Alcoholism Abroad: Government Responses to Growing Epidemics

The use of alcohol has been a part of numerous cultures for thousands of years. Even our Stone Age ancestors were discovered to have primitive beer jugs that held fermented beverages. The substance means different things to different people. In some places, it is an integral part of a traditional ceremony. In France, wine is a way of life, served with most meals and commonly enjoyed by people as young as twelve. In many countries, however, alcohol has been assigned a negative stigma. In the United States, for instance, alcohol abuse accounted for 3.5% of deaths in the year 2000. While there are many reasons for this, one of the major arguments is that the presence of alcohol in media, such as in films or commercials, accounts for an increased likelihood of a person to try alcohol. In other words, test subjects “watching films portraying alcohol drank more alcohol themselves.” In an age of increased globalization and media connecting people across countries, the portrayal of alcohol as a key part of popular culture is spreading from countries like America into more conservative countries like India. Alcohol abuse has become so prevalent in these countries that their governments are beginning to impose more strict alcohol laws prohibiting their selling and usage in an attempt to reverse the damaging societal effects of its abuse. Several questions arise when these types of laws are seriously considered. How much governmental intervention is necessary to prevent substance abuse from becoming legitimately damaging to a culture? How much intervention is too much? While some debate that it is the responsibility of the government to protect its citizens from health hazards, others argue that it is the responsibility of society itself, using parents, media, teachers, and religious leaders as agents of change.

In this week’s post, I explore these questions by commenting on two blogs that address the issue of alcohol laws in other countries. The first one is entitled The Vulnerable Will Always Pay the Price by Paul Charnley, in which the author discusses Scottland’s policy that increases the price of cheap alcohol by setting a minimum price per unit. The second post is Alcohol, Hooligans, and India by Sukesh Kumar. Kumar tackles the moral issues behind India’s decision to implement alcohol laws.

The Vulnerable Will Always Pay the Price
Comment

Your post is very intriguing because you speak from experience – “I was one. I would beg outside a train station, asking for 50p on the pretence that that was all I needed to meet the fare,” you say. Such a personally compelling argument against this initiative is crucial for outsiders to understand the complexity of these laws. While at first glance, it might seem to the non-drinker that these laws would be effective in decreasing the amount of people that begin drinking, it does nothing to assist those who already suffer from alcoholism. As you have stated in your post, “Price will never matter to the addict, the user, regardless of the drug, regardless of regulation.” Increasing the price on cheap alcohol is designed to decrease the growing phenomenon of binge drinking. However, this “target market” consists of those who can afford to do so. They are not the alcoholics that are highly dependent on cheap alcohol to, as you say, “escape reality.” Therefore, those who are affected are those who are alcohol dependent, and who will only be forced into alternative means of achieving the money necessary to purchase these substances.

However, I have to agree with some of the previous posters that argue that this initiative is aimed at preventing alcoholism from being started in the first place. While it may not be one hundred percent effective, as people will still find a way to pay for alcohol if they really want to, it at least makes it more difficult for people to keep up the habit. The law also states that, “promotions, such as three-for-two offers, are to be banned, while the display and marketing of drink is to be restricted to specific areas in shops,” which are crucial steps to changing the prominence of alcohol in marketing. Thus, it will tend to have more long-term effects that are beneficial in preserving your country’s social fabric.

This is not to say that I do not agree with your position on this law – more needs to be done to truly help those who suffer from alcoholism, instead of just raising the amount of money they need to acquire to feed their addiction, which could lead to more illegal and dangerous lifestyles. It might be effective for the government to supplement this law with social responsibility measures. For example, instead of just increasing the prices of alcohol or prohibiting it, perhaps your community would gain from programs assisting those who are already suffering from alcoholism. It is ultimately the responsibility of society as a whole to encourage the responsible use of substances and to pass on its own moral traditions with the assistance of the government. Thus, the government cannot stand by and do nothing – it can at least aim to shape the long-term effects of its policies to directly help the formation of its culture.


Alcohol, Hooligans, and India
Comment

Your post brings to the forefront some very important issues that are often overlooked in the fight against alcoholism. You argue “that if there are restrictions/reservation about alcohol in religions of some families, then also, it lies with parents to guide their children about proper way, not with some third party with sticks in hands.” It seems that it is your opinion in general that people should be responsible for upholding their own standards about alcohol consumption in order to preserve their own culture, rather than relying on a “third party with sticks in hands.” Furthermore, you say “it’s a shame that we like to call ourselves liberal because it is favored by America and have forgotten our very own culture of tolerance.” Do you blame the spread of western culture and politics for the rise in pub culture in India? It would seem that you would not blame globalization itself in this case, but that you would place the responsibility on the affected people themselves not to become heavily influenced as a population and to hold onto their traditional values. But is it possible to hold on to tradition in a world where adopting western political ideas also leads to liberalization that was not possible in the past? With new freedoms and newfound access to other cultures, it is not only nearly impossible, but also seems unwise, for a nation to not at least attempt to embrace the customs of other countries.

I find your section about “the excuse” to be most intriguing – you state that it is easier to blame the people that engage in alcohol abuse rather than providing the proper environment to teach moderate consumption. In your opinion, would you rather see government programs geared towards alcohol education rather than alcohol prohibition? Making alcohol less available, though it is designed to have long-term effectiveness in preventing people from starting to drink in the first place, is not necessarily beneficial in stopping consumption altogether: instead, it is apt to create a black market for alcohol, promoting more illegal activity and more dangerous subcultures. Therefore, going along with your argument that it is ultimately up to people to take responsibility for their own actions, I feel that it is the government’s responsibility to provide information to its people that allows them to make educated choices.