Maintain Dry Status, Please

Political leaders in the state have been deliberating on the pros and cons of lifting dry status in the state. As per the paper report, there is no sustained argument in support of maintaining status quo. Instead the policy makers appeared to support lifting of dry status and make alcohol consumption legal. Given that the impact felt on the larger society will be tremendous, there requires sustained debate on the subject involving law makers, civil society, religious leaders, researchers etc. One of the MLAs stated that removing of dry status will ensure production and availability of only quality-controlled liquor to the public. This kind of reasoning is without empirical support. The empirical support would rather point to the opposite direction.

Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal and other states legalise alcohol consumption. But even in these states there are plenty of 'toxic' liquor available, and thriving. Just last month – June, 2015 – in Maharashtra 104 people died after consuming illicit alcohol, and over 40 continued to remain hospitalised. In January, 2015, in Uttar Pradesh at least 25 people died after taking local made liquor, and over 100 hospitalised. Prior to that over 40 people died in the same state after consuming local made liquor during a religious festival. Few years before that 130 people died after consuming illicit liquor in West Bengal, with dozens more landing in hospital. In 2008, 180 people died after taking local made liquor in Karnataka. These are small samples of deaths caused by country-made liquor. It is reported that in Maharashtra in certain areas, within just one Ward – let alone district – death through alcohol poisoning occurs every month.

Given that people in the state are equally money minded, if not more, illicit liquor will thrive. State machinery will find it impossible to ensure the quality of alcohol being brewed by the local vendors. If dry status is lifted, the state will have thousands of local brewers, and the state machinery will never be in a position to monitor the quality. When the state machinery is unable to effectively check petrol adulteration, can it monitor and regulate the quality of possibly thousands of local liquor brewers? Empirical findings prove that illicit liquor thrive so much more in states where liquor is legalised compared to dry states. The MLA is mistaken to believe that removal of dry status will engender quality-controlled liquor.

The paper reported that the government expects to make Rs. 300-500 crores through alcohol related business once dry status is lifted. This needs critical evaluation. Tripura, whose population higher than that of Manipur, makes around Rs 124 crores out of alcohol related business last year. It is highly unlikely for Manipur Goverment to generate revenue 2-4 times more than Tripura by removing dry status. If such a monetary figure is to obtain, it can do so only if a significant percentage of population is driven to drinking. But with more drinkers, social cost increases. At present Supreme Court normally directs government to pay Rs. 5 lakhs as compensation for undue death. Placing monetary value on a person's life is problematic. Despite the problem, if one takes this figure, it would take the death of 600-1000 people that government must compensate to neutralise the monetary gain of Rs. 300-500 crores. In a small state, such number of death is unlikely. And God help us that such thing never happens! But even if dozens of death occur in, say, a far flung village in the hill, the chance of the event not being reported is so high. Media coverage in the sate is far below the desired level. And with many villages several miles away from the nearest police station, there is no measure the state government will step in to investigate the disaster and prevent further incident of such sort.

Once dry status is lifted, more men will come home and beat up their wives and children. Domestic quarrelling and beating are much more common in homes where the husband drinks compared to those where no one drinks alcohol. Poor productivity in offices and field will be more widespread. Local fights between drunkards will be common scene. Drunk driving will increase manifold resulting in higher number of accidents and increasing medical care cost to the injured. But the cost for such hospitalisation is not born by the 'bad' boy himself; the cost falls is born by the entire family. Kidney-liver damage will rise substantially, adding financial pressure on the wife specially. With more illicit liquor brewers thriving than it is under dry status, more families will fall under the spell of alcohol related illnesses. It is not just the money spent to buy one drink, which in many cases would have been earned by the wife selling vegetables on the roadside, but the physical abuse on the wife that gets more frequent and the tense environment in which the children are raised which is followed by apathy towards children's education and moral progress. Hundreds of homes will get wrecked by removing dry status. The big question is: Has the government calculated such social cost and converted them in monetary value? What is the net monetary difference between the gain and the loss?

State exists for the flourishing of the citizens. And given this function of a state, it is high time that it cracks down on alcohol business prevailing under dry status. Lifting dry status will rather be going towards the opposite direction the state ought to pursue. Instead of facilitating and developing the skill and excellence of a human person, by removing dry status the state will impregnate the health and minds of the citizens with illness and darkness. Policy makers have moral obligation not to lead the citizens toward such dark abyss. Therefore, maintain dry status, please.

(This article appears on The Herald on 11th July, 2015)