Tobacco Should Be Treated as Illegal Like Other Drugs - Task 2 Band 9 Sample Essays

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

Sample Essay 1

Many argue that tobacco ought to be treated like other illegal drugs because it produces no tangible benefits and inflicts widespread harm. I strongly agree that commercial tobacco distribution should be progressively outlawed. I will first show that the scale of public-health externalities and economic burden makes prohibition defensible, and then explain how nicotine’s addictive nature and predatory industry behaviour justify criminalising supply while protecting vulnerable users.

The primary rationale for prohibition is the disproportionate harm tobacco causes to non-users and health systems. Smoking is a leading cause of preventable disease; its harms extend beyond individual choice through second-hand smoke, increased hospital admissions and lost productivity, imposing fiscal burdens on taxpayers and employers. Keeping a product with such pervasive externalities in the legal marketplace normalises risk and perpetuates consumption. That said, criminalising tobacco ought to focus on supply chains and commercial actors rather than punish dependent users: robust prohibition paired with funded cessation services, accessible nicotine-replacement therapy and social support would reduce demand humanely while dismantling the commercial mechanisms that sustain addiction.

A second, equally compelling argument concerns addiction and corporate malfeasance. Nicotine produces powerful dependency that severely undermines autonomous choice, particularly when companies deliberately design products and marketing to attract young people. For decades the industry obscured risks and exploited regulatory gaps; treating tobacco as a legal consumer good has therefore been ineffective and ethically dubious. Making tobacco illegal would permit stringent enforcement against manufacturing, advertising and distribution, curtail youth access and shift public policy from profit protection to health protection. To limit illicit markets, a phased prohibition—paired with economic transition support for growers and retailers and reinvestment of enforcement funds into public health—would balance practical concerns with moral urgency.

In sum, the magnitude of health harms, the coercive force of addiction and a history of corporate manipulation make a strong case for outlawing commercial tobacco. With a humane, phased approach that emphasises treatment and economic transition, banning tobacco distribution is both justifiable and necessary.

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

Sample Essay 2

Calls to criminalise tobacco alongside substances like cocaine or heroin overlook both the principles of personal liberty and the pragmatic realities of public health. I firmly disagree with the idea of imposing a blanket ban on smoking. While tobacco undeniably carries health risks, prohibition would neither eliminate its use nor benefit society overall. Instead, I will argue that individual autonomy must be preserved and that regulation, not criminalisation, is the most effective path to reducing harm.

The foremost reason for rejecting a ban is that it infringes upon the right of informed adults to make personal choices, even those that entail risk. A liberal society cannot outlaw every hazardous activity without sliding into paternalism; people legally engage in behaviours such as consuming alcohol, eating unhealthy diets, or participating in extreme sports, all of which can shorten life expectancy. The key ethical distinction is that adults are capable of weighing consequences against their own preferences. Criminalising tobacco would not only erode this autonomy but also set a dangerous precedent for state overreach. Furthermore, history has repeatedly shown that outright prohibition tends to drive markets underground, fostering unregulated trade, unsafe products, and criminal networks—outcomes potentially more damaging than the original problem.

Equally important is the fact that regulation has a proven track record of reducing smoking prevalence without the social costs of prohibition. Through high taxation, plain packaging laws, public smoking bans, and targeted health campaigns, many countries have already witnessed dramatic declines in smoking rates. These measures both discourage uptake and provide smokers with the freedom and resources to quit voluntarily. A ban, by contrast, risks alienating users, pushing them into illicit channels, and diverting law enforcement from more pressing issues. By maintaining legality but tightening regulation, governments can continue funding cessation programmes, control product safety, and channel tobacco tax revenues into public health—achieving harm reduction while respecting civil liberties.

In conclusion, banning tobacco would undermine personal freedom and invite counterproductive consequences, whereas strategic regulation offers a more balanced and effective solution. Upholding autonomy while employing evidence-based public health measures ensures both societal wellbeing and the preservation of individual rights.

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