DIMAPUR, AUGUST 10 (MExN): “If prohibition had failed in America, it does not mean it will fail here,” argued the team against the motion at a lively debate held Friday at the AIDA Centre (Don Bosco School Complex), Dimapur. The debate was part of a knowledge sharing interactive programme organized by Prodigal’s Home under the UNAIDS funded - Knowledge for Action Now (K-FAN) project. K-FAN is being implemented in Nagaland and Manipur, deemed to be having high HIV prevalence rates. The project’s state partner is Prodigal’s Home.
Friday’s event was divided into two sessions with participants from Manipur in attendance as well. The second session headlined – ‘Community Knowledge Sharing Fair’ comprised a debate on the topic ‘Prohibition should be lifted in Nagaland’, conversed for the major duration in Nagamese. The reader may wonder, “What has prohibition got to do with HIV and AIDS?” Well, the points of argument put up by the debaters will certainly compel one to put on the thinking cap.
The team supporting the motion contended, “Since 1989, prohibition has been in place but has there been a record of anyone giving up alcohol as a result?” Obviously taking a potshot at the supposed moral victory claimed by the church by having in place the NLTP Act, the debater for the motion put forward the point that in reality, alcohol is still available while people are drinking by the gallons. Even the Americans finally realized that the law banning liquor failed in their land, the debator said, while continuing that prohibition has rather increased the craving for alcohol, literally driving people to resort to any means to get liquor. “One can get/buy sex for a bottle of beer,” the debater stated, eventually beginning a vicious cycle for the one getting the bottle in exchange for sex; or simply going from one partner to the other, notwithstanding the risks involved.
The team opposing the motion swiftly countered the points raised by simply stating that to prevent and avoid the aforementioned high risk behaviours prohibition was imposed. “It should stay and it should not be lifted,” the opposing debater countered.
Clearly caught off guard by the retort, yet the team for the motion came back strongly. The next debater for the motion said that prohibition or not, there will always be drinkers. Thus, there is no point in its existence. It is not that all and sundry will take up the bottle, if at all prohibition is lifted. Those who drink will do so, while those who do not would not, the debater said.
The health of Nagaland has deteriorated because of liquor, countered the opposing team, on the general notion put up by the team supporting the motion. “Being Christians, we’ve to adhere to religious principles,” the debater pointed out.
Notwithstanding the brief but strong counter argument, the team for the motion returned by bringing up the menace of drug abuse in Nagaland. Bringing to the fore the failings of the liquor prohibition law, the debater said that it has only drawn youngster to drugs at the same time encouraging illicit trade in alcohol and drugs. “When alcohol is made open, drug use will and thus decline,” simultaneously discouraging drug use.
The failure of the liquor prohibition law in America is no ground to push for the lifting of the NLTP Act in Nagaland, the third debater opposing the motion remarked. The remark was against the statement earlier made by the leader of the speaking for the motion. To this, the fourth debater for the motion came up stating, “It (prohibition) has to be lifted. Why because, it is a farce… alcohol is openly available (to which we are all witness).”
Reiterating an earlier point put by the team, the last speaker for the motion said that liquor not only encourages immoral activities but it also negatively impacts the human body.
As is the traditions in debate competitions, the leaders of the opposing teams were allotted time to summarise the progress of the debate. The leader of the team for the motion stated that the church as the moral authority must take up awareness as a means to counter the ill-effects of alcoholism while sensitizing the people; and not by merely imposing itself. The leader of the opposing team summarized thus, “It (prohibition) must have failed but ‘Rome was not built in a day. It’ll take time.”
