[CtrlAltDel]

Originally Posted by hemanthisgreat

These laws are a welcome move, but in the end , it will only become a tool for the authorities to harass the hotel owners and other establishments and get a bribe.

yaar, dont you realise that the only sureshot way to avoid giving a bribe to the cops is not to break the law?

only if the cops catch you breaking the law does the question of bribes come up!

[FATAL3RROR]

Finally, Ramadoss has got something productive to do, after giving up on harassing Venugopal (AIIMS). This is indeed a welcome law, though for smokers, I am one of them, things will surely get a little tough. But, all's well that end's well!

V-16 - Gogi, how are hoteliers and restaurateurs looking at the ban? How do you think this is going to affect your business?

[typeOnegative]

A few questions -

what are public areas?
what about designated smoking areas?
why not ban cigarettes altogether? And alcohol too? I see more trouble being created by drunk people than by smokers.

Only my thoughts.

[Eddy]

Originally Posted by typeOnegative

I see more trouble being created by drunk people than by smokers.

Unless they drive, drunk people are more likely to damage their own health instead of non-drinkers unlike smoking which harms passively too.

So smoking first

Way to go.......

[DCEite]

Originally Posted by typeOnegative

why not ban cigarettes altogether? And alcohol too? I see more trouble being created by drunk people than by smokers.

Only my thoughts.

I say all of those:

-Smokers
-Drinkers
-Pan Masala chewers
-Gutka eaters

[typeOnegative]

Originally Posted by Eddy

Unless they drive, drunk people are more likely to damage their own health instead of non-drinkers unlike smoking which harms passively too.

You have probably never seen drunk guys harassing women and others in 'public areas'. Pity.

Also while I agree non-smokers are troubled by smoke, I would rather a clear definition exist of what would constitute 'smoke based harassment'. If I am in an open space with no one around and I light up, am I still liable to be punished? Earlier whenever I had the urge to smoke in a restaurant, I would leave the table and go out to another spot. Now I guess even that is not allowed. What crap!

[maddy42]

@DCEITE: Next what?? Roadside food eateries? Lorry owners for the pollution? Auto drivers. Fast foods. This causes all the heart problems and heart attacks are the most common way that the majority of the people loose their life.
Then milk, Ghee, Lassi BAN BAN BAN
Ban plastics also.

So then one day we will have only ourself left to be banned.

One more thing for everyone. Its easier to enforce some rules rather than to ban items. If you ban something there is some person sittin much above us who is goin to get a fat pocket

[typeOnegative]

Okay. Here is a small dissertation:

Act of government
Ban of smoking in public places.

Objectives
Protect health of average non-smoking Joe.

Question
What about average smoking Tom?

Possible answers
He can smoke at home. What about his family?
He can go to hell. Looking at what cigarettes do, he is half way there anyway.
He should stop smoking. Aha!

Last question for today
How can the government force someone to stop smoking?

[DKG]

As the act of smoking impinges on non smokers' right to clean air, legislation to inhibit this activity in a society is appopriate.

Does anyone know what is the reasoning used for the ban on drugs? Is it that the very use of these materials, however limited, exposes the individual to a high risk of eventual addiction and ruin hence the material is banned?

Alcohol use per say does not necessarily lead to eventual addiction. Perhaps its on that score that it may be inappropriate for the state to ban the item. Gutka perhaps is a poorer case closer to drugs and hence may soon join the ranks of banned substances as the degree of addiction is considerably higher I should think compared to alcohol.

What do you guys think?

[typeOnegative]

Originally Posted by DKG

As the act of smoking impinges on non smokers' right to clean air, legislation to inhibit this activity in a society is appopriate.

What about my car and yours? Doesn't the use of these polluting machines violate the right to clean air for non-drivers? And many more times than that of a cigarette?

Originally Posted by DKG

Does anyone know what is the reasoning used for the ban on drugs? Is it that the very use of these materials, however limited, exposes the individual to a high risk of eventual addiction and ruin hence the material is banned?

Why are some drugs not banned in some countries?

Originally Posted by DKG

Alcohol use per say does not necessarily lead to eventual addiction.

I can say the same for 'grass/marijuana'. Point is that that logic is good for some and not right for others. There are enough cases where a person who is not addicted to alcohol behaves like an animal in the few minutes that he/she is under the influence. What about that?

Originally Posted by DKG

What do you guys think?

The question DKG is what is the government thinking?

[straight6]

I think instead of trying to ban it they should keep placed like Sulabh Shauchalays where smokers can go and smoke with each other so that only they have to be passive smokers themselves.

If someone wants to die quickly or harm his/her health, go ahead by all means! Just go do it with others like yourself and kill each other rather than some non smoker having to bear the brunt of it. Its your life after all. India could use less people too as well.

The same applies to junkies.

[DKG]

A few posts back there were suggestions on banning alcohol and gutka etc.

The question was about the logic used by the Indian government in banning drugs. What was their reasoning? If the reasoning hinged on addiction then there's a poorer case for alcohol and a possible case for Gutka

As for vehicle pollution you feel the government isn't doing enough? BTW its difficult to link death or disease to vehicle pollution as compared to the immediate effect cigarette smoke has on both the smoker and non smoker. Can one say that life expectancy has come down in large cities on account of vehicle pollution? I feel governments are moving to control the risks of growth in harmful vehicle pollutants. Lead free petrol, BS III in large cities is an example

[Sudipto-S-Team]

There is nothing to prove that such bans reduce smoking. New York has such a ban in pubs for the last six years. It hasn't reduced smoking in the city as a whole.

[Sam Kapasi]

Honestly, I have been visiting countries that do not allow smoking indoors. it works well, even though I miss having that cigarette with my drink, I am free to take my drink (in some cases) or go outside the club and smoke and return.

Countering pollution is rubbish, but yes, it keeps the air indoors cleaner for everyone, especially the non-smokers.

But what really puzzles me is 2 things.

1) You cannot offer any service in a smoking zone. - So if I sit in the open air outside Barista and smoke with my coffee? I can't smoke? I can't drink coffee?

2) You cannot have a smoking zone near the entrance or exit of a hotel, club or restaurant.

So are the smokers supposed to take a walk?

[moralfibre]

Charge a packet of cigarettes Rs. 500/- for 10's. Tax the damn thing. Do you think ITC will let that happen?

Gutkha, chewing tobacco, pan masala, etc should be charged Rs. 500/- per packet as well. Although impractical, that is the only way to make people kick the habit.