On the footsteps of Kerala, Bihar has plonked for complete prohibition followed by a promise from Jayalalithaa to bring in total prohibition, in Tamilnadu, if voted back to power. Is it a gimmick or is it a sincere effort on the politicians' part taking the interest of the people into consideration? I've my doubts about the latter and am of the opinion that it's nothing but a gimmick considering the large vote bank of women that's at stake!
Firstly, it's bad economics in that a steady source of income into the government coffers is being stopped. Crores of rupees that flow into the treasury in the form of excise duty levied on liquor is much needed income for governance, to provide amenities for the people. Secondly, it goes by the presumption that drinking is bad. But drinking in moderation isn't bad and is all right for the health as vouched by the medical department. It's the bane of over indulgence that needs to be tackled through education and by enforcing clear cut penalties for defaulters as per the law!
The aftermath of prohibition has two avoidable situations:-
(a) Mushrooming of liquor vends in the immediate vicinity of the borders between the states
which, sadly, will have the patronage of the Excise and the Police departments.
(b) Illicit liquor will be made and distributed, on the quiet, leading to tragedies. The list of such
past happenings is endless.
Then why is the tearing hurry in enforcing prohibition? It's a tool used by the crafty politician to get that solid vote bank that consists of women - and a formidable one at that!
Tailpiece.
1. Liquor being served only in five star hotels, in Kerala, is something that cannot be understood. The rich can drink but not the poor, huh?........What a discrimination, sirji?
2. The argument given is that it's to support tourism. If that be so, what about the travellers that come into India on a 'low cost travel budget'?
PS.
Do women loathe people who drink, I wonder? As far as I can recall, it's a 'nay'. Yes, but everyone detests a guy who can't hold his drinks.
Firstly, it's bad economics in that a steady source of income into the government coffers is being stopped. Crores of rupees that flow into the treasury in the form of excise duty levied on liquor is much needed income for governance, to provide amenities for the people. Secondly, it goes by the presumption that drinking is bad. But drinking in moderation isn't bad and is all right for the health as vouched by the medical department. It's the bane of over indulgence that needs to be tackled through education and by enforcing clear cut penalties for defaulters as per the law!
The aftermath of prohibition has two avoidable situations:-
(a) Mushrooming of liquor vends in the immediate vicinity of the borders between the states
which, sadly, will have the patronage of the Excise and the Police departments.
(b) Illicit liquor will be made and distributed, on the quiet, leading to tragedies. The list of such
past happenings is endless.
Then why is the tearing hurry in enforcing prohibition? It's a tool used by the crafty politician to get that solid vote bank that consists of women - and a formidable one at that!
Tailpiece.
1. Liquor being served only in five star hotels, in Kerala, is something that cannot be understood. The rich can drink but not the poor, huh?........What a discrimination, sirji?
2. The argument given is that it's to support tourism. If that be so, what about the travellers that come into India on a 'low cost travel budget'?
PS.
Do women loathe people who drink, I wonder? As far as I can recall, it's a 'nay'. Yes, but everyone detests a guy who can't hold his drinks.
No comments:
Post a Comment