TOPIC : WHY THE LIQUOR PROHIBITION IS NOT EFFECTIVE?

Print

THE CONTEXT: India has a long history of various states experimenting with various laws on liquor, ranging from total prohibition to restricted sale of alcohol to phased closure of liquor shops.  As liquor contributes sizeable revenue to the exchequer, it has never been an easy decision for any state government to impose the prohibition.  Presently, there are four states – Bihar, Gujarat, Nagaland and Mizoram – and the Union Territory of Lakshadweep, where total prohibition is in place. This article analyses the causes behind the not-so-successful liquor prohibitions in India.

Alcohol use disorder (AUD) is a medical condition characterized by an impaired ability to stop or control alcohol use despite adverse social, occupational, or health consequences. It encompasses the conditions that some people refer to as alcohol abuse, alcohol dependence, alcohol addiction, and the colloquial term, alcoholism.

THE OVERVIEW: Alcohol is a toxic and psychoactive substance with dependence-producing properties. In many of today’s societies, alcoholic beverages are a routine part of the social landscape for many in the population. This is particularly true for those in social environments with high visibility and societal influence, nationally and internationally, where alcohol frequently accompanies socializing. In this context, it is easy to overlook or discount the health and social damage caused or contributed to by drinking.

• Alcohol consumption contributes to 3 million deaths each year globally as well as to the disabilities and poor health of millions of people. Overall, the harmful use of alcohol is responsible for 5.1% of the global burden of disease.
• Harmful use of alcohol is accountable for 7.1% and 2.2% of the global burden of disease for males and females respectively. Alcohol is the leading risk factor for premature mortality and disability among those aged 15 to 49 years, accounting for 10 per cent of all deaths in this age group. Disadvantaged and especially vulnerable populations have higher rates of alcohol-related death and hospitalization.

THE HISTORY OF PROHIBITION OF LIQUOR AROUND THE WORLD

The term prohibition refers to the legal prevention of the manufacture, storage, transportation, distribution, sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages with the aim of obtaining total abstinence through legal means. Prohibition and temperance have had an overlapping history in many countries since ancient times like in ancient China, Aztec civilisation and feudal Japanese society.

The anti-liquor movement in the West is nearly two centuries two-centuries-old. An abstinence pledge was introduced by churches in the United States as early as 1800. One of the landmarks in the internationalisation of the movement was the organisation of the World Prohibition Conference in London, in 1909. It was instrumental in the formation of the International Prohibition Confederation, embracing the United States, the European countries and a few other industrialised countries of the world. Nationwide prohibition was enforced in the United States in 1920 (via the 18th Amendment and National Prohibition Act). However, post-1933 a tilt towards liberalisation was seen as countries were unable to stop illicit liquor sales and were losing out on revenue. In 1933, the National Prohibition Act was repealed in the U.S.

THE CURRENT STATUS OF PROHIBITION IN THE WORLD

Most countries that introduced prohibition have withdrawn or liberalised the measure like the U.S, Japan, China etc. At present, there is a complete prohibition of liquor in 5countries in the Middle East/North Africa which include Afghanistan, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Somalia and Sudan. Some other countries like Brunei Darussalam, Comoro, Iran, Kuwait, Maldives, Mauritania, Pakistan, Palestine, Syria and Yemen – prohibit alcohol for Muslim citizens only. The United Arab Emirates allows for some sale of alcohol except for the region of Sharjah.

LIQUOR PROHIBITION IN INDIA

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

• Article 47: The Directive Principle in the Constitution of India states that “The state shall undertake rules to bring about prohibition of the consumption except for medicinal purposes of intoxicating drinks and of drugs which are injurious to health”.
• State Subject: Alcohol is a subject in the State list under the seventh schedule of the Indian Constitution.

OTHER PROHIBITION ACTS IN INDIA

• Bombay Abkari Act, 1878: The first hint at the prohibition of liquor was through the Bombay Abkari Act, 1878 (in the Province of Bombay). This Act dealt with the levying of duties on intoxicants, among other things and aspects of prohibition via amendments made in 1939 and 1947.
• Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949: There were “many lacunae” in the Bombay Abkari Act, 1878, from the point of view of the government’s decision to enforce prohibition. This led to the birth of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949. The Supreme Court (SC) upheld the Act broadly barring a few sections in 1951 in the judgment of the State of Bombay and Ors. vs FN Balsara (1951).
• Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949: Gujarat adopted the prohibition policy in 1960 and subsequently chose to enforce it with greater rigidity, but also made processes easier for foreign tourists and visitors to get liquor permits. In 2011, the Act was renamed as Gujarat Prohibition Act. In 2017, the Gujarat Prohibition (Amendment) Act was passed with the provision of up to ten years in jail for manufacturing, purchase, sale and transportation of liquor in the dry state.
• Bihar Prohibition Act, 2016: The Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act was brought into effect in 2016. Over 3.5 lakh people have been arrested under the stringent prohibition law since 2016, leading to crowded jails and clogged courts.
• Other States: Alcohol prohibition in India is in force in the states of Mizoram, and Nagaland as well as in the union territory of Lakshadweep

RATIONALE BEHIND PROHIBITION OF LIQUOR

HEALTH BENEFITS

• Drinking liquor places an adverse impact on human health. It diminishes the utility and functioning of the vital organs of the body, especially the liver and kidney. According to the WHO, the harmful use of alcohol is a causal factor in more than 200 disease and injury conditions and globally 3 million death occur every year due to harmful use of alcohol (5.3% of all deaths).

CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATION

• Article 47 of the Constitution directs the State to take measures to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of living and to improve public health. Further, the State shall endeavour to bring about prohibition of the consumption of intoxicating drinks and of drugs which are injurious to health.

CURB GENDER VIOLENCE

• Several studies have pointed out a direct correlation between consumption of alcohol and gender violence, including in the domestic setting. A study in Bihar found that 40% of ever-married women aged between 15 and 49 reported that they experienced physical, sexual or emotional violence by their husbands during the previous 12 months.
• Proponents argue that the prohibition of liquor has the potential to bring down the levels of intimate partner violence. A study conducted in Bihar has supported the argument e.g., there has been a 28.9% reduction in crimes against women in Bihar between 2016-2019 (after prohibition)

REDUCTION IN CRIM

• A reduction in alcohol consumption is also desired to reduce crime in society as intoxication impairs an individual’s ability to distinguish between right and wrong.
• A report by the Asian Development Research Institute (ADRI) on prohibition in Bihar noted there was a 66.6% dip in cases of kidnapping for ransom, followed by a 28.3% dip in murder cases and 2.3% in dacoity.

ECONOMIC STRESS

• Addiction to alcohol creates severe hardships, especially for poor families as the male members tend to spend more on alcohol due to their excessive addiction. This in turn reduces the budget for spending on essential items and in many cases pushes the family into borrowing.
• The 1992 Anti-arrack movement that took place in Andhra Pradesh is a testimony to this. The money saved due to the prohibition of liquor is used more productively, e.g., the ADRI study pointed out that 19% of households acquired new assets from the money they earlier splurged on alcohol.

THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE PROHIBITION OF LIQUOR

RIGHT TO CHOICE

• A total ban goes against an individual’s right to choice and undermines a person’s freedom.

ECONOMIC LOSS

• The Indian Made Foreign Liquors (IMFL) industry contributes over INR 1 lakh crore in taxes every year. It supports the livelihood of 35 lakh farming families and provides direct and indirect employment to lakhs of workers employed in the industry. It also supports hundreds of ancillary industries in glass, tin, plastic and paper with a turnover of Rs 6,000-7,000 crore.
• Moreover, complete prohibition has a negative impact on the tourism and hospitality sectors.

BOOTLEGGING

• Failure of effective implementation gives rise to bootlegging (the illegal production, transport and sale of liquor). Liquor mafias emerge which keep on supplying illicit liquor (with no quality checks) to the masses. This defeats the purpose of the prohibition of liquor and gives rise to organized crime as well.

HEALTH IMPACTS

• Many people lose their lives by consuming poor-quality illicit liquor (hooch). News reports indicate that as many as 60 people have died after consuming hooch in Bihar since November 2021. Alcohol prohibition may also lead people into consuming other substances which are easy to smuggle and may result in greater health and social consequences.

POPULIST MEASURE

• Critics argue that Alcohol prohibition is merely used as a political card, especially to woo women, voters. However, it doesn’t solve their problems as people addicted to alcohol end up consuming hooch and other illegal alcoholic substances whose impact is similar or even worse than legally manufactured alcohol.

THE CHEQUERED HISTORY OF LIQUOR BAN IN INDIA

• Gujarat (which has been under prohibition for most of its existence) has a thriving illegal liquor industry. For reference, neighbouring Daman has a per capita consumption of 56 litres per annum against the national average of just 4.3 litres per annum. It is estimated that the state loses revenue to the tune of Rs 8,000 crore annually. Off-late Gujarat has diluted prohibition to contain negative fall out on tourism and MICE (meetings, incentives, conferences and exhibitions) sector.
• Haryana, Tamil Nadu and Kerala too have experimented with prohibition at different times but abolished it due to its ineffectiveness. Prohibition did not solve the problem of alcohol consumption—it only drove it underground. In recent times Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland and Manipur have also overturned years-old prohibition policies due to their failure.
• Maharashtra has archaic laws of permits to drink (bars are called ‘permit rooms’) despite the fact that it has never been enforced. It now intends to enforce permits for small private parties at home. Similarly, there are inexplicable limits on the stocking of alcohol for personal consumption. Such ad-hocism prevents a consistent public policy aimed at creating a culture of responsible drinking.
• Bihar introduced complete prohibition in April 2016. While it certainly has led to a reduction in alcohol consumption, the related social, economic, and administrative costs have been far too much to justify gains. Prohibition crippled the judicial administration. So far over 2.14 lakh cases have been registered under the Act; 2.55 lakh people have been booked and 1.67 lakh arrests have been made. Nearly 40,000 bail applications are pending in the High Court, which has expressed its anguish at the turn of events and questioned how it can deal with this enormous pendency. Ironically, liquor sales in districts in Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal bordering Bihar have seen a sharp rise.

CASE STUDY FROM BIHAR

• Ever since the Janata Dal (United) government banned liquor in 2016, drug use has gone up among young Biharis. Heroin, ganja, charas, and intravenous drugs have been the refuge of addicts in the state. A UDAYA study found that consumption was higher among rural boys (21 per cent) in Bihar than urban ones (17 per cent). Police in Seemanchal’s districts says petty crimes have also risen, as have the recovery of drugs, phones and cough syrup bottles.
• And yet, nobody seems to be doing anything about it. Economically poor and socially backward, Seemanchal sends its children to Delhi, Kolkata, and other big cities for better education and jobs each year. Some leave as migrant workers and some as government job seekers. But when the nationwide lockdown was announced in 2020, the young returned with no jobs and no work. With them, entered different types of addiction, drugs and boredom.

THE ANALYSIS – OF WHY THE LIQUOR PROHIBITION IS NOT EFFECTIVE

LESSONS OF HISTORY

• Those who support alcohol prohibition point at the dangers of drinking, the lives it has destroyed and the misery it has caused. They no doubt have a point, but that only indicates that alcohol consumption should be regulated in the public interest, not that it be totally prohibited. Historical experience has shown that liquor bans are ineffective and even counter-productive, and only give rise to crime and deaths by consumers drinking illicit liquor. Experience has shown that bans seldom work. They just push the alcohol consumption underground which then brings the criminal element into the picture.

PREVALENCE OF CORRUPTION

• Generally, the local officials form a nexus with the liquor mafia and overlook the underground activities. This police-mafia nexus problem is not limited to India, this had been evident in the US as well during the period of prohibition (1920-33).

DYNAMIC MODUS OPERANDI

• The modus operandi of unlawful players keeps on changing from time to time. The places of production, mode of transportation, and code languages keep on changing which are very difficult to detect.

SUPPORT BY NEIGHBOURING REGIONS

• The liquor gets smuggled from the neighbouring states, e.g., Daman (neighbouring Gujarat) has a per capita consumption of 56 litres per annum against the national average of just 4.3 litres per annum. The data show it plays a key role in meeting the demand of Gujarat.

HUGE SUPPLY OF WORKFORCE

• There is a huge supply of unemployed youth who want to make quick money by smuggling illicit liquor. The youth who get caught are quickly replaced. Further bail can be easily obtained due to nexus with officials.

HIGH DEGREE OF ADDICTION

• The ban doesn’t reduce the demand for alcohol but rather intensifies it. People are willing to risk their lives and drink illicit liquor just to satisfy their addiction. In Bihar, the prohibition indirectly increased the use of drugs and other harmful substances among those who could not get hold of alcohol.

The demand for alcohol is inelastic, i.e. whatever the price of alcohol, we can always find a crowd at every alcohol shop. So, when a law is established prohibiting the manufacturing or sale of alcohol, it impacts the supply side of the market. Basically, a law like Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act 2016 (BPEA), hardly influences the demand side of the market, which is inelastic in nature. The result is that, in a new market equilibrium, there is a negligible reduction in the consumption of alcohol, but the price of alcohol rises. It can be said that the law can actually worsen the lives of families of alcohol addicts, instead of making them better off.

Prohibitory laws cannot alter the demand side of the alcohol market. Instead of making laws, the government should work towards something that would influence the demand side of the consumer. One alternative is to disseminate awareness among people at the village or panchayat level. Awareness drives can help in reducing the demand.

Mere law passed in an assembly by a few people can’t bring social change. If the government had spent just 50% of the revenue it receives from the duties on alcohol on educating people about the hazardous effects of alcohol, it could have brought a better change in the lives of the people and society.

THE WAY FORWARD:

• The idea of prohibition is a classic example of tail-chasing. It is a short-sighted idea which can only get rid of the symptoms, and facilitate ‘out of sight, out of mind’, but can never truly manage to cure the disease. And what is the disease anyway? Linking domestic abuse with increased alcohol consumption is perhaps like being overconfident and assuming the problem is incredulously simple. Domestic abuse by men who squander their limited incomes on alcohol and then come home to beat their wives, or engage in other crimes, and its connection with alcohol consumption needs more research.
• The belief that banning alcohol would check issues related to alcoholism is a very simplistic notion, whereas in reality, the situation is much more complex. Between issues such as morality, prohibition or freedom of choice, also are factors like economy, jobs, etc, which cannot be ignored. What is required is an informed and constructive dialogue on the causes and effects.
• Policymakers should focus on framing laws which encourage responsible behaviour and compliance. The drinking age should be made uniform across the country and no person below that should be permitted to buy alcohol. Tough laws should be made against drunken behaviour in public, domestic violence under the influence, and drinking and driving. Besides, governments should set aside part of revenue earned from alcohol for social education, de-addiction, and community support.
• The point is we know that sugar is bad for health. Should we just ban it or instead get people to consume it less by way of creating awareness?

THE CONCLUSION: Prohibition risks bringing the double whammy of the loss of tax revenues and the need for increased spending on enforcement. Laws work best when they are reformative, not retributive. The mindset of the people cannot be changed overnight and less so through inefficacious policy levers that infringe on individual freedom. That will just make it costlier for people to make mistakes and learn about their preferences through trial and error. On the other hand, higher taxes on alcohol might give the state a chance to bring reforms to their societies which are both progressive and prescient.

Mains Practice Questions:

1. Evidence from Indian experiments shows that a liquor ban does not lead to desired changes. Comment.
2. Prohibition is the act or practice of forbidding something by law. Critically analyse the utility of using physical and financial resources to implement the provisions of the alcohol prohibition laws in India.