I decided I wanted to write a task two tonight after reading the question that you see below.
As it turns out, I actually misread the question. Initially, I thought it was asking should
we be concerned about this? When actually it says “why should we be concerned about
this?” Well, as you'll see in my response, I question the question itself, which on the
whole, is not a wise thing to do in the IELTS writing paper.
See, I have noticed a growing number of questions appearing that seemingly are
in a certain way. If I were an IELTS student, I would see this as an opportunity to
distinguish my essay by writing the minority view. Remember, the IELTS examiners
don't care what your answer is. Don't answer a question because you think it's what
they want to hear. In fact, although they shouldn't do this, as examiners are human
beings too, I suspect they get bored by reading the same opinion again and again
and again. Someone who can effectively make a position that is extremely unpopular
sound plausible, well, that would pique their interest. I would even venture that
test questions might be written just to see who has the courage not to be a sheep.
That's not what I really think, but it's possible.
I would love to write a response to the question “Should we be concerned about this?”
but that's not what it's asking. Then again, it's not an official question, and an official
question would not presuppose that we should be concerned about it. Lets pretend
the question asks “should we” instead of “why should”. This question is just pretending
it's official anyways, so why not?
Despite Health warnings, a large number of people continue to smoke all over the world.
Should we be concerned about this? What Solutions would you suggest?
The days of tobacco companies denying that smoking is harmful are a thing of the past. Any individual who chooses to smoke nowadays is well aware that it's not good for them. Yet they continue to do so. If we look at the cold, hard, economic realities of tobacco and health, the idea that societies should be actively discouraging smoking is called into question.
The concern for the well-being of everyone in society needs to have its limits. Amongst the many harmful things that individuals expose themselves to on a regular basis, such as alcohol, red meat and sugar, tobacco has earned a special place in the minds of those who would prevent others from exercising their freedom to do what they want with their bodies.
Leaving the question of personal choice aside, there are rational, albeit machiavellian, reasons to not discourage smoking. A very famous study conducted in 1992 by the WHO connected the average per capita healthcare costs over a lifetime to smoking rates. Surprisingly, the countries which had the highest rates of smokers had the lowest overall health care costs. The reason for this was quite simple: people who smoke die quickly and at a much younger age than non-smokers. Having a lot of elderly people in a population drives up the overall cost of healthcare as their illnesses tend to be protracted and expensive. As harsh as it may seem, having people die soon after they have finished their productive years is economically advantageous to a society.
Then, of course, considerations of the direct monetary impact, particularly for those on the margins of the economy, should not be discounted. The trade in cigarettes alone accounts for hundreds of billions of dollars in business worldwide. In my city alone, due to the high rate of smoking, even the least-skilled, uneducated person can make enough income hawking cigarettes to feed themselves. I cannot help but question whether reducing the role of this important cog in the wheel of the world economy is the right thing to do.
Maybe the world would be a better place if tobacco had never become as popular as it is today. That said, it certainly would be a poorer place if tobacco were gone tomorrow.
No comments:
Post a Comment