Prohibition Consequence: An Issue Hard To Ignore

In recent years, the debate over the effectiveness of liquor prohibition has intensified. Despite the noble intent of curbing alcohol consumption and its social ills, the policy appears to have yielded mixed results, raising serious questions about its practicality and long-term impact. Prohibition was enacted with good intent to curb alcohol consumption and its associated negative social impacts on individuals, families and communities.

While respecting the sentiments and moral stand of the churches and other organizations opposing the lifting of total liquor prohibition, it has become imperative that the issue be viewed from a realistic and practical perspective. Respecting the sentiments of the church is important, especially if their opposition is rooted in religious or moral grounds.  However, prohibition has faced significant challenges since day one in implementation and today; it is widely considered to have failed in its objective of achieving total prohibition.  It has failed to achieve its intended objectives and has instead resulted in several adverse social, economic, and health-related consequences.

The negative impacts of prohibition—such as loss of revenue, thriving illegal liquor trade, emergence of spurious (unsafe) alcohol often leading to serious health risks and even fatalities, and economic hardship—must also be carefully considered.

One of the most pressing concerns is the loss of revenue that state governments face due to the ban. Alcohol taxation has traditionally been a significant source of income, funding essential services such as healthcare, education, and infrastructure. With the prohibition in place, this steady stream of revenue has vanished, leaving governments struggling to fill the gap through other, often less efficient, means.

Meanwhile, the prohibition policy has not effectively curbed alcohol consumption. On the contrary, liquor is widely available in almost every nook and corner, albeit through illegal channels. The proliferation of black markets has not only encouraged corruption and smuggling but also led to the rise of adulterated and spurious liquor, resulting in numerous deaths and severe health complications. Each tragic incident underscores the harsh reality that prohibition, while well-intentioned, has inadvertently endangered more lives than it has saved.

Another worrying trend is the rise in drug abuse, particularly among the youth. With alcohol unavailable through legal means, many individuals are turning to narcotics and other harmful substances, creating a new public health crisis that prohibition laws were never designed to address.

Lifting the liquor ban, coupled with strict regulation, awareness campaigns, and responsible sale mechanisms, may prove to be a more effective approach. Legalising and regulating alcohol could help restore lost revenue, curb the sale of adulterated liquor, and reduce the influence of the black market. At the same time, the government could use the revenue from liquor sales to fund de-addiction programmes and awareness drives about responsible drinking.

The question, therefore, is not just about morality but about practical governance. As the adverse consequences of prohibition become harder to ignore, it may be time for the government to reconsider whether continuing the ban truly serves the public interest—or whether a well-regulated, transparent system might achieve far better results.

S VihutoYeptho

Former Councillor, DMC

Thilixu village