In Defence of Dry Status

One of the repeatedly stated reasons for lifting of dry status is that the prohibition is not really effective as it was anticipated when the legal provision kicked in. Reason such as this, however, requires further inquiry. In any given decent society, actions like murder or rape are criminalised with heavy penalty. However, no political society has been able to curb such criminal actions with cent percent efficiency. This does not entail that murder or rape can now be legalised because the state machinery has failed to effectively prevent such actions. It rather implies that the state needs to wake up from its slumber and get to work. True, alcohol consumption is unlike rape or murder; after all there is no apparent violation of anyone's right by one's liquor consumption as it is so with rape or murder. However, the given reason that dry status is not quite effective in curbing drinking is not a valid reason for lifting of the dry status; if at all it must imply a lesson, then it is that the state machinery is a failure. Given this factor, maintaining dry status or otherwise would have to depend on the social benefit or social cost that alcohol consumption elicits.

If there are black marketers today making profit from the business, at the expense of the general public, it is not proper for government to fit into the shoe of these black businessmen. With legal provision, government can indeed make black money white. Yet, the moral reason remains; and therefore, the so called white money may not really be white. There are black businessmen making hefty profit for selling heroin, ganja, pseudoephedrine and other tablets. State cannot be venturing in to fill the shoe of this thriving black market and make these businesses legal.

The reason why government had introduced dry status in the first place was due to social cost, and even today if government is to lift dry status, this factor must determine its course of action. Public health experts everywhere are unanimous in voicing that social cost is far higher than the social benefit that the state can dole out through revenue that it generates from liquor business. Kidney-liver damage, poor parenting, accident from reckless drunken driving, local fights, spouse quarrel, lower work productivity etc. are going to be rapidly increasing with far more easy access to liquor. If the state machinery is helpless in effectively maintaining prohibition, to consider effective monitoring of import-export and prevent further social degeneration it is not being realistic.

On behalf of the citizens, political leaders must legislate and pursue a wide range of goal that includes health, education, social harmony etc. Political goal is not about making more money, but about human development and therefore human flourishing. It is not state's business teaching husband how to express love to his wife, but it must be of state's concern if husband would come home drunk and beat his wife and children. If the state needs more money to ensure protection and care of its citizen and also its infrastructural development, it must explore other measures to generate revenue – the kind of measure that will not damage human development. Tourism may serve a fine example for such measure. Any measure that will radically increase physical abuse, health hazard, social tension etc. ought not to be pursued. The state has a moral obligation to steer clear of such policies by virtue of the moral ideal upon which the state is based and also has envisioned for its citizens. The state is not an amoral institution and ought not to be one because human being is an inherently moral animal. Therefore lifting of dry status which certainly will have massive social cost ought not to be considered at this point of time.

What good is money if its pursuit results in damaging human lives?