Did you light a cigarette at the usual smoking area of your favorite coffee joint yesterday? And then did the same guy, who used to keep an ashtray on your table with a smile, came and informed you about the change in the nomenclature of the sitting area? Did he tell you - Sir you are smoking in a no-smoking zone? And did you then realize that the ban on smoking was in effect?Well friends, it’s finally here. Your liberty to burn and destroy the injurious cigarette has finally been quashed. One can’t smoke in a public place now. However, the doubt still remains. The basic purpose of the act remains under cloud of suspicion, as it is actually uncertain if this can deter the smokers from fagging.
And I am sure you agree with these arguments even if you don’t smoke.
Trust me, it is not that I am making attempts to defend the act of smoking. It is obviously a truth that smoking is injurious and measures are needed to put a check on it. But at the same time, the fact remains that the solutions mentioned in the act that bans smoking are ‘futile’ and not enough to help the cause.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah! Say it again! Apart from the Gandhi Jayanti, October 2 now has yet another reason to be celebrated. The ban on smoking, of course! I am very happy; quite elated in fact! Speechless too. But there is hardly a lack of words passing through my mind faster than ever. The brain’s bubbling and the eyes are searching. There! I caught one - a thought, I mean.
Hmmm... why is my happiness not sounding happy though?
My questions to you, Mr Ramadoss are :
1) Currently smokers smoke in open and they are not offenders. And you are imposing a rule, which makes them smoke in private places.
2) Currently homosexuals are offenders, and they have sex (well if you call it sex) in private places. And you want this to be decriminalized.
Both pertain to psychological urges, and both don’t benefit either people other than that momentary feeling of satisfaction.
What is that you are achieving by decriminalizing one and criminalizing other. Do you believe in building a strong society by bringing a change in people by imposing rules or by empowering them?"
So, awareness is the key. I had said this too. Laws are good. But they need to be able to empower people; the difference is between understanding why to follow a certain rule and a rule being imposed and forcefully followed. Behind the public eye, there is no law - and thus, hardly the smokers are going to abide by the ban.
1) Currently smokers smoke in open and they are not offenders. And you are imposing a rule, which makes them smoke in private places.
2) Currently homosexuals are offenders, and they have sex (well if you call it sex) in private places. And you want this to be decriminalized.
Both pertain to psychological urges, and both don’t benefit either people other than that momentary feeling of satisfaction.
What is that you are achieving by decriminalizing one and criminalizing other. Do you believe in building a strong society by bringing a change in people by imposing rules or by empowering them?"
So, awareness is the key. I had said this too. Laws are good. But they need to be able to empower people; the difference is between understanding why to follow a certain rule and a rule being imposed and forcefully followed. Behind the public eye, there is no law - and thus, hardly the smokers are going to abide by the ban.


1 comment:
Personally, I am very happy about the ban on smoking in Public Places as I don't smoke. But I will certainly agree to the point that the law is not very clear and is being misinterpreted by most.
Post a Comment