The other day over the lunch Mallaya bidding for IPL players came up; and with Mallaya came his wealth, the way he made money, MG said was unethical, the reason being he was selling alchohol. This basically set the mood for the day's afternoon debate :) which I found entertaining enough to blog about. The topic then formally was, "Should the goverment interfere in the operations of cigerattes/daru companies?". Interestingly I was against the topic... [Interesting because I am a non-smoking tee-totaller :) Infact the only selfish reason I have to be against the motion is that I own ITC(Indian Tobacco Company) stocks ;)]
Anyways, in brief the best points for/against the motion were:
Against :- It hampers the freewill of an individual, we are born with the right to choose for ourselves
For :- If all were to have their freewill then there should be no legal system, let people steal/rape/kill
Against :- Stealing/Rape/Murder affects somebody else's freedom Govt is doing right in protecting it. Drunk driving should be banned because it can cause an accident leading to somebody's death. We accept that drinking is bad because the chances that a drunk person would do something he would regret or cause others harm is much higher then when he is sober but so is a person in anger. The point we are trying to make is, what the Govt CAN do and SHOULD do is to educate people about the ill-effects of Alcohol and Cigerettes instead of trying to stop them from doing it.
For :- Society as a whole takes a course over time, the Govt's role is to shape the course, if alcohol is not available much lesser number of people will drink and consequently they will contribute positively in the society's direction ahead.
Against :- People who dont know what is good or bad for them or who cant control their actions knowing something is not good for them are not the kinds who will take the society anywhere.
For :- [By far the best argument :)] The govt has social responsibilities towards people. It has to ensure that everybody gets proper health treatment/facilities, now drinkers/smokers being worse off than non-smokers and non-drinkers take more money to mantain [>:)] hence economically, for the good of the larger population, the govt should stop the people from being high-mantainence [Credit goes to BS for the wonderful argument]
As you might have noticed that since I was arguing against the motion, the post is biased towards my viewpoint :)
Thoughts?
Anyways, in brief the best points for/against the motion were:
Against :- It hampers the freewill of an individual, we are born with the right to choose for ourselves
For :- If all were to have their freewill then there should be no legal system, let people steal/rape/kill
Against :- Stealing/Rape/Murder affects somebody else's freedom Govt is doing right in protecting it. Drunk driving should be banned because it can cause an accident leading to somebody's death. We accept that drinking is bad because the chances that a drunk person would do something he would regret or cause others harm is much higher then when he is sober but so is a person in anger. The point we are trying to make is, what the Govt CAN do and SHOULD do is to educate people about the ill-effects of Alcohol and Cigerettes instead of trying to stop them from doing it.
For :- Society as a whole takes a course over time, the Govt's role is to shape the course, if alcohol is not available much lesser number of people will drink and consequently they will contribute positively in the society's direction ahead.
Against :- People who dont know what is good or bad for them or who cant control their actions knowing something is not good for them are not the kinds who will take the society anywhere.
For :- [By far the best argument :)] The govt has social responsibilities towards people. It has to ensure that everybody gets proper health treatment/facilities, now drinkers/smokers being worse off than non-smokers and non-drinkers take more money to mantain [>:)] hence economically, for the good of the larger population, the govt should stop the people from being high-mantainence [Credit goes to BS for the wonderful argument]
As you might have noticed that since I was arguing against the motion, the post is biased towards my viewpoint :)
Thoughts?
1 comment:
Alcohol is banned in Gujarat. I am also told that the consumption of alcohol is the maximum in Gujarat. But the good thing about the ban is that at least this makes people drink inside their houses. So, though one can't really stop people from drinking or smoking, a ban in some sense keeps the city clean... :-)
Post a Comment