Avoid a legal logjam over Hookah bar bans
This weekend, as the nation raises a toast to the new year, the dry states of Bihar, Gujarat, Mizoram and Nagaland, and the Union territory of Lakshadweep will once again look on in envy and dial the bootlegger. Though the sale of alcohol is prohibited in these states, it is well known that liquor is quite easily available in the thriving black market. Gujarat, which imposed prohibition when the state was formed in 1960, is anything but a dry state; ditto with Bihar.
Alcohol is smuggled in through bootlegging networks oiled by bribes; or it is brewed locally without adequate safeguards, leading to tragedies every now and then. Last December, over 70 people died in Saran district of Bihar after drinking illicit liquor; in July 2022, 125 people in Vadodara and 150 in Ahmedabad in Gujarat met the same fate. All this goes to show that prohibition is a failure. It also means a hefty loss of tax revenues, which the states can use for development. Karnataka, for example, depends on excise revenues to fund its welfare guarantee schemes.
Amid such worries, a debate has arisen over Karnataka’s announcement to ban hookah bars. With this, the state joins Gujarat, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Telangana and Punjab in proscribing such establishments. Karnataka has also raised the age bar for the sale of cigarette and other tobacco products from 18 to 21, and prohibited smoking in all public places except at designated zones.
The confusion is that while some high courts had given legal approval to hookah bar bans, the Supreme Court has rejected it saying that smoking a hookah is akin to smoking cigarettes and a restaurant or hookah lounge is free to operate if it conforms to the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act of 2003. When asked to clarify, the Karnataka health minister said the ban would only apply in public areas.
We know that the hookah can be as injurious to health as cigarettes; it too leads to the inhalation of toxins such as tar and carbon monoxide and damages lungs. But while the government is well within its rights to crack down on the use of narcotics and curb substance abuse, it should avoid trying to clamp down on other personal consumption habits, as this would only lead to surreptitious use. In a democracy, such advice can only be offered; the rest should be left to the individual.