I might be a little too late in posting this. I read on the Twitter feed of OL Tshering Tobgay's blog today that the Tobacco Act was being amended in the afternoon, but that was 15 hours ago.
When I read the Kuensel piece about the proposed amendments to the Tobacco Act, I felt that despite everything, legislators might still not have fully comprehended why people like myself - who never smoke - feel so strongly about why this act is wrong.
Reducing the penalties from a felony to a misdemeanour really doesn't do much. All it does is it makes sure that the poor defaulter finds no way out of prison. After all, what making this a misdemeanour does is make the person pay up or serve the 3 year sentence (3 years is no joke). So who is the one who can pay up? The one with money. And even if this act is just kept there to scare people and might not be implemented severely as some say/think, why have a legislation like that in the first place then? Like Abortion which is a misdemeanour too. What does that do? Simply make the woman feel like she has done something criminal and that she can be punishable with a prison sentence depending on the person executing justice because it is in the law? And because its a misdemeanour you may say she is at least given the choice of paying up. Yes, lets inflict a little more monetary/financial difficulty on that young woman who is already under some psychological (and probably financial) duress else lets send her to prison.
I haven't been able to delve into the issues too much lately and so I was late in following the parliament proceedings. I just don't understand why our legislators feel they need to crack down so severely (even with the amendments which don't do much) on such trivial matters as smoking. Yes, it is trivial especially when in Bhutan there are more severe and burning issues at hand. Like why does the parliament and not the narcotics board determine how much tobacco can be imported or consumed? Doesn't parliament have anything better to do? seriously, is this what they can spend their time debating or legislating?
The whole notion of the severity of smoking is something that is trending globally but there are ways of helping curb this habit without infringing on people's civil liberties. Bhutan always claims that they can learn from others mistakes but it might be better or more helpful if we first start learning from our own.
When I read the Kuensel piece about the proposed amendments to the Tobacco Act, I felt that despite everything, legislators might still not have fully comprehended why people like myself - who never smoke - feel so strongly about why this act is wrong.
Reducing the penalties from a felony to a misdemeanour really doesn't do much. All it does is it makes sure that the poor defaulter finds no way out of prison. After all, what making this a misdemeanour does is make the person pay up or serve the 3 year sentence (3 years is no joke). So who is the one who can pay up? The one with money. And even if this act is just kept there to scare people and might not be implemented severely as some say/think, why have a legislation like that in the first place then? Like Abortion which is a misdemeanour too. What does that do? Simply make the woman feel like she has done something criminal and that she can be punishable with a prison sentence depending on the person executing justice because it is in the law? And because its a misdemeanour you may say she is at least given the choice of paying up. Yes, lets inflict a little more monetary/financial difficulty on that young woman who is already under some psychological (and probably financial) duress else lets send her to prison.
I haven't been able to delve into the issues too much lately and so I was late in following the parliament proceedings. I just don't understand why our legislators feel they need to crack down so severely (even with the amendments which don't do much) on such trivial matters as smoking. Yes, it is trivial especially when in Bhutan there are more severe and burning issues at hand. Like why does the parliament and not the narcotics board determine how much tobacco can be imported or consumed? Doesn't parliament have anything better to do? seriously, is this what they can spend their time debating or legislating?
The whole notion of the severity of smoking is something that is trending globally but there are ways of helping curb this habit without infringing on people's civil liberties. Bhutan always claims that they can learn from others mistakes but it might be better or more helpful if we first start learning from our own.
2 comments:
For as long as jail bonds and bails are available, the law will always favor those who can pay. You know what they say, if you're looking for justice, you won't find it in the law.
Unfortunately, what you say is true :(
Post a Comment