Here Charitable Individualism is the key!… nothing less.

SMOKING POLICY!


Hi Liberals, Die-hards & the “MEAN”minded,

Whatever hue yr conviction might be of, it is time to take note of the MAJORITARIANISM which is eating into the tolerance quotient of the liberals of this great country- i.e INDIA.

Smoking is gonna affect not only the smoker, but also those who are exposed to the stream of the exhaled smoke. Point taken and as a matter of defending their rights, in public places the smokers ought not to smoke.

Is my fully window wound-up car a public place or a private place, while on the road?

It is a tricky question. If u say it is private, then why have a rule that penalizes the smoking driver in DELHI? Further why absolve the passenger who smokes, with all the windows wound-down?

or are we to conclude that the only way to discipline the drivers- who have gone out of the control of the owners- is to expose them to the police force? Maybe yes. Nobody cares for the drivers (an INDIAN driver) or his right to smoke, as it helps him to beat the sleep and drowsiness which creeps on him, as mostly his bosses keep him waiting without reason and his female bosses expect him to run and open the back left door for them to step out languorously!!

IT IS A CLASS LEGISLATION (or A CLASS SUB-ORDINATE LEGISLATION).

The driver becomes stealthy and instead of holding his ciggy between his index and middle fingers, starts holding it inverted between the thumb and index! Guilt has already been spread by the society on his consciousness.

THERE is a saying in TAMIL (the only thriving classical language of India)- which says that a dog after biting the goat with impunity, bites the bull/cow/ox and then the dog is emboldened to bite MAN.

We make laws and rules without testing if the rules, when at the stage of conception itself, trench on the individual rights. Later, the rules are extended to squelch the bleating dying sounds of the liberals.

No doubt, CIGARETTE SMOKING MAY BE INJURIOUS, but who gives us the right to take away the man’s right to indulge in an injurious act esp. if his act harms none?

The minister who is spear-heading this move hails from a party that had FELLED TREES TO PREVENT TRAFFIC ON THE STATE AND NATIONAL HIGHWAYS! Now they become champions of causes, when backwardness and ignorance are inundating their party cadres!! The minister and his dad shud do something about the pathetic condition of his supporters, instead of instigating legislation curbing the liberties of INDIANS- all in the disguise of HEALTH!!

The APEX court shud decide cases on LEGAL PRINCIPLES and not based on POLICY. Unfortunately, the SC was in no mood to look into the rights of the smokers affected. It was unwilling to be reasonable and require the executive to clearly demarcate the PUBLIC PLACE from PRIVATE SPACE. It has allowed itself to be convinced by the laudable policy of RESTRAINING SMOKING, all at the cost of an INDIAN’S RIGHT TO BE WRONG- WHEN HE HURTS NONE!

MAJORITARIANISM is the malaise that plagues large societies, where composite culture and practices are slowly eliminated and the human spirit is STUNTED thru restrictive rules and legislation. May the INDIAN liberal rise and voice his opinion against it!!

Comments on: "SMOKING POLICY!" (4)

  1. Absolutely apt observsation.

    The honorable minister has been harping on the ill effects of smoking and so called passive smokers maladies without actually going into the facts and figures but merely to draw some mileage towards his political career perhaps.

    He has failed to acknowledge the fact that DEPRIVATION IS NOT DISCIPLINE as smokers can still find their way if they have to.

    As a health minister he is probably unaware of the fact that major causes of deaths in the developing countries is prinmarily coronry artery diseases , strokes and diabetes which may be due to several other reasons than PASSIVE SMOKING.

    The minister may not like to ban all the fast food joints and the cokes and the colas run by the MNC’S which are detrimental to the INCORRIGIBLE MESOMORPHS but would rather deprive the smoker of his pleasure of easing his senses by loud mouthing about the ill effects of passive smoking.

    It has been statistically proved that risks associated with environmental tobacco smoke is marginal and non significant.

    If i take my friend to mc donalds and treat him a 2500 calorie Maha burger and coke it goes unnoticed but getting him out of that joint and smoking in front of him is a huge crime.

    WE MUST DECIDE WHATS GOOD FOR THE SOCIETY AT LARGE RATHER THAN ENFORCING AN INDIVIDUALISTIC OPINION NOT SUBSTANTIATED BY FACTS AND NUMBERS.

    Allow the smoker his pleasure.

    Stop Deforestation.

    Stop Industrial pollution.

    Propagate health food.

    Propagate healthy life style thru exercise.

    Provide for the under previliged.

    THAT THE JOB OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH.

    DONT CURB THE SMOKER. LET HIM LIVE HIS LIFE AS PROBABLY HE WOULD STILL OUTLIVE MOST OTHERS WHO ARE EXPOSED TO GREATER RISKS BINGING ON FAST FOOD, WORKING IN POLLUTING FACTORIES OR SUFFERING FROM MALNUTRITION.

    SRIDHAR

  2. hi sridhar,
    I like yr opinion. As i had stated earlier, the rights of a non-smoker has to be respected. No doubt, smoking is harmful.
    Yet laws should not be made in disregard of the society, where under article 19(1)(g) he is guaranteed the right to have a trade/business subject to public good. If the restaurant owner prefers SMOKING customers to non-smokers, why shud the law prescribe, when there is no public good affected. (when cigarettes and beedies are still in production it cannot be said that smoking is against public good!) It is harmful, not deleterious to the society.
    I fully agree that there are more pressing issues that call for the MO Health and this appears to be misplaced zeal. Thanx

  3. Good one sir,
    I would like to add here that if the govt. is really keen on imposing a ban on smokers, then why don’t they do it by shutting all the cigarette manufacturing companies and stop importing them. They will not do, because the government is generating lots of revenue from cigarette manufacturers and by importing cigarette. We smokers are paying more indirect tax than the non smokers, still in some places like Airport, train, etc. smoking zone is not provided. If Government is imposing a ban on smoking then they should make an alternative arrangement for the smoker as to where the smoker should smoke or else cigarette should be made tax free.

  4. like provide a separate smoking room as in Mantri Mall’s The Great Kebab Factory at Bangalore!
    Good suggestion…….

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: