What happens when a logical conclusion is not met for any rule
and/or regulation is created? Well, simply giving in to the tendency to
do something that you may be aware is wrong.
It
is sad to see the recent developments surrounding the SC notification
on restricting selling of alcohol within 500m distance from state and
national highways. First, it created chaos to begin with. Then, it
resulted in knee-jerk reactions (understandable) from the restaurateurs
to cut jobs in order to manage their sustainability. This has
subsequently created a sudden fear toward hospitality as a career option
as rules could further change the course of its future, consequences of
which are not only limited to direct employment but also related to the
allied segments, such as commercial kitchen equipment.
It is utterly disappointing to see the respectable think tank of the country thinking without scanning the real scenario.
"I
am at a distance of 501m and people can buy liquor from me. And it is a
fact that those buying liquor from me are not going to engage in drunk
driving and more importantly, they won't commit any accidents."
What
would you say to this? My point is such cases give rise to more avenues
to do wrong. Do you think people will now not drink who used to do so
while driving. He will definitely arrange for his stock. Who suffers the
most... restaurateurs. Result: no change due to rules. Who won: none.
What an amazing story for us to tell our future generations...