Pooja Bedi: "Absolutely absurd. Alcohol can de-stress, calm and you can be healthy when taken in moderation. We can get married, have sex, bear children, work, pay taxes vote etc at 18. But we can't drink! They should focus on policing snd stringent punishment as deterrents for misuse of alcohol. Ban cigarettes. That will save more lives. "
Shekhar Suman: "It is the most bizarre and stupid legislation ever. I think someone thought of this in a drunken stupor. In a country where the voting and marriage age is 18 I don't think the government has any damn business to tell grownups when to drink.
Then you are just provoking them to drink more. It is erratic and undemocratic. Cigarettes and alcohol are the two biggest killers. The government should have the guts to ban them completely. "
Hansal Mehta (sarcastically): "Not only alcohol before 25, they should prohibit sex before 25. They should also prohibit watching movies before 25.
In fact the minimum age for voting should be changed to 35. And the minimum age for holding public office should be 55. And the retirement age should be increased to 75. After all with the alcohol prohibition people will live longer!"
Hema Malini: "I think it's a very good decision. "
Jagmohan Mundhra: "Rather than changing the eligibility criteria for alcohol consumption the government needs to change the eligibility criteria for fighting elections. Convicted felons get to be politicians while young adults are denied party drinks?!
It's a warped morality. Instead of banning stuff that would be even more favoured when forbidden, government should concentrate on educating youth on responsible behaviour. Banning alcohol only encourages illicit trade and criminalization. "
Vipul Shah: "Why not the same for gutka and smoking? Does the government feel that's less harmless? When will learn to avoid stupid decisions? If this is how we think let's not call ourselves a democracy. "
Vikram Bhatt: "25 is a bit much I think. 21 seems right. If you're responsible enough to cast a vote at 21 you are responsible enough to hold your drinks. "
Mahesh Bhatt: "How will they implement this new rule?"
Anant Mahadevan: "Personally we're all for it, though we aren't fooling anyone when it comes to prohibition. It's like the Adults Only certificate where under 18s easily get access.
This law too will be mocked. But I support the move because cigarettes and alcohol are the most abused substances. I say why not ban cigarettes too for under 25?"
Shabana Azmi: "It has not been done ad-hoc. Recent survey shows that alcohol consumption amongst the young has reached dangerous levels and frequency of drinking and driving accidents have increased among the young eventhough they've reduced among older generations.
It is fine for hard liquor not to be served in public places although they'll still drink privately, but at least in safer surroundings. "
Sudhir Mishra: "Any form of banning only leads to criminalization and corruption. The young today are far wiser than we think and are also more health-conscious. "
Lilette Dubey: "21 in this day and age is sufficiently old to deter very young people from consuming alcohol. Even with this age-limit kids find a way to circumvent the rule.
Today, 25 is an absurdly high age to impose a ban on drinking. Youngsters are working and married by then. This ban will just lead to more people faking IDs and finding ingenious ways to break the rule. A ban is no deterrent. We need harsher laws. "
Ronit Roy: "Where is this coming from? How is that possible? Constitutionally at 21 an adult has the right to choose the government, get married and start a family.
Instead of such laws we should have public messages for responsible drinking by alcohol companies and stricter action for alcohol-related crimes including drunken driving. More than drinking I think we need to curb drug abuse. "
Kabir Bedi: "It will be as successful as the liquor licence every drinker in Mumbai is supposed to have. Scrap silly laws. Don't make more. There're bigger things to worry about. "
Pritish Nandy: "After hijacking our hard-earned tax-paid money, our land, our parks, forests and mangroves, the government now wants to hijack the role of the parents.
Who is the State to decide whether a 21-year old or a 25-year old should drink?It's a ridiculous idea. The Nanny state back at work. You can fight and die for your country before you're 25. But you can't have a drink? Only lawmakers in a drunken state would approve such a proposal. "
Shekhar Kapoor: "It says they cannot be served drinks. Does that also mean they can't pick it it up themselves?"
Rahul Dholakia (who's making a film on prohibition): "I think if you can vote for a government at 18 you are obviously an adult who can decide what is right or wrong for you and your country. If you've achieved that maturity at 18 then you are mature enough to decide on less significant matters like drinking. I think the drinking and voting age should be the same. "
Tigmanshu Dhulia: "I think this is nonsense. What about kids who are 23-24 and had started drinking when they were 22? They will get booze illegally. This is another form of exploitation in the garb of social service. "
Sanjay Gupta: "It's pretty stupid. If you're old enough to vote then you're old enough to know what's good or bad for you. And why must different states have different fundmental laws?"
Pooja Bhatt: "Schizophrenic decision. You are permitted to vote marry and obtain a drivers' licence when you are 18. So I find it difficult to comprehend why they decided 25 is the right age for alcohol to be served to you. "
Ram Gopal Varma: "I am sure all the decision-makers obviously will be above 25 so that they can drink all they want.
Also then, they should raise the minimum voting age to 25 as I can't understand how if a guy below 25 is unqualified to decide if he should drink or not is qualified to decide who forms the government. "
No comments:
Post a Comment