NationStates Jolt Archive

While I welcome the move to ban smoking in public places (despite being an occasional smoker myself), I am not sure how the govt is going to enforce it inside houses where there are maids/employees.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Now_even_smoking_at_home_can_be_a_crime/articleshow/2220990.cms
Now, even smoking at home can be a crime
20 Jul 2007, 1712 hrs IST,IANS

SMS NEWS to 8888 for latest updates
NEW DELHI: Forget bars and restaurants, even smoking at home in the presence of a domestic help might invite action from the government.

Minister for Health and Family Welfare Anbumani Ramadoss said on Friday that the government would soon take stringent measures against smoking in all public places or any place where there is an employee.

"We are going to take stringent measures against smoking in public places like hotels, bars and restaurants... in fact any place where there are employees," Ramadoss said, speaking at a ceremony here where he was awarded the World Health Organisation (WHO) Director-General's Special Award for Tobacco Control for the year 2007.

"Even at home, if you smoke and there is a maid present, action can be taken against you," he said.

"If you have to smoke, then go to the roads." :eek: :confused:

The minister said that The Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act 2003 was an effective act but it was the enforcement that needed to be tightened.

"We have got a very vibrant act on tobacco control but the enforcement has been loose. We are soon going to set up a drug regulatory authority which will help us in our fight against tobacco."

Ramadoss said that the new authority would be a professional body and the US's Federal Drug Agency (FDA) has given lots of inputs for this.

Apart from thanking the WHO, family, friends and colleagues for the award, the minister also thanked the media.

"I have to thank a very special group for this award. It is called the media. It is the media that called me a 'fool' and 'stupid' and even questioned my MBBS degree when I called for a ban on smoking in films and television."

He said that every year, there are a million cases of cancer in India because of tobacco use.

"We spend Rs 40,000 crore annually on tobacco control. Our fight will continue and I am confident that India will soon become a tobacco free country."

Congratulating Chandigarh for becoming the first city in India to be tobacco free, the minister said, "In Tamil Nadu, there is a village called Varanasi where the panchayat leader is an illiterate. And he has gone on to make the village totally tobacco free.”

"These are the people who will help us make India a tobacco-free nation."

Earlier, presenting the award to Ramadoss, WHO regional director, Southeast Asia, Samlee Plianbangchang commended the minister for carrying out an effective campaign against tobacco.

"Dr Ramadoss has efficiently and effectively steered the process of implementing rules and regulations related to the ban on tobacco smoking in public places and on tobacco advertising, as well as restricting access to tobacco products by youth," he said.

Giving damning statistics about tobacco use in India, the WHO regional director said, "India is the third largest producer of tobacco leaves in the world, after China and Brazil. Ninety five billion cigarettes and 850 billion beedis are produced in India every year."

He commended Ramadoss for the steps he has taken to "safeguard future generations from the devastating consequences of tobacco use".

"The tobacco control measures initiated and implemented by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare under the able stewardship of Dr Anbumani Ramadoss have been widely acclaimed at the regional and global levels, and have set a praiseworthy precedent for other countries to follow," he said, reading out from the citation for the award.

The WHO award is given annually to mark the World No Tobacco Day. According to WHO, the award is a "global recognition of the dynamic leadership" of Ramadoss under which India took rapid strides in tobacco control.


I actually welcome this move. At least this will increase awareness and start a debate on the issue.

Tobacco abuse is rampant in India, partly from non-awareness of the harmful addictive effects and the free reign that tobacco companies have in luring youngsters with macho ads and image building etc. There is no id system, so it is quite common for underage people to take up smoking on the sly and then it becomes addictive and the poor and overburdened medical infrastructure has no means to combat this.

India is really going a bit too far.

Bars, restaurants, clubs-fine

Your own home-not so much.

This seems more like using domestic servants as an excuse to keep people from smoking.

India is really going a bit too far.
I don't know, even those lower castes have rights, you know...

I don't know, even those lower castes have rights, you know...

Yeah, but what has that got to with the topic. :confused:

Seems like there is nothing more to India than caste.

Yeah, but what has that got to with the topic. :confused:

Seems like there is nothing more to India than caste.

Don't they need to be protected from employers that are likely to harm them with cigarette smoke?

It's not like there are hundreds of opportunities just waiting for another worker in India...

Aw Gawd. You do not have to work where you feel your health will be at risk .. Medical .. various Manufacturing ... Textiles & Telecommunication (plastics -- heat injection molding).. Machine Shops .. Construction .. Fiber Optics.. Cable runners etc etc ..

All _this_ person has to do is say is "I will not work in the home of smokers". They will work in the home of non-smokers. There are more non smokers than smokers is there not?

But this shit of saying it is deadly to be around tobacco smoke in normal size areas for a short amount of time Is bull shit. It is still their right to choose not to be around it though.

When it comes to one having to be around this shit regardless of what they want.. then it will be a problem. For now ...they have the choice. The only choices being removed are the smokers choices and rights.

I will smoke in my home. If you do not want to be around tobacco smoke.. you have the choice to not enter my home or my car for that matter. It should be this way with a business also. If one practices safety precautions for fire etc .. no one should have the right to come in and say "I don't smoke! The whole lot of ya must not smoke because I don't want it near me" Simply because you chose to walk your ass up into my establishment. Preposterous.

There are many non smoking establishments out there are there not? I bet there were many before this bullshit of a law came into effect. Take your business there.

Anti-Smoking is rapidly turning into a paranoid fascist hypochondria.

I have supported every smoking ban up to this one. no government should say what a person can and cannot their own home (unless it's murder or something! - make that anything consensual in their own home.).

I have supported every smoking ban up to this one. no government should say what a person can and cannot their own home (unless it's murder or something! - make that anything consensual in their own home.).

On the other hand, why not? A privately owned bar or club isn't that different from a private residence. People can only come in with the permission of the owner - and with their own permission. If you can ban smoking in one private establishment, why not another?

A privately owned bar or club isn't that different from a private residence. People can only come in with the permission of the owner - and with their own permission. If you can ban smoking in one private establishment, why not another?

Exactly, they are entirely the same for the purpose of government regulation. The government owns neither and therefore has no right to say what happens consensually at either place. Therefore, smoking should be banned NOWHERE.

Exactly, they are entirely the same for the purpose of government regulation. The government owns neither and therefore has no right to say what happens consensually at either place. Therefore, smoking should be banned NOWHERE.

I don't see a (legal) issue with banning it in public-owned buildings; hospitals, police and fire departments, courthouses. Or in publically-owned lands; streets and parks.

Exactly, they are entirely the same for the purpose of government regulation. The government owns neither and therefore has no right to say what happens consensually at either place. Therefore, smoking should be banned NOWHERE.

But here's a problem with that logic: it's not really consensual. When a person smokes in there, everyone will be exposed to it regardless of whether they want to be or not.

Even so, I personally support only public smoking bans. Private establishments should be able to make their own decision in that regard because it is not the government's place to say otherwise. If people don't like smoking at a given restaurant, go somewhere else and let the market take care of it. All government regulation does is take that decision away from the owners and put it under government control, which is hardly a good thing by any stretch of the imagination.

On the other hand, why not? A privately owned bar or club isn't that different from a private residence. People can only come in with the permission of the owner - and with their own permission. If you can ban smoking in one private establishment, why not another?

With permission of the owner .. they should do a

This is an establishment that allows the smoking of tobacco. When you enter this establishment you are forgoing your right of being in a smoke free area. In other words .. if you don't like being around tobacco smoke.. go somewhere else!

I know this isn't legal speak.. but does it not fit? Are there not laws that protect a business owner in this sense? If not .. that fucking sucks!

No no no. A public smoking ban is bad enough, denying publicans the right to choose quite what happens on their own bloody property; a ban in the home is nothing short of ridiculous.

No no no. A public smoking ban is bad enough, denying publicans the right to choose quite what happens on their own bloody property; a ban in the home is nothing short of ridiculous.

I'm trying to think of how they reconciled this. Does the homeowner forfeit their rights because they smoke and have a servant?

But here's a problem with that logic: it's not really consensual. When a person smokes in there, everyone will be exposed to it regardless of whether they want to be or not.

So they leave if they choose not to be exposed. How is that not consensual?

So they leave if they choose not to be exposed. How is that not consensual?

But what if someone comes in and decides to smoke? That only works if the smoker is there first.

But what if someone comes in and decides to smoke? That only works if the smoker is there first.

And if it's the smoker's own home?

So they leave if they choose not to be exposed. How is that not consensual?

What? It is. They made their choice to not be around tobacco smoke.

Nothing wrong with that. Go elsewhere!

Also I understand you were asking Him how is it not .. I wasn't attacking you.. just quoting you.

But what if someone comes in and decides to smoke? That only works if the smoker is there first.
Entering the establishment where smokers are welcome, they agree to take the risk. Of course it should be clearly labeled.

Come the fuck on... I can't smoke in my own house?!

Come the fuck on... I can't smoke in my own house?!

Only if you live in India.

Bars, restaurants, clubs-fine

Your own home-not so much.

This seems more like using domestic servants as an excuse to keep people from smoking.

And that's bad because?

Excessive, but I don't feel sympathy towards smokers at all. You're all a bunch of pretentious douchebags.

Excessive, but I don't feel sympathy towards smokers at all. You're all a bunch of pretentious douchebags.

And anti-smokers are a bunch of whining bitches.

This kind of thing is happening even here, in some cases. It's getting a bit nutty. The strange thing is, everyone seems to want to regulate and regulate and regulate, but many of those same people cry about other drugs being illegal, or people rotting in prison for trafficking or possession. Some consistencey would be nice.

And that's bad because?

When did people not have the right to choose whether or not to smoke?

Better yet, when was it the government's job to legislate good health?

And anti-smokers are a bunch of whining bitches.

Oh yes, complaining because you can't breath is whining.

Then complaining because you can't smoke in bars and resturaunts is what?

Oh yes, complaining because you can't breath is whining.


What was that? I can't hear anything but a high pitched insectile sound.

Then complaining because you can't smoke in bars and resturaunts is what?

Championing the rights of private ownership versus state bureaucracy. I don't mind if a restaurant wants to ban smoking. Or allow it. What I mind is when whiny bitches cry to the government. "Wah, I can't breathe! And I can't eat at another restaurant either! I'm dying, because I just can't survive without my pancakes!"

What was that? I can't hear anything but a high pitched insectile sound.

Championing the rights of private ownership versus state bureaucracy. I don't mind if a restaurant wants to ban smoking. Or allow it. What I mind is when whiny bitches cry to the government. "Wah, I can't breathe! And I can't eat at another restaurant either! I'm dying, because I just can't survive without my pancakes!"

And anti-smokers are a bunch of whining bitches.

Mmmm delicious hypocrisy.

a bunch of pretentious douchebags.

While some smokers are reasonable and won't smoke around me, you sir fill out my original category.

Don't they need to be protected from employers that are likely to harm them with cigarette smoke?

It's not like there are hundreds of opportunities just waiting for another worker in India...

Yeah, but what's that got to do with caste?

Better yet, when was it the government's job to legislate good health?

Since they were formed for that exact purpose around 6000 or so years ago.