The controversial NLTP Act, 1989 continue to surge as the main topic of public discourse across various platforms with the church yet again taking its strong stance for the Act, while the state government reportedly has plans to partially lift it largely citing economic reasons.
There is also a visibly growing consensus among the masses that the Act is a failure and that the Act must hence be lifted, citing immediate economic interests and also allowing consumers to have access to quality liquor.
The argument against the Act reasons that NLTP has incurred revenue losses for the state while allowing liquor black market to boom.
The Act is also being criticized for its ‘hypocritical’ nature, and claims that consuming adulterated and spurious alcohol because of prohibition has caused more premature deaths are leveled against the Act.
Meanwhile, the generic argument for the Act has usually been that abusing alcohol ruins lives, family and children and often contextualizes it with ‘spiritual reasoning’, especially by the church.
Many arguments put forward by the church lack quantifiable evidence with almost no touch of realism.
Apart from zealous persuasion, they seem to struggle to corroborate their institution’s stand from decades ago with verifiable data.
But times have changed; the society at large no longer seeks moral, emotional or spiritual persuasion because the menace of alcoholism has truly embroiled the society and its threat is piercing deep into its heart.
Thus, this debate needs a thorough intellectual discourse, research and analysis to bring about a logical conclusion.
Often, those who support lifting the prohibition are not against the Act because they condone the evils of alcoholism, but because they believe that the Act is the cause of unbridled alcoholism and its ill effects.
Of course, the ‘dry state’ tag sounds too idealistic which only a tyrannical theocratic regime might or might not successfully adopt. But, does a ‘regulated free liquor state’ really have an edge over the ‘dry state’ in all sectors? Or, are the proponents of lifting the Act paying attention to the whole issue? Is there really no flipside to a ‘regulated free liquor state’?
According to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), 2019, in the US, 14.5 million people aged 12 and older had Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD) while an estimated 4,14,000 adolescents ages 12 to 17 had AUD.
In England in 2019-20, there were 976,425 hospital admissions related to alcohol consumption, a rate 12% higher than in 2016-17. In Scotland in 2019-20, there were around 35,781 alcohol-related hospital admissions while in Japan, there is no societal acknowledgment of alcoholism. For much of Japanese society, it is said, addiction to alcohol does not exist and, in fact, binge drinking to the point of blacking out has been normalized.
Thus, a greater need arises on the seriousness of accounting alcoholism as a disease. Are the policy makers and the government taking such accounts of public health impacts during policy making?
What the Numbers Say
According to WHO, worldwide, an estimated annual three million deaths and 5.1% of Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) of the world are attributed to alcohol consumption while in 2016, alcohol consumption was ranked seventh in risk factors linking to deaths and DALYs.
In India, there are about 160 million alcohol consumers out of which according to the National Family Health Survey-4 (NFHS-4), 29.2% men and 1.2% women consume alcohol. And till date, India does not have a solid national policy on alcohol consumption, and its use is regulated only at the level of individual states and Union Territories.
According to ‘Magnitude of Substance Use in India, 2019’ released by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, 8.1% of the population of Nagaland State currently consume or use alcohol while the neighboring state of Assam recorded a shocking 26.3% of women and 59.4% of men between 15-54 years of age that consumes alcohol.
Meanwhile, India reported more than 5.7 crore individuals who are affected by harmful or dependent alcohol use and need help for their alcohol use problems.
A public interest study by K. Balasubramani et al reported that India has three major alcohol hot spots and they are the North-Eastern (NE) states, Eastern Peninsular states and Southern states of Tamil Nadu and Kerala where alcohol consumption by women was found to be highest in NE states of India.
As per the study, very little information is said to be available on those hot spot clusters of alcohol consumption at the district level in India.
Alcohol and Economic Loss
A study by G. Jyani et al., reported that between 2011 and 2050, alcohol attributed deaths would lead to a loss of 258 million life years. In contrast, 552 million quality adjusted life years (QALYs) would be gained by eliminating alcohol consumption. Treatment of these conditions will impose an economic burden of INR 3127 billion on the health system.
Societal burden of alcohol, inclusive of health system cost, out of pocket expenditure and productivity losses will be INR 121,364 billion. Even after adjusting for tax receipts from sale of alcohol, alcohol poses a net economic loss of INR 97,895 billion.
This amounts to an average loss of 1.45% of the gross domestic product (GDP) per year to the Indian economy.
Alcohol and Health Loss
Moreover, alcohol use has been linked to 60 acute and chronic disease conditions, especially cancers, liver cirrhosis, and cardiovascular diseases. Alcohol is also indirectly related to an increase in road accidents.
The ‘global alcohol use and burden’ study shows that health loss is associated with all levels of consumption. And this is not to mention the contribution of alcohol to domestic violence, divorce, sexual violence, mental health etc. The Indian National Crime Records Bureau from 1980 to 2010 suggests that increased alcohol consumption is associated with crime.
However, at the same time, NCRB again recorded that tighter regulations on the sale of alcohol increase the size of the violent black market.
Conclusion
Therefore, more and better quality survey data is required to draw the issue into a logical conclusion. The debate may carry on but without research, data and analyst interventions, there cannot be a fair, informed and balanced solution. Meanwhile, the government must account for public health and well-being during policy making and provide opportunities and platforms for intellectuals to research, dissect and discuss from scratch. At the same time, the argument of both sides should not be biased based on their emotions and idealism but stay open to facts and datasheet.