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

There has been a significant increase in mobile phone users globally in recent years, which can be attributed to various factors. This trend can be said to be the direct consequence of the ease of purchase and the cost of mobile phones could be one of the deciding factors in mobile phone ownership. Many people argue against mobile phone ownership due to their assumed adverse effects on individuals and society, but I believe that mobile phone ownership should not be restricted by governmental authorities because not only is there no concrete scientific evidence that proves the detrimental effects of mobile phones on people’s health, such a step can be seen as an infringement of human rights, and can result in an increase in cognizant dissonance as mobile phones are not solely used for work-related purposes, as well as result in the overall decline in economic production of a society. To begin with, the notion that mobile phone usage negatively impacts people’s health is unfounded. There is no conclusive evidence that suggests the veracity of such a belief, and it mainly stems from the fear of the unknown. As the world is increasingly becoming digital, with the advent of e-commerce and the popularity of remote learning, those set in their old ways see these changes as threatening to their existence and the way they are used to doing things. Besides, consumption of anything in excess can be detrimental to health, and this should not be applied to mobile phone usage alone. Moreover, it is incredibly difficult for the government to ensure that people buy and use mobile phones for solely work-related purposes. Firstly, the line between work and play, in recent times, is increasingly blurring, and it may not be easy for the regulatory authorities to differentiate between the two. For example, those employed in the gaming sector and software development industries may find that the responsibilities of their jobs and their personal interests are aligned. Secondly, by restricting the sale and possession of mobile phones to those who presumably need it for work, the government would be infringing on people’s right to privacy as now individuals would have to justify their purchase of a mobile phone and may have to divulge information that they deem personal, such as their work and leisure-time habits. Finally, if a government decides to implement restrictions of mobile phone usage, there can be numerous harmful effects on its economy: the art and film industries might take get adversely affected and the soft image of the country might get irrevocably damaged. Most businesses today rely on social media influencers for publicity and sales, and such a restriction might need a complete overhaul of the business model of such organizations. Besides, there is a serious risk that the country which implements such an oppressive policy might fall behind in the international rat race of growth. In conclusion, the ownership of mobile phones cannot be restricted by governments, unless unbiased scientific studies are conducted that demonstrate that the negative effects outweigh its benefits and its damaging impacts are firmly established, and even then there may be a huge public hue and cry regarding the growing extent of government involvement in private lives of individuals, and societies that attempt to implement such a regulation may find it difficult to compete in global economic markets, especially in a time where the entire world is in the palm of one’s hand.