Morung File Photo
Newmai News Network
Kohima | September 9
The Nagaland Total Prohibition Act was enacted in the year 1989 with the main objective to discourage sale and consumption of liquor. Since the enforcement of prohibition, the revenue of the state has reportedly gone down colossally to the tune of around Rs 50 crore annually. It has been observed that the Act has not reduced consumption, rather the number appears to have increased many folds with more young people consuming alcohol and it has also detrimentally resulted in huge increase in the number of drug users among the younger generation. The debate over the prohibition Act was had on the floor of the house by the opposition Congress party in the recent assembly session of Nagaland. Is it time now to review the merits and demerits of this Act?
It may be mentioned that the Nagaland Total Prohibition Act was enacted in 1989 during the regime of SC Jamir, following pressure from the Naga Mothers’ Association, backed by the influential Nagaland Baptist Church Council. The mothers’ body backed by the church, had recognized the negative effects of alcohol abuse that caused misery to families, especially women and children, and reckoned that alcohol-related deaths could be addressed through prohibition. Alcohol was seen as the enemy which destroyed the foundation of the family and society.
There were perhaps more people who did not share the view but who were unwilling to take on what appeared to be a high moral stand. It has been pointed out that many who were not in favour of prohibition, were not necessarily consumers of alcohol. They were opposed to it as the Act has not been effective in minimizing consumption of alcohol while on the other hand, it only resulted in black marketing and sale of spurious contents that caused serious harm.
Has prohibition succeeded or failed? Before answering the question, it would be appropriate to know what the objectives of this policy are. Prohibition can be considered to have many objectives. One of them would be to expect prohibition to reduce anti-social behavior and risk of death among those who consume it. How good is the evidence that prohibition does some or all of these things? If prohibition has largely failed to achieve some of these objectives, it may be because it is difficult to enforce on one hand, and on the other hand, the proponent may not have been effective in spreading awareness to influence lifestyles.
The negative consequence of the Act has led to mushrooming of organized rackets in illicit liquor. The loss of revenue has not been compensated by successful implementation as a result of which enormous amount in the form of revenue goes out of the state. Corruption among some within the enforcement agencies has only negated the Act that has been worsened by the fact that alcohol is served openly in gatherings of VIPs. The Act has not reduced consumption rather the number has increased many fold with more young people consuming alcohol.
