And editorials weighing on the smoking ban appear. At least in the ET. The ET editorial puts forward three arguments, all of which I find somewhat lacking.
Argument 1: The government is being hypocritical. On the one hand it helps tobacco farmers, and on the other hand it bans advertising, imposes heavy taxes on cigarettes.
What is the alternative - the government banning ban smoking completely - including cultivation and all? If it does, as the editorial itself notes, then a black market for cigarettes will arise and then the government anyway stands to lose a source of revenue. It might as well keep things legal and get some revenue too.
Argument 2: Will the government ban adultery, rape, corruption, violence, financial exploitation, all of which glamourise undesirable, hazardous behaviour?
1. Smoking is easier to do than each of the above
2. Smoking is addictive while none of the above are, as far as I know
3. Children are especially vulnerable to the influence of films and film stars: 'Film actors have a lasting impact on the minds of children and young adults.' and when film actors smoke kids might be tempted to follow.
4. The government is not trying to be moral here - it is more of an immediate public health issue (see below).
Argument 3: Alcohol is equally harmful. Will the censors ban all drinking scenes in movies?
1. Drinking is not in the same ball park - it has negative connotations in Indian movies. The hero rarely drinks as a sign of machismo or rebellion or bravado. It is usally when he fails in something that the bottle appears.
2. Again it is easy to light up a cigarette than to swig from a bottle - except at night perhaps.
One counter-argument I can think of is : since it is not possible to ban smoking, adultery and so? on, would it be alright to depict drug use regularly in movies? As something enjoyable?
Finally, it may be wrong to put a moral angle on the ban. It is also a simple question of lives and money. This column notes that 8 lakh people die every year in India as a result of tobacco-related diseases, and several lakhs are disabled. And the government spends Rs 15,500 crores on treatment on treating people with tobacco-related ailments. And 55,000 children join the ranks of the smokers every day as opposed to 3000 in the US. I am skeptical of the numbers - I'm not sure how they were arrived at - but they could be accurate too. Even if reality is half as bad the numbers would still be bad.
My crib against the ban is the scope of it and whether it is doable as proposed. For example, who will add the scrolling text to the old movies and foreign movies? Who will blur the cigarettes? I feel the ban should have been restricted to new and future movies. And of course TV. As for the ban stifling a film maker's spirit - I would say since they are creative people, they will find a way. Villains, in the absence of cigarettes, could be shown with horrifying hairdos, eye patches, scarred chins, half disfigured faces, and so son. As they have been shown many a time.
Argument 1: The government is being hypocritical. On the one hand it helps tobacco farmers, and on the other hand it bans advertising, imposes heavy taxes on cigarettes.
What is the alternative - the government banning ban smoking completely - including cultivation and all? If it does, as the editorial itself notes, then a black market for cigarettes will arise and then the government anyway stands to lose a source of revenue. It might as well keep things legal and get some revenue too.
Argument 2: Will the government ban adultery, rape, corruption, violence, financial exploitation, all of which glamourise undesirable, hazardous behaviour?
1. Smoking is easier to do than each of the above
2. Smoking is addictive while none of the above are, as far as I know
3. Children are especially vulnerable to the influence of films and film stars: 'Film actors have a lasting impact on the minds of children and young adults.' and when film actors smoke kids might be tempted to follow.
4. The government is not trying to be moral here - it is more of an immediate public health issue (see below).
Argument 3: Alcohol is equally harmful. Will the censors ban all drinking scenes in movies?
1. Drinking is not in the same ball park - it has negative connotations in Indian movies. The hero rarely drinks as a sign of machismo or rebellion or bravado. It is usally when he fails in something that the bottle appears.
2. Again it is easy to light up a cigarette than to swig from a bottle - except at night perhaps.
One counter-argument I can think of is : since it is not possible to ban smoking, adultery and so? on, would it be alright to depict drug use regularly in movies? As something enjoyable?
Finally, it may be wrong to put a moral angle on the ban. It is also a simple question of lives and money. This column notes that 8 lakh people die every year in India as a result of tobacco-related diseases, and several lakhs are disabled. And the government spends Rs 15,500 crores on treatment on treating people with tobacco-related ailments. And 55,000 children join the ranks of the smokers every day as opposed to 3000 in the US. I am skeptical of the numbers - I'm not sure how they were arrived at - but they could be accurate too. Even if reality is half as bad the numbers would still be bad.
My crib against the ban is the scope of it and whether it is doable as proposed. For example, who will add the scrolling text to the old movies and foreign movies? Who will blur the cigarettes? I feel the ban should have been restricted to new and future movies. And of course TV. As for the ban stifling a film maker's spirit - I would say since they are creative people, they will find a way. Villains, in the absence of cigarettes, could be shown with horrifying hairdos, eye patches, scarred chins, half disfigured faces, and so son. As they have been shown many a time.
No comments:
Post a Comment