Many Office Authorities Impose a Restriction on Smoking within the Office Premises - IELTS Task 2 Band 9 Sample Essay

Sample Essay 1

Whether cigarette use should be corralled to private corners divides society. Although some lament an erosion of civil liberties, I believe smoke-free offices and public venues are defensible and necessary. They shield citizens from involuntary toxins and sustain economic productivity—a dual imperative that justifies proportionate limits on individual conduct. The following paragraphs probe the public-health logic and workplace-efficiency case for comprehensive bans.

First, a government that tolerates second-hand smoke abdicates its duty to protect the innocent. The World Health Organization attributes roughly 1.3 million annual deaths to passive inhalation; the danger envelops children, pregnant women and commuters who never chose to light a cigarette. Ireland’s 2004 nationwide ban, criticised as draconian, produced a 17 percent fall in hospital admissions for acute coronary syndrome within one year—proof that legislation saves lives. Moreover, public health systems shoulder the cost of smoke-related illness, so taxpayers fund a habit they may abhor. Philosophically, John Stuart Mill’s ‘harm principle’ supports state action whenever private behaviour harms others, making indoor prohibitions no less liberal than drink-driving laws. By purging toxic particulates from shared air, authorities preserve the more fundamental freedom to breathe safely.

Secondly, smoke-free policies bolster organisational efficiency and social equity. Employees who refrain from smoking surrender less time to breaks and register fewer sick days, boosting both company output and national productivity. A Tokyo software firm reported a 30 percent rise in output per staff hour after banning on-site smoking and converting the old lounge into a collaborative pod. Insurance actuaries likewise note lower premiums for smoke-free workplaces, an indirect dividend for staff and shareholders. Savings are matched by fairness: non-smokers no longer shoulder colleagues’ lost minutes or endure stale nicotine odours. Critics invoke liberty, yet freedom is not a licence to impose costs on others. Designated outdoor zones preserve smokers’ choice while keeping indoor air clean, showing that smart regulation can balance rights without paternalism.

In sum, safeguarding public health and economic vitality outweighs the minor inconvenience experienced by smokers. Comprehensive bans honour the liberal maxim that one person’s freedom ends where another’s well-being begins, and should therefore extend to every workplace and public venue where people congregate by necessity.

Achieve your dream score with our detailed IELTS eBooks - your complete guide!

Get our comprehensive IELTS Essay Correction Service from a real examiner!

Sample Essay 2

Widespread restrictions on smoking in offices and public venues have ignited fierce debates over personal freedom versus collective welfare. While some perceive such bans as an infringement on individual rights, I firmly believe they are both justified and indispensable. Beyond safeguarding public health, these restrictions cultivate a culture of civic responsibility and reflect the moral evolution of modern societies. This essay will first argue that smoking bans are vital for fostering a shared ethic of mutual respect and, secondly, that they symbolise societal progress toward prioritising public good over private indulgence.

First, prohibiting smoking in communal areas fosters a culture of mutual respect essential for harmonious co-existence. In shared spaces like offices, airports, and cafes, individuals inevitably impose on one another; thus, the expectation of self-restraint becomes crucial. Allowing smoking disregards the principle that no personal pleasure should come at the cost of another’s discomfort or health. For example, studies by the British Medical Association demonstrate that the presence of second-hand smoke significantly deteriorates indoor air quality, endangering even brief bystanders. When organisations and governments enforce smoking bans, they institutionalise the notion that collective spaces require collective consideration. Over time, this instils habits of empathy and restraint that ripple beyond tobacco use—impacting behaviours from noise levels to environmental stewardship. Far from being a mere health measure, such policies cultivate a civic-minded citizenry attuned to the rights and dignity of others.

Second, smoking bans symbolise a profound moral evolution wherein public welfare rightly supersedes individual gratification. In earlier eras, public tolerance for smoking reflected an indulgent attitude toward personal vices, often at staggering communal costs—visible in ballooning healthcare expenses and diminished workforce productivity. Modern societies, by contrast, increasingly recognise that protecting vulnerable populations—children, asthmatics, the elderly—is a higher ethical imperative than accommodating harmful personal habits. For instance, after New York City’s 2002 public smoking ban, hospital admissions for childhood asthma plummeted by over 25% within three years, according to data published in The Lancet. Such outcomes underscore how placing public health above private addiction yields tangible societal benefits. Consequently, smoking restrictions are not authoritarian impositions but rather hallmarks of a society maturing into a guardian of collective well-being.

In conclusion, far from violating personal freedoms, smoking bans in public and professional spaces nurture civic responsibility and signal moral progress. They encourage individuals to value community welfare over fleeting personal convenience, shaping healthier, more considerate societies for future generations.

Achieve your dream score with our detailed IELTS eBooks - your complete guide!

Sample Essay 3

Restricting tobacco in shared spaces is now orthodox, yet critics see blanket bans as overbearing. A sharper remedy exists: architects, engineers and developers should embed rigorous smoke-free rules in the building code itself. Turning health aims into design obligations shields bystanders without amputating liberty. The essay shows, first, why builders best control exposure and, second, how market forces make private enforcement efficient.

The built environment itself is the most effective barrier against second-hand smoke. Through intelligent layout, pressure zoning and high-grade filtration, construction professionals can virtually eradicate toxic drift inside offices or apartment blocks. Singapore’s GreenMark 2023 guidelines, drafted by industry groups, require separate exhaust shafts for smoking balconies and an air-change rate that removes particulates within five minutes. Post-occupancy audits record a 78 percent drop in indoor nicotine compared with pre-upgrade baselines—outperforming figures logged after the city-state’s earlier statutory ban. Because such engineering choices are made before tenants arrive, their reach is broader and less confrontational than spot checks or fines. When the fabric of a building rejects smoke, public-health protection becomes automatic rather than punitive.

Handing enforcement to developers also harnesses powerful market incentives. Smoke-free certification now commands a rent premium: a 2024 Knight Frank survey found Canary Wharf offices fetch 6 percent more when labelled “Clean-Air Ready.” Developers therefore have both leverage and motive to police infractions through lease clauses, deposit forfeitures and smart-sensor monitoring—far more surgical than blanket bans. The arrangement preserves adult choice: smokers may still rent units but must fund extra filtration or confine use to rooftop terraces, sparing neighbours the externality. Because compliance costs are captured in private contracts, taxpayers avoid inspection overheads, while liberty survives as an exercise in informed consumer preference rather than state decree.

Ultimately, delegating smoke control to the very people who pour concrete and set ductwork secures cleaner air at source, lets the market reward best practice and preserves civic freedoms. Governments should therefore embed compulsory smoke-safe standards in every future building code instead of policing cigarettes person by person.

Achieve your dream score with our detailed IELTS eBooks - your complete guide!