I've been quite waiting for some response on this one! i quite agree point 3 is downright rude! Responses are numbered to Jun's points:
1-a) I repeatedly pointed out prohibition did NOT restrict access to alcohol, it only made it unacceptable in public places
1-b) The question of a parallel underground power structure is an interesting one. Albeit, the idea that it can exist only in presence of prohibition like Al Capone's gangs is wrong. Even when alcohol is legally available, there are standards guiding what alcohol is, for safety. In small rural breweries, alcohol is made directly from chemicals - it is essentially ethanol. A little mistake in that chemical process leads to the deaths of many unknowing persons. Hence, the government tries to control such unlicensed brewers. This results in the rise of another mafia - the cheap liquor mafia / the counterfeit liquor mafia, & so on. My point of the above ranting is that we cannot avoid a parallel power structure like mafia. It is a product of the society, & shall exist irrespective of prohibition.
1-c) morality & stigma ARE ineffective! thats why we need the law!
1-d) yes, prohibition is unacceptable to all, including you & me! all the same, its necessary for a saner society!
2) The very idea that treatment may not be available to cure drug / alcohol related problems is one of the largest reasons of self-control in use of such items! Treatments are available to addicts, if only they are willing to accept the social consequences! There is enough research in drug related disease programs to cure most of them. Why they dont go? Its a social stigma to accept the fact!
3) this point is quite invalid. Its only because of prohibition that we dont find drugs being sold on every street corner, like we have pouches of gutkha. Nobody needs a lesson in diseases (aka cancer) arising from intake of any of the above. Very simply, WHY should the society tolerate those who willingly hurt themselves? only to turn back to the society for support when they are full with their stupidity??
Prescription drugs may give us a high, but not many of us are willing to try that. Only the desperate do it! Liquor has been given the status of a social status symbol / necessity against wordly problems. It is this label that i am completely against, & prohibition is a tool for that! There is no way we can control anything completely! Not atleast in our great Indian democracy!
4) The problem of liquor is very different from that of smoking. We are not just talking of the urbanites here, but the other 50% - rural folk. Liquor available in urban areas & to middle class (+ above) has high standards - meaning it does not give much of a high! But local brewed chemical based liquor available in rural areas (our potli!) is quite a thing! Its no less than a synthetic drug. It can give a high like no other & even kill the user! When taken in, the person is hardly in control of oneself. When you turned up drunk that day, you had a commercially available brand! The best you could have done is taken your pants off! But had you tried true-to-its-name potli, you would have ended up pulling everybody's pants down! Believe me, you just need to go to rural areas to see what brews there! They put in anything that works - from chemicals to dung to animal fat / meat to rotten flesh, anything!!!!
5) I dont believe gujarat is the safest place exclusively because of liquor. My point however was that it is quite an assuring thought to not have drunk people running around the place! & i will stress again, its hardly a problem in urban areas - im talking about rural areas. The reason why we dont hear enough of it is because media is urban-centric. The rural news come in only when hordes of people die due to consumption. No brawls / riots / drunken stupors are reported in mainstream newspapers!
Regarding my view of drunk people, im sure you can make out the difference by now - its in the liquor buddy! The things urbanites use regularly are hardly stupefying!
Your historic perspectives are quite catching! I had no idea of the same. Gives me all the more reason to talk about prohibition! The examples are apt too, as a society level structure of drinking versus a personal riot. A social drinking ceremony leads to further ills, a personal bout is also less harmful.
To quote myself again, prohibition is a good social practice. While people may enjoy liquor personally in their homes, it is quite risky for the state to publicly allow liquor consumption & face the consequences. I too believe that any kind of prohibition should not be regulated by the state, but we live in a society that is hardly self-regulatory!
Posts
5 comments:
I've been following these posts and I can safely say that most of the points by your friend is, to put it politely, a tad puerile. Sample these:
" quick look at the united states gives you 2 very telling examples about prohibition. One is the alcohol prohibition in the 1920s ..."
U.S and that too 1920s - someone please emphasize that this is India and that too the 2009s...
"that prohibition does not restrict access in anyway "
Ditto for drugs and guns. So, let's have them OTC as well; So much for sanity;
"that it creates a 300% (500% and more for drugs ) profit market that creates its own underground economic-power structure ..."
There is something called a law for the same (atleast on paper)
"that prohibition – when thought about – is unacceptable to a vast majority of the demography"
- and since when has the majority been right??
"I think the best lesson to be learnt is the laws developed around smoking."
(if there wasn't the point on garba, this would have undoubtedly taken the prize of being the silliest point) - Someone please explain that smoking doesn't make an animal out of a person as does drinking. Ever heard of accidents caused by "smoke driving".
"firstly it may be safe – but come garba it is no doubt the horniest state in the country outstripping (literally) Bombay/maharashtra –
"
This one takes the cake - Just how on earth is it relevant to this post?? This is like the Oscars of stupidity...
There's nothing poetic about prohibition - common sense is more like it. But of course, those who haven't seen the macabre side of drunks would forever lobby for repealing prohibition. So much for "liberalism".
hmm...
i wasn't aware of rural scenarios and the differences between urban and rural situations. i guess thats the only point i find valid and critical.
as for the rest of your response - i wanted to pick a thread that i found running thru your train of thought - which is unrealted to prohibition per say - but deals with the nature of law.
you believe that "morality & stigma ARE ineffective! thats why we need the law!"
this i am unable to agree to. i think the fundamental validity of law is not 'common sense', but moral acceptance.
( best egs - having lived a long time in bombay - it is commonplace to notice people skipping paying tax because they do not believe that the government is not taking care of them.
on the other hand - laws expediting action against terrorists (no matter how unfair some may be) are quickly accepted, probably because, in principle, they affirm to peoples moral principles.
which is why i think it is easier to impose laws on "alcohol intake in a public places" - instead of "alcohol consumption." commonplace observation bears this out
(i know the threads in my arguments may be a bit difficult to connect for a few ppl - but then again.....)
i guess our differences in opinion stem from this point. i dont disagree that alcohol consumption is bad for the people.
but i totally disagree that laws that do not affirm with sensibilities, or a definite quantifiable vision, or moral principles, will help society rid themselves of alcohol problem.
i dont say people should drink - but im incensed when you and hatikvah try to propose the idea of fixing society by forcing them to conform to impersonal laws.
frankly, there is nothing common sensical about a law which has never been very effective statistically. such measures (laws) need a larger perspective.
.... which brings me to our gentleman who has been so kind in his responses towards me..:-)
in truth i am a little sad that i've been refuted by an argument that - refuses to draw from historic lessons, does not understand the corrupting powers of the mafia empowered by prohibition, does not like analogy excercises(references to smoking law / garba), does not have a sense of humour, and does not find abstract beauty in a tribute to heritage.....
hmmm.... no doubt this was a most sober (and sobering) argument and if i were ever to decide whether i should argue FOR the "mind-releasing powers of alcohol and substances" this argument would definately be the reason for it.
(very sorry hatikvah - it is not my intention to insult you - and thanks for your comment on my poem - it is very gratifying to know at least someone liked it.:-)
and yes - i gratefully accept the "the stupidity oscars" - thankyou so much - "i'd like to thank sandy for this opportunity - and hatikvah for the award, and......."
jun
on the contrary, its not moral obligation but the depth of punishment that governs our society! people dont pay tax because the penalties levied are too meagre or can be circumvented by "other" means. The terrorist laws (again, as u said, though unfair) need to be strict so that any terrorist is aptly punished & made an example of - not morally but in action...
i have always said that this is a draconian law. However, with the current state of our society, it fits in right! I completely agree with your viewpoint of the future, as laws should lead the way & not short-sighted.
But i am appalled at the law-twisting that goes on & the fact that we are not yet ready for a more "personalized" regime. If you see my other posts, i have been talking of personalized democracy, & im sure the above topic will be more than aptly dealt with in that situation. The problem, however, is that we are not yet ready! & looking at other parts of the country, its better to be how gujarat has been for the last 60 years.
To clarify & conclude, my point was primarily against those who feel that we are losing state income due to prohibition.
I have not yet come to an understandable solution where the society can be taken on a path of self-control. Gandhi definitely doesnt help today!
Super, I almost licked my lips at the prospect of a verbal skirmish. So here goes -
"laws expediting action against terrorists ..."
The comparison is a tad erroneous. There's nothing moral about accepting anti terrorist laws. Its fear for the repercussions. In fact, there is a lesson to be learnt herein. People aren't driven by morality. They are driven by the fear of consequences, for they know (now) that terrorists can affect their life, and the damage is instant and graphic (not the slow moving death of cigerretes and alcohols).
"im incensed when you and hatikvah try to propose the idea of fixing society by forcing them to conform to impersonal laws."
- Alas, if only mankind were as smart as me and (especially) you, we needn't have had laws or governance. If people understood the term sobriety, we would have never had a drunk driving case, or a wife getting hammered at the hands of her drunk husband, or innocent bystanders getting shot at by thugs. I am not sure how much impact numbers would have on you, but a simple google search would give you figures of almost 1 LAKH people killed in drunk driving last year. Is that in itself, not a good enough reason to pose some sort of restriction on drinking. If society didn't enforce laws (of any kind for that matter), we would still remain barbaric. Has it ever occured to you that civilization, is but a veneer that we use to hide our ghoulish sides?
"but i totally disagree that laws that do not affirm with sensibilities, or a definite quantifiable vision, or moral principles, will help society rid themselves of alcohol problem."
- I agree, that laws alone won't curb the problem. Greater awareness and public responsibility will. But the absence of laws would surely bring the skeletons tumbling out of the casket, of this, I remain in little doubt.
"there is nothing common sensical about a law which has never been very effective statistically. such measures "
I suppose this is being said, for we have never really seen the effects of what "could have been" had we not had prohibition. I can only imagine, that in a state as volatile as Gujarat, just what havoc would alcohol raise. We anyways, have had people who have lost their minds!
"refuses to draw from historic lessons..."
Vehemently disagree. It is precisely because I've learnt from history, that I choose to ensure that its mistakes aren't repeated.
"does not understand the corrupting powers of the mafia empowered by prohibition"
In a way, it strengthens the case for prohibition. After all, allowing alcohol because the alternative would be to bow to the powers of Mafia is in a way vindicating the inefficacy of the law and the State. In a way, its "analogous" to what's going on in the Swat valley.
"abstract beauty in a tribute to heritage"
I agree. Far to often, we have sacrificed common sense on the alter of heritage/culture. Well, this far, and no farther.
(as for the sense of humour, well, that's an observation, not subject to debate).
It was a nice debate, but not enough meat to change my opinion. Jai ho to no alcohol.
i agree with hatikvah - this is certainly good fun!!!
honshu's points on crime and punishment are already well brought out in psychological studies.
but the questions i'm asking are not about the efficiency of laws....but about meaning
- you talk about the people who need laws, and you describe them as "stupid(-sandy)" who are not "as smart as you and me(-hatikvah)" (this i personally disagree to. not because i know better, but because i want to believe differently)-
but what im reminded of is a quote
"rules and regulations are the fancies of fools. the clever dont need them and the fools dont heed them."
(i dont personally realate to this quote- but thought ud like to strenghten your case for punishment!!!)
you guys remind me of the society set up in "brave new world"- A.Huxley (who ruthlessly carry out rational a point to its only logical conclusion - in a world made up so largely of compromise (-T.hardy) )
and i dont know whether i should applaud you for being so clever or deplore you for being so cynical about our people.
secondly i wonder if i have clarified my stand to hatikvah
contrary to what you believe i'm saying...what im really saying is---
1) that alcohol consumption in society should be minimalised
2) that prohibition laws as they stand are not the best method and need improvement.
3)that the best way, to me, relates to selective restriction (sandy's dubai pubs come to mind and overlaps with most of sandy's points - except outright prohibition)
which is why hatikvah's laments on the woes of alcohol are really a waste of digital space. i dont disagree with you. but there are side effects that are not getting addressed.
-hatikvah, your point of view regarding mafia and prohibition is way-way-way off the mark- i mean, i dont think you get it
- your point regarding abstract meaning (common sense and heritage)- that part was my only point for agreeing to mainain prohibition- are you attacking the argument? or me? in this case my sense of poetry overlapped with your common sense of maintaining prohibition - i dont understand wat ur talking about in this point.
-as for the rest of your remarks - well, a refutation would be digression- nevermind-bygones
there is a deadlock here i think. and im unable to add anything to this anymore. neither am i convinced of the other side of the coin myself.
to end with sandy's comment
"I have not yet come to an understandable solution where the society can be taken on a path of self-control. Gandhi definitely doesnt help today!"-
i think the future of better society lies in doing just this - discussing the "path of self-control"
if we refuse to believe this- then only "draconian laws" will give us comfort, nay not comfort- but convienence.
for me, thats not good enough.
(p.s. - btw sandy - will be much oblidged for a lil feedback on the latest operating system entry os10 - do u think its going somewhere?")
Post a Comment