You Can Marry, Vote, and Have Kids…But No – You Can’t Drink!

When I heard that Kerala would allow 5-star hotels to continue selling liquor, I had the same reaction you probably did – “Wtf?”. Either you have prohibition and don’t allow people to purchase liquor (legally), or you don’t. What is this half assed bullshit about only allowing 5-star hotels to sell it. To me, this translates to: “We don’t want poor people to drink liquor”. This is such a blatantly dehumanizing and condescending attitude, it’s no wonder the Supreme Court has difficulty understanding the logic.

But I don’t get this prohibition business in the first place. What is the state trying to achieve? A lower liquor consumption? Ok, but why? It’s already illegal to sell alcohol to minors, so this is clearly not aimed at them. The state wants to control what those above 18 put into their mouths, using the justification of “It’s good for them”.

But wait! This means that the state doesn’t trust people to make this decision for themselves even after they have all the data. I can understand educational campaigns informing people about the dangers of drinking. I can appreciate the setting up of anonymous organizations like AA to help people overcome their drinking problem. It makes sense to adhere to strict quality measures to ensure that dangerous alcohol is not being distributed. These are logical steps, and still leave the ultimate decision up to the individual.

But the Kerala government wants to remove that decision from people’s hands. They are in essence saying “I don’t trust you to do what is good for you”. Ok, fine. But they why stop at liquor? Why not also control all the other dangerous activities that people indulge in after 18? Why not make it mandatory to wear condoms? Why not make all potential marriage partners take a standardized test to ensure their readiness for such a dangerous and life changing decision? Why not give people mandatory training before they have kids? Why not make them answer multiple choice questions about their candidates before they vote for someone?

These are all rights and privileges that have a far greater impact that there mere downing of a few drinks. And yet, the government blithely chooses to focus on this one aspect of life rather than all the others! Let people marry, let them have kids, let them vote and make their own career choices, let them face imprisonment or jail for their crimes…but liquor? No way! That shit is far too dangerous man!

It’s about time the government wakes up and accepts that freedom means nothing if it doesn’t also include the freedom to make mistakes as Gandhi concisely pointed out. And if the person in question wants to continue making those mistakes for the rest of his or her life, then that is their choice. It’s not for the state or for anyone else to make their decision for them. People enter into bad marriages all the time, and while I can voice my opinion and advise them not to get married either to that person or not get married at all, ultimately they are free adults who must do what they think is best, and none of us can gainsay their path.

India has always been something of a nanny state. But I hope the SC stops this nonsense in its tracks right now. It’s about time the government realizes that it has a limited mandate to protect people from others – not to protect them from themselves.

What do you think of this post?
  • Agree (1)
  • Don't Agree but Interesting (0)
  • You're an asshole (0)

16 thoughts on “You Can Marry, Vote, and Have Kids…But No – You Can’t Drink!”

  1. There are two reasons underlying the decision to ban alcohol

    1. It is not protect the alcoholic from the bad effects of alcohol, Its to protect his family from alcohol abuse…which is a very real curse…terrible suffering for the wife and children…physical and mental.. not to forget the money squandered on its purchase .all this …on a daily basis

    2. Next is where politics comes in…if they relieve the suffering of these unfortunate women due tio the ban…they will get their vote

    There, you have it..

    Reply

    • In reply to tp

      There are any number of things a person can do to make their family miserable. Children who marry against their parent’s wishes cause untold suffering to their parents and sometimes even drive them to suicide. Should we make it illegal for a person to go against their family like this?

      A person can cause untold suffering to his/her family by practicing unsafe sex and by having unwanted babies. Do we make that illegal?

      Just because something has the potential to cause suffering is not a good reason to make it illegal. Here it’s a question of a person’s fundamental freedoms being violated. Life is tough and it’s not the government’s job to be our nanny.

      Or if we really want to go down this route, let’s make alcohol illegal only for married women and men. That will be ok?

      Reply

      • In reply to tp

        While all the daily agony experienced by women in socio economic group may not be alcohol related, they do have a common underlying reason why they put up with it – its because they are not financially independent, and they cannot leave their abusive spouses for fear of excommunication. That is the root cause. An alcoholic husband has no incentive what-so-ever to stop abusing his wife. Infact, in the lower socio-economic group, domestic abuse is seen as something “manly”. So abusive will continue whether there is alcohol involved or not! How about we do something to change the definition of manliness for this strata?

        These are tough, time consuming solutions. But they are the only effective solutions. A man who thinks its his right to beat his wife does not need to be drunk to abuse her. A man who does not care for the well being of his family will not spend his salary on his family just because there is no alcohol available – he will find some other thing that catches his fancy. Banning alcohol is trying to do a fresh paint job over a rotting building. The building is still rotten and unsafe from the inside, but I guess it just looks a little better to us on the outside.

        Reply

      • In reply to Clueless

        Agreed. If a guy beats his wife after drinking, there’s already something badly wrong. I’ve often wondered whether or not people “really” lose control of their actions when under the influence, or is that just a convenient excuse they come up with…

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        Bhagwad,
        Here I agree with your conclusion, despite not totally agreeing with the logic.

        Firstly, there is a difference between habit & addiction. Habit can be broken by choice. I can stop drinking tea easily. I can switch to getting up at 7 instead of 6 relatively easily.

        Addiction isn’t easily broken by choice. We may think addicted people don’t have enough conviction. But, we will be appalled by the control brain (its chemical state) has on us. Even small quantities of hormonal injections cause people to behave like zombies / robots. A normal rational person when addicted to drugs can do quite irrational acts and cause self-injury or injure others just to get the next shot. And the moment he gets his shot will be back to his normal rational self.

        So, the point is not of choice, but actually lack of choice for addicted person. He/She is not in a position to make a choice, even though they can understand the rationale. This is fundamentally different from making a choice of between taking-money-to-vote and voting-for-the-right-candidate. Although we make equally disturbing decisions and government comes up with yet another unimplementable law against it.

        If I had someone close to me is addicted to X, the best way for the person and me is to ensure he/she is forcibly kept away from it, at least at the time of the person’s craving for it. That is my good intention. I don’t believe that I am particularly good at making decisions in my life and I don’t think I will do a good job at it for others.

        As the saying goes.: The path to hell is paved with good intentions.

        This is a catch-22 situation.

        Government shouldn’t be making a decision here. I agree. But what do you suggest, if the victim is unable ask for help and others are barred from helping until victim asks for it?

        Reply

      • In reply to Murali

        I completely agree that addiction is a clinical problem that requires special intervention for most people. I mean while there have been a few strong willed people who have kicked their addiction by themselves, I admit that it’s not a matter of course.

        I guess one might be able to say that people choose to get addicted in the first place. While it’s strictly correct to say that, I also admit that it’s a bit crazy to think of it that way.

        But if I’m not mistaken, this alcohol prohibition is for everyone and not just for addicts no? (Well, apart from the wealthy who can simply go to 5-star restaurants!). That’s why I suggest we have organizations like AA or other facilities to help addicts kick their addiction once they’re into it. Most people who drink do no become addicts, so I think it’s unfair to ban alcohol for everyone just because a few people can’t handle it.

        Reply

      • In reply to Murali

        A better response to addiction would be to establish a public option universal healthcare system, with an adequately funded mental health system that can take limited custody of an individual who has completely lost the ability to control one’s own actions. Prohibition takes away the rights of recreational drug users and drinkers such as myself who are able to control our own actions perfectly and don’t need government intervention. Also you mentioned giving up tea. Caffeine dependence is a documented phenomenon which has several side effects. Caffeine withdrawal can cause headaches, nausea irritability etc some of the same symptoms as nicotine and alcohol withdrawal and typically takes a day to subside. Yet clearly you don’t experience these symptoms. I’ve been a regular cannabis user since my college days in india , and I took in a significant amount of nicotine with it, yet i’ve been able to stop with no symptoms at all, during examinations or even a hectic work schedule these days. Yet no one talks of banning coffee or tea even though a number of regular users experience these symptoms yet people in India refuse to even consider legalising marijuana. The problem is a lack of understanding of individual liberties and collectivist attitude, rather than any specific objection to these substances.

        Reply

      • In reply to tp

        Actually no. If you are concerned about alcohol addicts, simply banning alcohol without providing them any other necessary tools to cope with withdrawal and overcome addiction will only worsen the situation for the alcoholic and his family. Mostly because the addicts will most definitely turn to illegal alcohol or other drugs which may prove to be more dangerous for the family.

        Also at some level, women are responsible for their own happiness. It is not the government’s job to make sure all women are happy. The government is there to ensure a safe and fair environment for society to prosper. Women, who are adults btw, I don’t know why we keep getting bundled with children, need to make a call. If they are unhappy or cannot deal with their spouses, they should be able to move on to ensure their well being. But they don’t. Especially in India. Ever thought about why?

        Reply

      • In reply to Clueless

        I agree… Women are adults and should be held to the same standard as men are. Not doing so is indirect patriarchy, and Victorian era chivalry. Hopefully the government will stop legitimizing this attitude; by passing gender neutral legislation and ensuring equality of opportunity as opposed to equality of outcome.

        Reply

  2. Agreed… I think the prohibition is more of a symptom of our big government, socially conservative attitude, as opposed to a mere objection to alcohol addiction or spousal abuse by alcoholics, as tp and murali have suggested. This is seen in our anti sodomy laws and the free speech violations and privacy violations of our government. It is engendered by a belief (that an unfortunate no. Of Indians seem to share) that collective sentiments have primacy over civil liberties.
    It is a sad fact that while western countries are moving closer to marriage equality for LGBTs and legalization of recreational drug use, we’re still enforcing prohibitions on alcohol.

    Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        Yes a direct democracy in a heterogenous society such as India could be potentially devastating… Nothing would really work in such a system without a meaningful consensus, which is usually not possible…

        Reply

  3. Kerala definitely has a drinking problem. But the main issue is that people in Kerala don’t drink socially. It is frowned upon even to have a few glasses of wine to relax or to have beer. People don’t drink in front of their parents. Drinking is seen as something to be ashamed of, so men go to the bars and pubs and drink and drink and drink away from home, getting drunk and getting into all sorts of trouble in the process.

    Reply

Leave a Comment