India has imposed a nationwide smoking ban, but how well will it work? The ban, launched in commemoration of Gandhi’s birthday came into effect October 2. The fine for smoking in public is stiff – at first, it’s a warning, and then a fine of five American dollars, or 200 rupees – more than most people earn in a day. It’s not the first time a smoking ban has been initiated in India, but such laws are often publicly ignored.
The New England Journal of Medicine, earlier this year, published a paper warning that deaths from smoking in India could reach a million by 2010. Lead author Dr Prabhat Jha, at that time, speculated that bans on smoking “might save several hundreds of thousands of lives if well implemented and enforced."
The impetus is directed at protecting those who don’t smoke. However, the plan could be misguided. Dr Sajeela Maini, (president of the Tobacco Control Foundation of India) told the BBC, "The ban on smoking in public places is a good idea, but my biggest worry is that the smokers will now start smoking more at home. Now, who is the biggest passive smoker? It's the family--the wife and the children. What we need is a complete ban on production and availability of tobacco products," she says. Another concern from Dr. Maini is that chewing tobacco may become more prevalent. Dr. Jha disagrees with the theory that smoking at home will escalate, saying there is no data to support the notion.
ITC Ltd., India’s largest tobacco producer plans an attempt to overturn the ban next month in the Supreme Court. While many have welcomed the ban, others have concerns about the impact on their business – including bar owners. Dr Jha, in an interview with heartwire, would also like to see increases in tobacco prices, and prominent warning labels to increase the success of India’s smoking ban.
This is the world’s biggest smoking ban – if successful, it could save millions of lives. Pamphlets, articles and newspapers are all being utilized to promote awareness. We know that smoking bans have been successful, reducing hospital admissions and risk of heart disease.
Preventing unnecessary illnesses, through lifestyle changes, is always a good agenda, but smoking cessation is one of major difficulty. History shows that smoking bans can be difficult to enforce. Better health, monetary savings, and emphasis on public education should provide the right combination for success. Tobacco cessation has truly become a global priority – now is the time to get the help you need to quit.
Source:
India Attempts to Impose World's Biggest Smoking Ban
Product:
Smoke Deter System
10/04/2008
Will India’s Smoking Ban Work?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Effective Learning Systems - Affiliation
- Up From Depression
- Coping with Difficult and Negative People
- Coping with the Death of a Loved One
- Aerobic Exercise Music with Subliminal Messages
- Anger Control
- Freedom From Insomnia
- How to Manage Stress Easily
- Pain Relief - Headache and Other Pain
- Walking and Active Life - Trim, Fit and Healthy
- Your Complete Success Weight Loss Program - Special Offer
- Self Image for Children
- Exercise Motivation
- Double Your Energy - Auto-Matically
- Achieve Your Ideal Weight - Auto-Matically
About Me
2 comments:
Smoking bans the real health hazard
The bandwagon of local smoking bans now steamrolling across the nation -
from sea to sea- has nothing to do with protecting people from the supposed
threat of "second-hand" smoke.
Indeed, the bans themselves are symptoms of a far more grievous threat; a
cancer that has been spreading for decades and has now metastasized
throughout the body politic, spreading even to the tiniest organs of local
government. This cancer is the only real hazard involved - the cancer of
unlimited government power.
The issue is not whether second-hand smoke is a real danger or a phantom
menace, as a study published recently in the British Medical Journal
indicates. The issue is: if it were harmful, what would be the proper
reaction? Should anti-tobacco activists satisfy themselves with educating
people about the potential danger and allowing them to make
their own decisions, or should they seize the power of government and force
people to make the "right" decision?
Supporters of local tobacco bans have made their choice. Rather than
attempting to protect people from an unwanted intrusion on their health, the
tobacco bans are the unwanted intrusion.
Loudly billed as measures that only affect "public places," they have
actually targeted private places: restaurants, bars, nightclubs, shops, and
offices - places whose owners are free to set anti-smoking rules or whose
customers are free to go elsewhere if they don't like the smoke. Some local
bans even harass smokers in places where their effect on others is obviously
negligible, such as outdoor public parks.
The decision to smoke, or to avoid "second-hand" smoke, is a question to be
answered by each individual based on his own values and his own assessment
of the risks. This is the same kind of decision free people make regarding
every aspect of their lives: how much to spend or invest, whom to befriend
or sleep with, whether to go to college or get a job, whether to get married
or divorced, and so on.
All of these decisions involve risks; some have demonstrably harmful
consequences; most are controversial and invite disapproval from the
neighbours. But the individual must be free to make these decisions. He must
be free, because his life belongs to him, not to his neighbours, and only
his own judgment can guide him through it.
Yet when it comes to smoking, this freedom is under attack. Cigarette
smokers are a numerical minority, practicing a habit considered annoying and
unpleasant to the majority. So the majority has simply commandeered the
power of government and used it to dictate their behaviour.
That is why these bans are far more threatening than the prospect of
inhaling a few stray whiffs of tobacco while waiting for a table at your
favourite restaurant. The anti-tobacco crusaders point in exaggerated alarm
at those wisps of smoke while they unleash the systematic and unlimited
intrusion of government into our lives.
We do not elect officials to control and manipulate our behaviour.
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 807 3457258
Thomas,
Thank you for your comment.
Kathleen
Post a Comment