Say, smoking. Well, I stopped it a while ago but tempted to start it again because of some false information spreading in the media.
Yes, I'm aware that the people who smoke are vulnerable to lung cancer as well as the people who are exposed to the smoke by others. Is this really a proven concept or just a vague statistics? I want to ask a few questions to any one who advocates for no-smoking. How many of the smokers died because of illness irrelevant to smoking? Or how many of the non-smokers died because of lung cancer(even though there is no proof of passive smoking?). I bet there will be no reliable answer.
I see nowadays many of us are buying four-wheelers for just the sake of status. One person is driving his car for a couple of tens of kilometers to his work. But the vehicle is made for four or six passengers. The emission from this vehicle is much more large in volume than the smoke generated by a pack of cigarettes. And now this person is advocating for no-smoking.
The government is interested in the celebrated "inclusive growth". For eg., That condenses to a fact that each citizen should have his own means of transport rather than depending on public transport.
If this "inclusive growth" is going to be promoted by the Government, I see no advancement made by recommending no-smoke zone in public places. The emission from each family of our huge country will surpass any standards set by smoking. Why the Government is silent about that?
Now my view on this topic:
There are groups against the capitalism of the cigarette manufacturers (at least in India) who just want to hinder the production of cigarettes. Mostly these are communists and they want the capitalists should be checked.
But the irony is the smoker population in the states ruled by the communists (e.g., Kerala, WB) is higher than any other state in India.
INCREDIBLE INDIA!!!
