On the efficacy of prohibition : Prohibition has been tried in several western countries, including the US, and it has proven to be a complete failure. Prohibition only encourages corruption, bootlegging, illicit distillation and leads to serious health hazards apart from a major loss in the state revenue income. In 'dry ' states such as Gujarat and Andhra Pradesh, there is widespread consumption of alcohol notwithstanding the prohibition policy. The unfortunate part is that, at the lower end of the market, consumers now resort to illicit brews and intoxicating additives with serious health hazards. Even the United Nations has proclaimed that prohibition is undesirable. In the case of the Indian states, who are desperately short of funds, prohibition only retards development and improvement of public facilities. In Andhra Pradesh, for example, villages do not have drinking water. Income from taxation on alcoholic beverages can be effectively channelised to address such serious problems. If governments are so concerned about the consumption of liquor by the poor masses and their financial well-being, it will be prudent to restrict the consumption of toddy, arrack and country spirit.
On banning liquor advertising : Media advertising only helps in brand building and attracts consumer loyalty to a particular product. There fore, it cannot be said with any degree of certainty that the ban on advertising has resulted in lower consumption levels. The ban is impractical, unproductive and against the spirit of free enterprise and competition.
While most countries have either banned or imposed severe restrictions on tobacco advertising, this is freely permitted in India. On the other hand, most Western countries permit the advertising of alcoholic beverages and, here, in India there is a ban. Such a serious contradiction in policy needs to be examined and explained. There are heaps of medical studies to prove that moderate consumption of alcohol is beneficial to health and can, in fact, reduce the risk of a heart attack by as much as 50 per cent.
On how companies will cope with advertising bans : Companies will always find surrogate products and ways and means to circumvent the ban. This 'cat and mouse' game is unnecessary and unwarranted. It's far better to legally permit advertising of liquor, but within controlled parameters to be set by Government in consultation with the industry. The consumer will also benefit from a wide choice and will not be as dependent on point of sale persuasion by the liquor vendor. In states where there is government - controlled distribution, like Tamil Nadu and Kerala, or in states where 'cartels' buy up retail licences in auction, the consumer is denied the freedom of choice as these monopolies stock products that suit their own objectives.
On encouraging moderation in liquor consumption : The consumption of any food or beverage in excess is detrimental to health. This is not confined to alcohol only. It is reasonably expected that a person will exercise his own judgement in his consumption habits. To educate the consumer further and to dissuade him from excess consumption, the major liquor companies in India are more than willing to embark upon serious public awareness campaigns pointing out the fact that excessive consumption of alcohol would be detrimental to health. In fact, in most western countries, there is a joint initiative between government and industry to create such public awareness.
