Job´ber`nowl`-ism

Firstly, we have to decide if smoking is bad for us. Once we come to that conclusion, we are then morally bound to find ways to eliminate the danger. The fundamental aim should be to bring about an end to smoking. There may be legal issues involved in it. Don't I have the right to smoke my way to cancer? Aren't there several other means to ruin? Is the Government bent on putting an end to all these threats?

Obviously, all these issues have to be studied in detail. Can a man indulge in something which will harm him, even though such an indulgence does not cause any problem to other people directly? Generally speaking, he can, as long as he mentally or physically does not reach a stage where he is a drag on society. Like sitting in his room, looking at the fan for hours or writing down the alphabet repeatedly. All that you may have against him is that he is not contributing anything to the society. Which, he may not have to. And the issue at a subtler level may raise questions about his right to be a weight on the shoulders of the society. Does the society have a duty to take care of such lotus eaters? Non-contribution to society and expecting contribution from society are the issues involved in such cases. You have to arrive at a sensible blend of duty to society and consideration to individual preferences, in order to handle such issues with a humane touch.
Now about smoking. You know that smoking harms you. More importantly, it harms the innocent non-smokers also. The only crime they have done, is not to have demanded any action against smoking. Okay, now you are sure that it is your duty to see that smoking does not harm at least the non-smokers. Administrative measures have to be taken. But does it end there? What are we going to do when the smoker gets cancer or a heart problem? Who is going to foot his medical bills? In some cases, it is the government directly and in other cases, the medical insurance firms and that again affects the premium to be paid by the non-smoker also.

Smoking like most other issues, has two sides to it. Supply and demand. The Government has to initiate awareness campaigns so that people come to know of the real danger involved in smoking. How it harms you and your dear ones. How it drains you financially. Yes, the money spent on cigarettes and later on treatment. Ban on smoking at places where it may affect others should be the first area to be targeted. Then the issue of the smoker's close relatives has to be looked into. Incrementally, more and more obstructions have to placed before him so that he finds it difficult to find a place to take a puff.

But that alone may not win the battle for you. The initial enthusiasm to implement the rules, may wane in due course and cigarettes will pop up surreptitiously and slowly at the most unexpected places. So something has to be done to reduce the supply of cigarettes, if not stop it altogether. This side of law making may run into serious obstacles as it affects the manufacturers, the labor and the thousands of retailers. That could be a strong lobby. But it is this camp the fight has to be carried into if we would like to have any chance of winning the battle. The kind of money we get from cigarettes is not enough to pay for the medical and social costs of smoking. But political will alone can carry the day for the closure of cigarette production facilities will raise the kind of clatter which would make the vote-hungry politician scurrying for cover. Government can do it in phases, perhaps. Initially they can decide against raising the capacity of these units. Then ask them to reduce their production level gradually.
The Government can discourage the cultivation of tobacco in India. And it can impose a heavy duty on tobacco imports. This along with stiff taxation on the finished product could bring down the availability of cigarettes.
It may be, to go by the strictest human rights values, interpreted as a violation. But you can plead not guilty as it is the responsibility of the Government to take care of the health, physical and mental, of the people. And experiencing the travails of a ‘persecuted’ group, may influence the smokers’ sensibilities when they happen to be on the side of the majority on some other issue!