Thursday, November 6, 2008

Freedom to Get High

Now this blog post is dedicated to our dear health minister of the country who has been praised for putting ban on "Smoking" nationwide & thus affecting the lives of hundreds of smokers, who choose to smoke by there own will & not by seeing some hollywood actor on the screen puffing.

Now i want to ask a few questions, i think everybody wants to ask them as long a person is a genuine smoker & is a genuine human being.

1)Major reason behind d ban is told to be passive smoking???

According to ramadoss,he dsnt care abt smokers, all who cares abt is the general junta who dsnt smoke but passivly inhales the smoke due to a nearby smoker.
He doesnt want to improve the life of a smoker by maintaining standards of rehabs or increasing the numbers of rehab or teaching the young generation what is good & what is bad.

Going more deep into the matter.A Large number og ppl die out of smoking.But when u"l see the stats closely, u"l get to know that this ban aint gonna chnge things much rather dan being a propoganda.
Half of the ppl who die in the nation are illiterate & who smoke BIDI, who dsnt go to Pubs,Cafes etc to smoke,who smoke inside factories,jhopadis & at tea stalls.
Your ban Cant stop these ppl from dieing,bcz they ain't literate enough to know the harmful things that can happen to dem while smoking.
Ur ban dsnt put chain smokers in rehab by doing a profile check,bcz u dnt hv enough rahab centres in the nation.
In my 21 yrs of life i have never seen a rehab centre in my city,i dunno whether it exists or not.
It exists but then its nt poularised bcz than u"l need resources to maintain standards,so this work is left on NGOs rather dan govt doing such things itself.

Now according to the health minister, above points are worthless bcz he is NOT AT ALL concerned abt health of a smoker hes rather more concerned abt d one in the passive mode.

Now lets ask him another question???

How many ppl in our country die outof lung diseases bcz of SPMs in air i.e particulate matter or in short POLLUTION.
I think nobody can accept that more ppl die out of passive smoking or there health gets affected more by a an active smoker standing nearby or an auto moving in the city putting out black fumes out.

How many cities have implemented CNG???

A Handful,bcz we are not concerned of the ppl dieing, we are concerned abt vote bank/media & hype as long as we r a minister.
Our health minister says, "UK implemented the ban jus like ours & half the ppl quit smoking"

Now UK is completely different, they have high literacy rate & ppl dont smoke BIDIS in chimney factories.
& moreover they implemented anti pollution laws first before anto smoking laws.
I live in bangalore, a metro of my country & i m a smoker, i can say, i spend 2 hrs of my day on the road & i m a smoker too & i can say, my health is equally affected by my smoking habbit as well as me on a polluted road for 2 hrs.
A percent of our population smokes, but our whole population is on the road.
We will have anti smoking bans but we wont ask ppl to start using public transport to reduce pollution that jus dsnt affect us now but our whole generation & even the next generation.

I m nowhere in favour of smoking,though i m a smoker but than we have to give rights to ppl to choose what they want to do.Ppl in USA Are becoming obese but that dsnt mean u"l ban French fries.
And moreover if u r concernerd abt a non smoker than please for heaven's sake shut those black fuming vehicles.

Moreover, if you go deep into the ban, it becomes even more baseless.

"You are not allowed to smoke at public places but you are allowed on the road & parks"
Now i think our health minister forgot his primary education as to which are public places & which are semi pvt.
Nobody was allowed to smoke in malls,theatres anyways, nobody was saying against it or anything.
But not allowing ppl to smoke in pubs,bars etc where of done a routine check,9/10 ppl would be smokers.
I think that 1 guy whos a non smoker should be allowed at that place, but than thats not right too bcz everybody has RIGHTS.
So now you don't allow ppl to smoke in pubs & bars, but you allow them on the road.
So now smokers are on the road & parks & affecting ppl more than before.

A Perfect example would be an IT Company with some 25k employees, just see what happens outside the premesis at lunch time, i hope i can take a pic of that one day and show to Ramadoss.

So basically, the ban is on non justified reasons & is done to create a hype, our ministers have to ACT, bcz they are there to ACT, but the basis of the ACT as always will be unjustified.

Now hes coming up with another ban.

"Ban on liquor in public places like pubs,bars etc"

Now somebody tell him pubs & bars were created for ppl to consume liquor, they were not created so that ppl can come and have a snack after there morning jog.

Now he adds, " More ppl die out of passive drinking than passive smoking"
Now another theoritical concept of "passive drinking"

According to this concept, "An human being drives into the state of actions after noticing the environment around him & which alters his decision making process"

In other words, if i see a guy drinking, i"l get motivated to drink alcohol & loose my decision taking ability bcz i saw another person drinking or i saw an advertisement of it.

Now how in the world can somebody accept such non sense.
If we start considering these theoritical concepts than i think we"l come up with new definitions like "Passive Sex/Rape"
Wherein i"l get motivated to rape a girl,bcz shes wearing a mini skirt.
So lets ban mini skirts in public places like restaurants,cafes etc.

Our health minister has either lost hope in the brains of a human being living in this country (mayb he thinks everybody is like him)

More over when somebody popped the question "Why no drinking at pubs??? "
Isn't that seem a bit odd.

He said " wat do u expect fro me to ban drinking in temples,hospitals etc wherein ppl dnt drink neways"
Thats one lol comment u"l ever see.
Moreover our health minister dsnt go by stats which are produced after state wide bans of liquor in gujrat.

Stats show after ban "Gujrat is top on the list of states consuming alcohol products & tops the list in terms of spirited alchol which kills ppl "

Now if our health minister wants illicit alcohol players to enter the market & ppl start dieing more often than i think such a ban will be a great thing n we"l be luking frwrd to it.

Moreover i think he has lost his medical degree somewhere down the line.
"According to studies, moderate drinking is good for health"

According to his new mission "People won't be allowed to get high anymore"

Reasons, nobody knows , if this ban comes i think. it"l be more unjust than the former ban.

So lets assume next step by our govt will be:

"Dont inhale more air, ur taking oxygen from the ppl nearby, its bad for ther health or fines for farting at public places"

And mayb in future, "No mini skirts, no ads with a cleavage of a female etc etc "

Bcz according to theory, we mite develop instinct to rape a gal which we see the next time.

I think ramadoss, should show some faith in the mental abilities of the citizens of this country rather than using his theories on ppl.


Apoorv Vajpayee said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Apoorv Vajpayee said...

You don't get the point.
1. The health of an "active smoker" is affected by his own actions. The health of a "passive smoker" is affected by "active smokers". The Health Minister is concerned with the latter as they suffer without being "guilty". The rights of the victim always come first before the one's of the guilty.
2. A ban on smoking in public places does not involve any monetary restrictions and the "criminal" is known. Reduction of pollution, introduction of CNG etc. involve monetary restrictions and the "criminal" is unknown, or appropriately unidentified.
3. "Ppl in USA Are becoming obese but that dsnt mean u"l ban French fries." They will if eating french fries affected the health of others.
4. "I think that 1 guy whos a non smoker should be allowed at that place, but than thats not right too bcz everybody has RIGHTS." The rights of the non-guilty are more important. A smoker can not be allowed to affect the health of non-smokers in any way and also the rights of the non-smoker can not be compromised. If you choose to smoke, you must do so at the expense of your "Freedom".
5. "New definitions like "Passive Sex/Rape" Wherein i"l get motivated to rape a girl,bcz shes wearing a mini skirt." Co-relate this to the "passive drinking" problem. The girl wearing the mini-skirt is the "Active drinker". Not the same case. As the "criminal" is not motivated to wear a mini-skirt, but to rape. A Crime.

Ravemzsdin said...

About the second point u made:
The criminal is unkown in case of pollution, the cause of pollution is unknown,chimney factories are unkowen,those vehicles which are running in loose standards those are unown, i don't agree on that.

About the first point,
Each & every action of urs affects others,U eat more,somebody dsnt get to eat,Ur eating more affects other but than that dsnt mean u"l stop eating...The point is corrective measures & point of opinion,i think if a person dsnt want to get affected by a nearby smoker shud'nt come to a pub or a bar..its like this..u dont wanna get AIDS..u ain't gonna go to a red light area..

Why would a smoker will choose to smoke at the expanse of his "Freedom", u don't use public transport & go out on a long drive with ur wife/kids, u increase pollution, ur guilty but than you are not doing that at the expanse of your freedom.

& i think u got confused by the analogy of a gal nd an active drinker.

Accrding to d minister,
See the analogy as this,

An innocent guy gets motivated to drink after seeing a drunk guy (criminal)

An innocent guy gets motivated to have sex/rape with a girl wearing mini skirt (a crimianl)

Apoorv Vajpayee said...

Smokers and Non Smokers. Drinkers and Non Drinkers.
Polluters and ????
If you still don't get the point,you will never get it.

"Smoking/Drinking is not a crime. As long as you are the only one suffering the consequences of your own actions."

Ravemzsdin said...

naahh...i won't :)
& 10000000000s like me too wont

Ravemzsdin said...

Now how can smbdy get affected by me DRINKING.
give me a break !!!!

Ravemzsdin said...

& I din say "Smoking is good"
But than the way actions are taken against it, they are wrong.
A Health minister makes an issue out of a burning facts like "passive smoking" ,he says "Tobacco lobbyists" are creating a nuisance..How the fuck he forgot the "pharma lobbyists" selling many drugs at soaring prices.

eNVy said...

somethings are burning around here...

i can smell it... can u?

Raja said...

It makes a lot of sense to ban smoking at public places such as CCD and the like. There are many there who go to have a cup of coffee with friends (some of whom might smoke/or mebbe not) and end up spending the whole time inhaling smoke. Else, mebbe people in the next table will be smoking. Before the ban, not once have I seen open door CCD/Barista without a smoker. So, afaik this ban makes a lotta sense.

Coming to the IT sector, I can understand what you say, that after lunch you need to have a fag, and now that ain't possible until you hit the road. Being a non-smoker, I'm not sure how you look at a trade off between having a smoke and having to walk all the way out of the campus to do that.

Raja said...

And yeah, the passive drinking thing is total bakwaas. But passive smoking makes sense.
And yes, you do have a point in "half the ppl in india who smoke use bidi and all" , totally right, this ban ain't gonna help em one bit.