Recently I came across of news of people getting fined for smoking cigarettes, spitting and loitering in public places, Fine collected for those offences (I believe they are not) contributing to 75000 INR within 10 days of the drive. With an average penalty of 100 rupees implies that 7500 odd people had been slapped with the fine so far.
The question arises that had there been enough smoking zone, dustbins and public utilities in place would this situation raised. The biggest problem with the decision makers is that they never try to do a root cause analysis they work in digital format (my convention) i.e. “0” and “1”. The policy maker will either allow certain things to happen (i.e. “1”) or they will completely ban it (i.e. “0”). They don’t try to work for eradicating the root cause and patiently work towards changing the mindset of people gradually and softly.
Smoking cigarette and chewing gutka, it has been declared as offence in public places. Now the question is all the places are public places (except one’s home) so what the person who is having habits to smoke or chew should do. The immediate argument is the people should leave tobacco. The counter argument for that will be imagine a case when you don’t find any urinals in public places like cinema’s, malls , hotels etc and Loitering in public places is crime then what you will do will you come back home to make yourself relax.
There are n number of reasons of people smoking cigarettes
Some people feel relax after smoking, some people enjoy it, some do it for style, some do it for weight loss and so on so forth.
If smoking is banned everywhere then people will consume less this is understood but have someone ever though of the families getting affected for whom tobacco industry is the life line, have someone though of profit margin of the tobacco companies and there employees who are source of revenue to the system.
Come financial budget and duties and taxes on tobacco products will see a surge. My suggestion would be that instead of doing moral policing and pressurizing people to quit tobacco there are many major issues that should be addressed immediately.
Rising crime graph, unemployment, infrastructure, safe drinking water, basis amenities should be addressed first
The question arises that had there been enough smoking zone, dustbins and public utilities in place would this situation raised. The biggest problem with the decision makers is that they never try to do a root cause analysis they work in digital format (my convention) i.e. “0” and “1”. The policy maker will either allow certain things to happen (i.e. “1”) or they will completely ban it (i.e. “0”). They don’t try to work for eradicating the root cause and patiently work towards changing the mindset of people gradually and softly.
Smoking cigarette and chewing gutka, it has been declared as offence in public places. Now the question is all the places are public places (except one’s home) so what the person who is having habits to smoke or chew should do. The immediate argument is the people should leave tobacco. The counter argument for that will be imagine a case when you don’t find any urinals in public places like cinema’s, malls , hotels etc and Loitering in public places is crime then what you will do will you come back home to make yourself relax.
There are n number of reasons of people smoking cigarettes
Some people feel relax after smoking, some people enjoy it, some do it for style, some do it for weight loss and so on so forth.
If smoking is banned everywhere then people will consume less this is understood but have someone ever though of the families getting affected for whom tobacco industry is the life line, have someone though of profit margin of the tobacco companies and there employees who are source of revenue to the system.
Come financial budget and duties and taxes on tobacco products will see a surge. My suggestion would be that instead of doing moral policing and pressurizing people to quit tobacco there are many major issues that should be addressed immediately.
Rising crime graph, unemployment, infrastructure, safe drinking water, basis amenities should be addressed first