Ownership of mobile phones has risen dramatically in recent years despite the potentially harmful effects they may have on our health and the society. Governments should introduce measures to restrict ownership of mobile phones to those who need them for their work. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?

In spite of the hazards associated with their use, the number of people keeping the cell phone is rising steeply nowadays. Whether, the law should limit their purchase to a required basis, is debated. Keeping in view the necessity of all time communication and the rights of citizens, the suggested embargo cannot be agreed upon, so, I disagree.

This

essay will outline the deleterious effects of well being and community problems

first

, followed by the major reasons against any ban. On the one hand, opinion proposing restriction on keeping cell phones says that they disrupt the health state. People remain committed on mobiles till very late hours at night, leading to disturbed day cycle, which actually causes lethargy and tiredness. Ultimately, work output of the individuals is compromised.

Moreover

, the content access leads to volatile personality in the youth.

Thus

th

ey can ca

Accept comma addition

Thus, they

use rifts in the society, as the individuals may get motivated by the horror scenes. One study of the UK schools showed that 30% of the students had their attitudes influenced by the content available on the internet, which they had easy approach.

However

, I think that both of the above mentioned issues can be tackled by raising the tariffs on the calls and internet usage.

On the other hand

, despite the above noted drawbacks, the benefits outweigh them. The

first

is that the phones are now essential requirements. They give an instant contact facility, in that, the persons can inform their families about any delay or change in their plan.

This

prevents many worries and concerns.

For Instance

, in the past when phones were not available, there was a lot of stress in waiting the members till they had arrived back.

Secondly

, restriction on buying something is against the basic citizenship rights. How can a state, select some people and allow them to have a facility and restricting others, when all have a need and can afford to keep it? The supreme court's 2016 decision regarding purchase rights of the natives is an instance in

this

aspect. In summary, the public custodies of the cell phones are grossly rising and cannot be barred as they now are the important needs of the dwellers who own a basic right to buy them.