First it was hounded for having the highest per capital alcohol consumption – 8.3 liters. Now that the Kerala State government is paving the way for a prohibition strategy by banning liquor bars, there’s a lot of dissent regarding the decision. One thing is clear though – there’s definitely a need to control alcohol consumption in the State. The question: is banning and prohibiting alcohol the only and the best solution?

K M SHAJHAN //What is being discussed in Kerala is not prohibition at present. It may take place in the State in a few years, but what is currently being implemented is closing down bars selling Indian made foreign liquor (IMFL) and also shutting down the 336 Kerala State Beverage Corporation outlets in a phased out manner. Kerala can become a dry state only after that.

Let’s consider some numbers now. Kerala has only 4 per cent population of the country, but is one of the most densely populated states. It is also one of the top ranking states in alcohol consumption. The issues arising out of this abuse of alcohol are serious. It has created problems in the families of Kerala, the health status of Malayalis is suffering and it is a problem looming large over the state. None of the political parties until now had the courage and the commitment to impose decisions like this. Those who have been running the bars in Kerala have maximum political clout and have been minting money for years. You will find that alcohol is the only product for which the demand is insatiable. The latest numbers of the Beverage Corporations tells me that in 2013, more than Rs 8,000 crore was given to the exchequer. On one hand, alcohol has been creating serious problems for the people of Kerala, and on the other hand, those selling it have been minting money and have absolute hegemony over each and every political decision in the state.

This decision that has been taken is one of the most revolutionary and historic ones, and ought to have been taken a decade ago. The number of crimes will come down, the atmosphere will be peaceful and Kerala will be truly transformed. One can already see a difference with phase one of the ban on bars having been implemented. Those who are worried about the ban giving rise to bootlegging and an increase in the sale of spurious alcohol, I want to tell them it is all rhetoric. In the 1990s, there was a total ban on sale of arrack – it has maximum alcohol content — in Kerala. If you look at the years after that, you will notice that there was only one stray incident of spurious alcohol consumption in nearly two decades. This rhetoric about spurious alcohol and bootlegging is being made by politicians who are hand-in-glove with the liquor mafia. And mind you, when arrack was banned, it was the only alcohol that was available in the state. Back then, IMFL had become accessible to the people of Kerala only a few years ago, when the Abkari Act was amended and the Beverage Corporation started offering it through their outlets in the state.

Look at what happened with regards to smoking. After it was banned in public places, smoking itself has come down in Kerala. Of 100 people, not more than five are smoking today. Even I was a smoker and quite three years ago after smoking for 33 years. I feel this strategy on alcohol in Kerala is the correct policy to implement. If alcohol is banned step by step, the people of Kerala will be free of the ills of alcoholism, which has been playing havoc in their lives. Also, contrary to the general feeling that if will be a financial loss for Kerala, it will not create any financial problems for the state in the near future. We have seen after 418 bars were closed in the first phase, the earnings of the Beverages Corporation increased by 33 per cent. These outlets will now also sell high-quality, high-priced liquor as compared to the earlier sale of only low-end alcohol.

Also, when you buy a bottle of alcohol, you are paying the government 200 per cent tax. On the other hand, the bar owners may make a profit of Rs 100 but only pay Rs 10 to the exchequer. These bars have been cheating the government, lock, stock and barrel. For tourists there will be no problem either. The government is looking at some amicable solution, which means hotels that earn more than Rs one crore of foreign exchange should be given bar license. Maybe that slab should be raised to Rs 10 crore.

VIJAY SIMHA // Human behaviour changes under the influence of alcohol. Science and medicine have amassed evidence on it, and sociologists have documented it. Alcohol influences behaviour in a simulated room and in homes. In places where alcohol has more control, like bars, behaviour changes even more. Thus, it is true that intoxication has an impact, mostly negative, on a person. Evidently, things have reached a state where something needs to be done about consumption of liquor in Kerala. However, prohibition would cause more problems. The only context for prohibition is human conduct, although we have learned the hard way that we cannot legislate for behaviour. We may have laws for the consequences of human conduct, but behaviour itself is impervious to law. A person who drinks more than he ought to be is likely to do exactly what you ask him not to.

Indians are the most regulated people on earth – we have law for practically everything although some of it should be plain common sense. Yet – in spectacular indifference to the multitude of laws – Indians are immune to regulation. Also, money is a powerful motivator in India. It often seems to override a sense of right and wrong. We overdo our greed. Profit from liquor has seduced the state as well. Over many decades, the status of alcohol has shifted from being a subject of social policy to occupying prime finance space. Thus, States tend to say they need revenue from the sale of alcohol. In any case, what has been planned for Kerala is partial prohibition. It’s a strange policy. Almost there but not quite. It assumes that people with access to money – who might devote evenings and wallets to five-star hotels – behave better when drunk. They don’t.

The thought of prohibition in Kerala has taken shape – at least partially – from how some men respond to alcohol. Prohibition, at its core, seeks to improve such men by making it difficult to reach alcohol. Only a certain kind of man beats women or other men when drunk. Not all do. Prohibition will not make such men behave better. They are most likely to have mental health issues way out of the purview of alcohol policy. Alcohol does not change people; it merely lets a person loose. I am an addiction and wellness counselor. I do not endorse overdose of anything. Addiction is the consequence of a host of factors. Easy access to a substance – alcohol and other drugs – or activity – gambling or sex – is merely one of the reasons. Peer pressure is the number one cause, followed by dysfunctional families. Easy access is third on the list. By the time you reach the third cause, the process of addiction has already set in. This happens with all of the 256 intoxicants currently known to man.

There is no proof that prohibition works. There is evidence that it doesn’t. Gujarat is a dry state but I’ve known serious cases of alcoholism originating there. Also, alcohol activity has merely shifted to the borders of Gujarat.Production of alcohol and binge-drinking is everyday activity where Gujarat meets Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Daman and Diu. The challenge has only moved from one state to another.

It makes more sense to build intervention skills and have empanelled counsellors in the place of stale and failed policy such as prohibition. Kerala, with 713 bars, might need about 2,000 counsellors. Their contact numbers and email ids need to be on government websites and at police stations, hospitals, clinics, colleges, schools and even bars. Kerala, and the whole of India, might also benefit from textbook lessons on the risks of addiction and the rewards of sobriety. For instance, Mahendra Singh Dhoni and Saina Nehwal don’t do drugs or alcohol. Neither do PT Usha, Sachin Tendulkar, Pullela Gopichand or VVS Laxman. The greatest Indian, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, didn’t do alcohol or drugs. Their deeds rest on sobriety and this message needs to be marketed better. Such messages are best received in school – until, say, the age of ten or twelve. Such children have a better chance to grow into sober and successful adults. Messages of sense lose relevance in the teens and 20s by which time no one cares.

Only one in 1,000 Indians seeks help for alcohol issues. It wasn’t even a subject of drawing room conversation until 2012 in India. That year I became the first Indian to go fully open on mainstream television about my addiction. Such success encourages me to talk of a concept that needs to be known – “chemical adulthood”. Legal adulthood is easily understood. It is, for instance, the age one can vote or drive or marry. Many youngsters ask me why they can’t drink at 18 when they can vote. Voting, driving or marrying is not life-threatening. Drinking, or drugs, instantly alters the brain. It can drive a person to self-destructive consumption that might result in painful and premature death. The age to start drinking, if you must, is 27. Science and medicine now tell us that the brain adapts till the age of 26. The brain is better placed to process drugs – alcohol or other substances – after it is fully formed. This means that chemically we are adults only at 27.

At 27, people should be free to drink if they wish to. This is vastly different from asking them to say no, which they don’t bother with anyway. The State must govern. Not play mama or papa. Alcoholism is far too complex for diktat. Counsel is more effective.