Come April 2017, no more Liquor shops on the highway!

[Sankar]

phamilyman

What is being implemented is a half baked solution to a problem (DUI) which is not being enforced properly. And since i am not a non-drinker and coming from a state which is known for its drinking culture let me tell you that lack of easy access to liquor on the road can cut down on some if not all unplanned/on-a-whim drink and drive sessions.

PS: In case its not clear. I don't support the ban being implemented now, and thus termed it as a jugaad which is being tackled by another jugaad. Enforcement is the proper way to tackle this menace without hurting the economy and putting lakhs/millions of people in misery.

[binand]

It seems this report by an NGO played a not inconsequential role in this saga:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahome...k-driving.html

The founder of this NGO, CADD, is a member of National Road Safety Council and testified in the Supreme Court, apparently.

[ninjatalli]

Originally Posted by phamilyman

But when millions of livelihoods and billions in investments by aam aadmi entrepreneurs are at stake, the government needs to collect the evidence, exhaust all possible alternatives and then choose the best one, instead of the morally appealing one.

Just how millions of livelihood and billions in investment are at stake? Liquor is not permanently banned. Only in certain areas. Now that is a bureaucratic nightmare as officials are going to have a field day in hounding restaurants and bars even those who aren't in the 500mt limit, but argument sake there isn't a loss. Drinking is an addiction or at most a preferred socializing event that people are going to do irrespective of the bans and laws.

Again I am not defending logic of implementation plan. What's done is done. Just understanding some of the assumptions being made.

[blackasta]

Originally Posted by ninjatalli

Just how millions of livelihood and billions in investment are at stake?

Appx 10 lakh people are directly impacted - so including family (conservative estimate of only 2 people per family) it is safe to say at least 20 lakh, or 2 million people face uncertain future.

Only in Bengal, 450 crore, or 4.5 Billion Rupees worth of stock is sitting unsold as per article in The Telegraph. Multiply with a very conservative factor of 10 for the country, and we get 45 billion rupees investment impact in the country.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by ninjatalli

Again I am not defending logic of implementation plan. What's done is done. Just understanding some of the assumptions being made.

It is not an assumption. Let's take my town Manipal, which has about 3 dozen restaurant bars and pubs. Only 2 of them survive the ban. Each of these commercial buildings represent multiple crores of investment. Most of them still have loan EMIs to pay, unless they were started by some really rich guy. Each of them employ 20-50 people depending on size.

Few of them will relocate to a road that connects end-point to Santekatte. But most won't have the wherewithal to sell the building and restart elsewhere. In fact, there will be no takers for building designed primarily to serve as bar.

Alright, forget the owners. What about the employees? These are the kind of people who have very little education, and have little chance to switch careers. Bars also employ lots of tough guys for keeping the peace within the premises. It has always been stable employment for them. What are they going to do now... extortion? Pretty crimes? Earlier V-16 too was alluding to this fact, because he understands the industry very well.

Originally Posted by V-16

The industry employs largely semi and unskilled persons who do not know what else to do. Dont you think it will create a law and order problem soon enough? What work will you offer someone who has been serving you food in a restaurant. Wont this lead to crime, because a man has to eat, his hungry family needs to eat too.

[noopster]

The only thing I could think of when this news hit was the law of unintended consequences.

Some Googling led me to the 5 causes of unintended consequences: (Source: Wikipedia)

Robert K. Merton listed five possible causes of unanticipated consequences in 1936:

• Ignorance, making it impossible to anticipate everything, thereby leading to incomplete analysis
• Errors in analysis of the problem or following habits that worked in the past but may not apply to the current situation
• Immediate interests overriding long-term interests
• Basic values which may require or prohibit certain actions even if the long-term result might be unfavorable (these long-term consequences may eventually cause changes in basic values)
• Self-defeating prophecy, or, the fear of some consequence which drives people to find solutions before the problem occurs, thus the non-occurrence of the problem is not anticipated

I think this judgement pretty much ticks all the boxes: it is ignorant to the extent that it fails to consider the interests of (among others) established, legal restaurant and bar owners who just happen to be within 500M of a highway that may probably have developed well AFTER they set up shop...etc. It's an erroneous analysis that shutting such shops with address the problem of highway deaths significantly given how few of them (statistically) are caused by DUI. It fails to consider long-term interests (promoting commerce, the liquor industry, a culture of responsible driving, etc.) It seems clear that basic values of puritanism, indignant morality and social flag-waving have taken precedence over common sense and fairness in imposing this arbitrary ban. Finally, it could result in a self-fulfilling prophecy where even those who are casual, occasional drinkers now start carrying liquor "just in case" and end up consuming it while they normally would not have.

We are fast turning into a nanny state. Our government and institutions need to respect human liberty and choice in their policy making instead of assuming us all to be ignorant and/or malicious lawbreakers. This is going to be as futile and self-defeating as the sun film ban.

[lazy]

Interesting read this thread is.

This move appears too prescriptive and state-controlling, also maybe not turn out to be as effective as the SC would want it to be in curbing highway DUI.
And a lot of scepticism is also due to the fact that state enforced prohibition on alcohol sale has not worked anywhere in the past.

However, in some ways I feel that this is a move in the right direction.
People will gradually not drive that extra 500+500 mtrs for their tipple, will stop pre-buying bottles to keep in vehicles, and slowly get used to not taking the trouble to drink.
Goes without saying that this change will take time, but it will happen.
Human mind places a lot of importance to convenience, and once something is made inconvenient then habits start weakening.

And people who are saying this is a stupid move because its causing job losses. Really?
Would you say the same for keeping Air India, HMT, Scooters India, etc etc alive. And these are benign examples since these do not cause deaths of citizens, which DUI does.

Also, India doesn't collect stats well enough to firmly conclude that DUI deaths are low, hence alcohol isn't the culprit. No one should argue what alcohol does to driving behavior. If that's curtailed, its a positive move.

cheers

[sgiitk]

I have seen no reports of the possible reduction in road accidents due to this ban. States are more interested in the loss of revenue. One point, Why were so many vends allowed in the crowded areas and highways. How much will the reduction in accidents contribute to the GDP?

Do we need the UK system of Bars & Off Licenses officially? If we can enforce it strictly then a lot of nuisance due to shops being overrun by rowdies may be reduced tremendously.

All in UP, at least, local ladies have taken up the cudgels against wine shops in residential areas, esp moving in there.

Another point, can we allow easier laws for beer shops?

[djpeesh]

Given that vehicles cause 100% of vehicular accidents, I suppose someone should be filing a PIL to ban them. Then we'll see bicycles and bicycle rickshaws (bullock carts may also be banned, because Holy Cow family).

The problem in India is the tendency to ban anything and everything, instead of actually using law enforcement to enforce the law.

I went on a ride yesterday and at a restaurant where I usually stop for breakfast, I asked about the ban. All that its done so far is led to a drop in legitimate sales (tax paid, revenue generating) as a 'fixer' can arrange it to be delivered. Expect to read more about moonshine related blinding and deaths as people resort to spurious stuff to get their fix.

Oh, and the ban applies even to places like the Westin in Mumbai. How many times have you seen a trucker pull over at a five star or at a mall to pop into TGIF for a drink?

[binand]

Originally Posted by djpeesh

Oh, and the ban applies even to places like the Westin in Mumbai. How many times have you seen a trucker pull over at a five star or at a mall to pop into TGIF for a drink?

All other points notwithstanding, this is very elitist. Especially when talking of Mumbai, the city where Nooriya Haveliwala, Alistair Pereira, Jahnavi Gadkar and many others like them lived.

[phamilyman]

Originally Posted by binand

All other points notwithstanding, this is very elitist. Especially when talking of Mumbai, the city where Nooriya Haveliwala, Alistair Pereira, Jahnavi Gadkar and many others like them lived.

That's a slippery slope. The argument is to stop drunken driving on the highway,not root out every single incident of drunken driving. Critical difference there.

Bringing in Ms Gadkar's case to justify this implies a move to prohibition basically. That's clearly not the "problem" this decree aimed at.

Mind you, I'm not supporting any breed of drunken drivers. I'm just saying that inner city drunk driving cases are not the focus of this decree.

Maybe if you chose a more appropriate example I'd agree. The rule should apply in the same fashion, irrespective of class.

[djpeesh]

Originally Posted by binand

All other points notwithstanding, this is very elitist. Especially when talking of Mumbai, the city where Nooriya Haveliwala, Alistair Pereira, Jahnavi Gadkar and many others like them lived.

The point being? All the cases you've cited, none of them drank at liquor vends or bars on national or state highways. So how would this law have prevented that?

The solution to drinking and driving is better enforcement. Even with the current levels of enforcement, most people (I know) have stopped drinking and driving. The strict penalties are a big enough deterrent.

To say total prohibition should be imposed merely because a few people don't know how to partake responsibly is like saying all movies and cricket matches should be banned because some people behave like hooligans. Let's get rational. You may not want to drink but many others (myself included) enjoy our drinks responsibly.

[apachelongbow]

That gadhkar case could have been nipped in the bud if there was a provision to hit where it hurts most. Caught drunk and driving? Go to Jail, get a FIR, lose passport, visa and with a criminal case lose your legal licence and job. This kind of example setting is much required inorder to control the masses.

[binand]

Originally Posted by djpeesh

The point being?

The point being DUI is not a trait confined to a particular social or economic class. I perceived a certain incredulity in your post that Westin (the one in Goregaon East, right?) is included among the ones that are set to lose their licenses when it is not frequented by truck drivers.

Originally Posted by djpeesh

To say total prohibition should be imposed merely because a few people don't know how to partake responsibly.. .

I see a lot of people calling the current situation "total prohibition". It is not. It only reduces the availability of alcohol at a place where it (alcohol) creates a lot of damage.

It seems there are 70K km of national highways and 155K km of state highways in India. That means a land area of 6.8% becomes off-limits for alcohol sales. How is that prohibition?

[rohiT Nonu]

The prised effort by the supreme court in dissuading the vendors quick bucks as well as the customers sight from the bottles of temetum is quite appreciable. However, still some lacuna's have been left out which are taken to the advantage by the vendors.
From a couple of days, I've been going through articles wherein I get to see the hotels (a.k.a vendors) and even the state governments ironically marred the sanctity of supreme court's order. Few state governments started naming few NH's passing through their capacity to be a SH inorder to escape from the NH laws. Today, I was astonished by the iniquity of few hotel managements when they found a way to escape the SC order of 500m distance, as they are simply changing the customer entrance of the building to the rear side from where the staff previously used to enter the premises so that the distance from the highway just exceeds 500m. Now everything remains the same as the past.