the number of such areas is adequate enough, I think it won't be a big problem to everyone.
Second, forbidding smoking will result a great loss to the business. When people cannot smoke in most of the places, they won't purchase as many cigarettes as when they can. This leads to a drop of cigarettes' sales and affects badly to tobacco companies and farmers who plant tobacco. Moreover, since the tax from tobacco sales is relatively high, forbidding smoking can cause the same loss of money to the government as well.
Third, forbidding smoking may lower employers' performance at work. Nowadays, they often face numerous stressful situations from the high requirement in their job. As a result, some people rely on smoking to relieve stress and concentrate on working. But if they can no longer smoke, they won't be able to escape from stress and their performance will decline drastically. Obviously, no companies want such things happen.
To sum, although banning smoking has its advantages, their negative effects are worth considering. Its potential harm to the business and employers explains why smoking in public areas and buildings can still be tolerated. As I mention before, opening specific smoking areas in public places can be considered to balance the need of both smokers and non-smokers.