T BHANU

We all know that soliciting in public is a punishable offence. But can one strike a hush-hush deal witha sex worker, escort her to a hotel room, or a private place and partake of her `service’ on offer? The answer is yes and no.

Yes, because the law is `silent’ on anyone purchasing the services offered by the sex worker provided no public nuisance is involved. No, because the law enforcing agencies can think otherwise. It is quite likely that you have come across reports of raids conducted on hotels and other public places and couples being taken into custody, allegedly on grounds of immortal trafficking. It hardly matters to our over-zealous custodians of law even if the couples in question sometimes turn out to be actually married! So rampant is the misuse of law in this country that enforcement differs from place to place, and perhaps from person to person, depending on the whims of the authority. Some can be more equal than others depending on the influence they wield. Invariably, hapless victims do not get released until they pay up, notwithstanding the clearly stated position in the Suppression of Immoral Traffic Act (SITA).

It’s here that one needs to delve into the recent judgement of the Supreme Court banning smoking in public places. Let there be no mistake that the order is intended for the overall well-being of our citizens. But what is the guarantee that the order will not be misused by the police to harass and, shall we say, extort money? The Court has defined what constitutes public places – theatres, auditoria, educational institutions, hospitals and the like. Does this mean that one can smoke in a moving car? We don’t know. Taking a cue from British law, one may not attract the prying eyes of the police as long as one is smoking inside a moving vehicle. But a stationary vehicle is construed to be a public place, and if you smoke inside it, you are liable to be fined.

Back home, such distinctions can come in handy for the law enforcing agencies to penalise smokers. Of course, legal recourse is possible if one is falsely implicated, but this presupposes that the average citizen is an enlightened legal eagle. Even among the educated, few are privy to such legal knowledge. One can then well imagine what is in store for millions of illiterate smokers. Perhaps smokers in urban centres may be spared, but no such mercy can be expected in the country-side where the police can play havoc with innocents. Ignorance is no bliss, right?

Fundamentally, there are two issues which need to be looked into seriously. First, can one legally take the cigarette off one’s lips? The answer is in the negative. If the idea is to curb smoking, then it must have something to do with the availability and price of the cigarette. As long as cigarettes are freely available, without burning holes in the pocket, people will stick to the cancer stick. That brings us to the issue of making cigarettes prohibitively expensive by imposing what is called a sintax. Here the government steps in and announces to its people that taxes are being raised year after year, not as much for revenue collection as for keeping the cigarette out of the reach of the smoker. This is a policy pursued in Singapore, for instance, which also follows a strict regiment against smoking in public places. Star hotels there (as in Europe and the West) will ascertain whether you are a smoker before allotting a room in the smoking zone. If you beat the restriction by getting into a non-smoking room, chances are that the smoke detector fitted in the room will call your bluff and you may end up paying a fine in that fine country (Singapore) where there is a fine for everything! Can one think of such punitive measures in Japan, where smokers constitute 40 per cent of the population? (When smoking is banned on almost all commercial flights across the globe, Japan Airlines have designated smoking sections on all their flights).

Mere tinkering with cigarette prices also will not suffice when smuggling is rampant, as in India. It is estimated that some 10 per cent of the Indian cigarette market of 95 billion sticks is accounted for by smuggling, which is reportedly growing at a menacing 20 per cent every year.

Second, the SC order is silent on bidis and other forms of tobacco consumption. Will those smoking bidis in public attract punishment, or will they be allowed to go scot-free because bidis are not cigarettes? One is not clear on this point. Again, where do those who smoke cigarettes/bidis at festivals and feasts stand vis-a-vis the SC order? There is no clear-cut answer to this just as one cannot pronounce whether a village well, or a small tea stall by the wayside, constitutes a public place. All this depends on the interpretation and, indeed, the mood of the beat cop.

While there can be no second opinion about the harmful effects of smoking, it must be borne in mind that cigarette alone is not the villain. In fact, a look at the cigarette consumption pattern is revealing in itself. Between them, bidis and chewing tobacco account for as high as 86 per cent of tobacco consumed in India. That means cigarettes constitutes only 14 per cent. Yet, both these major segments – accounting for a consumption of 43 per cent each – seem to be outside the purview of the SC order. Even though bidis and chewing tobacco have a higher tar and nicotine content than cigarettes, they have not been brought into the net. This is most unfortunate, to say the least.

Being an addict, one needs strong will, not Wills. The urge has to come from within. (Isn’t it easy to give up smoking and start it all over again?) A carefully crafted awareness programme on the risks associated with tobacco consumption can go long way in that direction. Perhaps the health ministry could take a lead and lend a helping hand to various NGOs to propagate a nationwide campaign. Indeed, everyone – even those in the remotest of corners – has the right to be informed about the hazards posed by tobacco consumption.