[sdp1975]

Originally Posted by Samurai

If the sudden unavailability of liquor (not just in highways, but everywhere) could reduce the DUI deaths by 60%, one can conclude that there was hardly any enforcement in the first place.

Pre-condition: No DUI enforcement.
Situation: 100 deaths per month (just some number)

Liquor gets banned.

Post-condition: No DUI enforcement.
Situation: 40 deaths per month (i.e. 60% reduction) & hotel industry destroyed.

What if the pre-condition was strict DUI enforcement? Then the reduction would have been very little. It is easy to gauge if you live in any strict DUI enforcement cities.

Now let's consider the highway liquor ban. It will not have similar impact because one can easily travel 500m off the the highway and get it. In fact, get ready to see direction boards all along the NH/SH saying "Hotel XXX - 500m from Hwy". They don't have to advertise they are bar or pub. 500m will be the new code word. It is already happening in my native district.

DUI enforcement will bring down accidents. That doesn't mean that reducing availability won't bring them down, as the Bihar figures show. Reducing availability will bring down deaths. The numbers will be higher if the ban is on a state level , lesser on a highway level.

Yes some people ( but not all ) will travel an extra 500m to get liquor - a fact the SC written judgement clearly acknowledges. Some ( but not all ) will also get around complete statewide prohibition measures to acquire liquor , and the Bihar figures already includes this factor. But saying that reducing availability on the highways will make no difference to deaths doesn't sound good reasoning to me.

[Stratosphere]

Originally Posted by sdp1975

DUI enforcement will bring down accidents. That doesn't mean that reducing availability won't bring them down, as the Bihar figures show. Reducing availability will bring down deaths. The numbers will be higher if the ban is on a state level , lesser on a highway level.

Yes some people ( but not all ) will travel an extra 500m to get liquor - a fact the SC written judgement clearly acknowledges. Some ( but not all ) will also get around complete statewide prohibition measures to acquire liquor , and the Bihar figures already includes this factor. But saying that reducing availability on the highways will make no difference to deaths doesn't sound good reasoning to me.

You are correct in assuming that reducing availability will make a difference in the deaths, but this abrupt action came at the the cost of an industry, which has always been at the forefront of generating employment in our country.

Reducing deaths is a good thought but doing that at the cost of an industry which supports millions is foolish. Sooner or later there will be layoffs. Massive layoffs.

Like some people say, "If you kill a killer, the number of killers in the world remain the same"

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by sdp1975

DUI enforcement will bring down accidents. That doesn't mean that reducing availability won't bring them down, as the Bihar figures show. Reducing availability will bring down deaths. The numbers will be higher if the ban is on a state level , lesser on a highway level.

And what is the cost the society has to pay for this?

Banning automobiles altogether will bring DUI deaths to zero. How about doing that? Convenience of automobiles and future of transport/automobile industry be damned. It will save lives, while turning millions jobless and homeless.

[noopster]

Originally Posted by sdp1975

DUI enforcement will bring down accidents. That doesn't mean that reducing availability won't bring them down, as the Bihar figures show. Reducing availability will bring down deaths. The numbers will be higher if the ban is on a state level , lesser on a highway level.

At some point you need to realise that the implications of the ban are more than an academic exercise for some people. Stratosphere and Samurai are debating this from the point of view of people who's immediate family are directly impacted by the ban in a significant and disastrous way.

Throwing out the baby with the bathwater is never a good idea. To wander just for a moment, unfortunately it is the default way to handle any issue in this country. A woman gets raped on her way back from work? Ban all women from working late shifts! Some perverts misuse full-tint glasses to kidnap and molest an innocent? Ban all sunfilm, however transparent!

I hope you realise there are families whose livelihood is at threat here. Not everyone is going to bounce back from this ban. It's always a tragedy when an arbitrary metric is introduced that makes an activity, previously legal, illegal. There is no science behind the 500m law and nobody can convince me otherwise.

Originally Posted by Stratosphere

You are correct in assuming that reducing availability will make a difference in the deaths, but this abrupt action came at the the cost of an industry, which has always been at the forefront of generating employment in our country.
...
Like some people say, "If you kill a killer, the number of killers in the world remain the same"

Well said.

[sdp1975]

It's amply obvious that jobs will be lost by banning liqour . Almost every post in this thread repeats this rather obvious fact , and makes this discussion mundane and uninteresting . Are those having alternate viewpoints worried of being shouted down , because the "mood" of this thread and forum is against the liqour ban ?

There are always 2 sides to a coin , and 6 to a dice. I'd rather look at this from the judges POV , who's been vilified here, and has nobody to defend him.

Alcohol has long been considered a vice in our country that leads to numerous social problems. That finally found it's way to the Constitution envisaging liqour prohibition. What happened in the last 70 years was exactly the opposite and now we're talking about nurturing and grooming an 'industry' that should've been killed in the first place. When the talk of killing comes , eloquent western styled economic arguments are presented. 'Law and Order' , 'effective enforcement' are proposed as solutions . But na , alcohol can never be a problem right ? It generates jobs and some money can be spun out of it . Doomsday on job losses and apocalypse have also been presented. Individual choices and arguments on liberty are always nice to hear , but we aren't test tube babies - like in Huxley's Brave New World - living on an island.

The courts have a Constitutional obligation to protect life( read the judgement) , and in the absence of the state doing so, they stepped in. Should they care about job losses ? Does this liqour industry for that matter care about the consequences of selling liqour ?

It would have been obvious to them that there would be jobs losses as a consequence. I'd say they put the 500m rule to minimize the damage , the rule that people now say ain't effective and useless.

If I'd been in their place , I'd have added another zero and made that a full 5km to make my verdict be effective , but they chose to strike a balance. Freewheeling criticism of the judiciary has become all to common in internet forums and it's no exception here.

So let's keep the jobs and the deaths . The judiciary and Constititution be damned ! Long live liqour friendly economics.

[noopster]

^^If you are anti-liquor per se, there is nothing that any of us here can say to convince you otherwise. But it's out of context in this thread which is talking about a specific ruling impacting those in the hospitality industry.

[sdp1975]

I fully agree with you.

And if you're pro-liqour per se , there's nothing anyone can convince you otherwise either ( You'll anyways say it's out of context ).

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by sdp1975

It's amply obvious that jobs will be lost by banning liqour . Almost every post in this thread repeats this rather obvious fact , and makes this discussion mundane and uninteresting.

I agree it is mundane and uninteresting for unaffected casual viewers, for whom this is just an academic debate. For months I have been watching many relatives and acquaintances who are about to lose their livelihood, and also forced to fire all their employees by the end of this month. Those blue collar employees have nowhere to go because most bars are shutting down.

Originally Posted by sdp1975

Are those having alternate viewpoints worried of being shouted down , because the "mood" of this thread and forum is against the liqour ban?

No, it is because their logic is based on ideological foundation, rather than reality. If you are not aware, the forum actually has zero tolerance policy against any mention of liquor, except in threads that specifically discusses policy regarding liquor, like this one.

Originally Posted by sdp1975

There are always 2 sides to a coin , and 6 to a dice. I'd rather look at this from the judges POV , who's been vilified here, and has nobody to defend him.

Ever heard of term of false equivalency? When one side is devoid of facts, they are not the same as the side that has facts on their side.

People with zero understanding of the industry on the one side, and people with deep understanding of the industry on the other. And you equate them to be the two sides of the coin?

Originally Posted by sdp1975

Alcohol has long been considered a vice in our country that leads to numerous social problems. That finally found it's way to the Constitution envisaging liqour prohibition.

Are you aware of any free country where prohibition works and didn't lead to the creation of bootlegging industry? Prohibition has always caused more harm than otherwise. Therefore, no mature country now follows prohibition. It is better to keep it legal and regulate it.

Originally Posted by sdp1975

If I'd been in their place , I'd have added another zero and made that a full 5km to make my verdict be effective , but they chose to strike a balance. Freewheeling criticism of the judiciary has become all to common in internet forums and it's no exception here.

See, you are able to make such statements because you don't understand how businesses are built. A legal business is started only after determining that the prevailing laws/regulations will allow the business to sustain and grow. And the profit expected encourages the entrepreneur to invest huge amount in personal or borrowed funds (loans) in such an enterprise. Once the investment is done, if the government drastically changes the laws to the detriment of the business, the entrepreneur is doomed. His employees are doomed, the whole industry is doomed. Since you are oblivious to these facts, you obviously don't care, and exactly such people are making the laws and regulations in our country.

[sdp1975]

Samurai - I knew that you would come up with lengthy and argumentative responses .

You always place business and economics above everything else, and your responses aren't at all surprising, and you've already stated most of this previously as well.

I've already put across what I had to say and I don't want to spend time dragging this conversation. You're right where you come from , and I'm right where I come from. So let's leave it there , shall we ?

[avira_tk]

Originally Posted by sdp1975

There are always 2 sides to a coin , and 6 to a dice. I'd rather look at this from the judges POV , who's been vilified here, and has nobody to defend him.

Alcohol has long been considered a vice in our country that leads to numerous social problems. That finally found it's way to the Constitution envisaging liqour prohibition. What happened in the last 70 years was exactly the opposite and now we're talking about nurturing and grooming an 'industry' that should've been killed in the first place. .

You realize that the what was popular/acceptable 70 years ago could get you imprisoned today? Things change, and frankly we need to put individual rights first and actively punish creeps who have made a living out of being offended. This country has nurtured a culture that puts the blame on anything other than the individual for criminal behaviour, perhaps its time to discover the concept of personal responsibility.

The only thing prohibition has achieved is organized crime, this silly rule has invented a new category of roads and caused huge losses in terms of employment, at a time when our economy is slowing down and jobs are hard to come by. It's easy to be gleefully cheer the destruction of something when you don't have any skin in the game

[sdp1975]

Originally Posted by avira_tk

You realize that the what was popular/acceptable 70 years ago could get you imprisoned today? Things change, and frankly we need to put individual rights first and actively punish creeps who have made a living out of being offended. This country has nurtured a culture that puts the blame on anything other than the individual for criminal behaviour, perhaps its time to discover the concept of personal responsibility.

The only thing prohibition has achieved is organized crime, this silly rule has invented a new category of roads and caused huge losses in terms of employment, at a time when our economy is slowing down and jobs are hard to come by. It's easy to be gleefully cheer the destruction of something when you don't have any skin in the game

Yes , as I said earlier , bring in LFWE ( liqour friendly western economics , or LFWE in short ) and everything becomes justifiable.

It's also easy to cheerfully propose liqour and make money out of it ignoring the social problems it creates.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by sdp1975

You always place business and economics above everything else, and your responses aren't at all surprising, and you've already stated most of this previously as well.

Those who follow my arguments on economics related thread will be shocked at your conclusion. I place people above everything else, especially ideology. This thread is about an ideological decision destroying an industry, which employs millions of people. So my side is clear to me. When businesses harm people, I bat for regulations to control the businesses. I am for a balance between socialism and capitalism.

[navin]

Originally Posted by sdp1975

You always place business and economics above everything else..

"Business and economics" pays bills, puts food on the table, allows people to educate future generations, etc... it should be above "above everything else".

[Nav-i-gator]

For many states, esp ones where the level of industrialization is very low, liquor is the main source of revenue generation. Alcohol in itself is not a sin substance, alcohol abuse (which is a social/induvidual problem) is the issue, much like other so called "sin-industries" like tobacco, pornography, prostitution, junk foods etc. And the demand for each of these industries exists (and have existed throughout the history of mankind).

For every bottle of liquor that a consumer buys, roughly 25 rupee goes to the state where it is manufactured, 25 to the state where it is sold. depending on state laws, some 2 rupees to the states through which it is transported, roughly 20 rupee to trade (dealers, distributors, retailers etc). on the rest28 rupee, companies adjust their COGS and hence profits.

Point is, IF we are paying heed to the social costs of alcohol (and tobacco for that matter), what we need is a TOTAL BAN on production, consumption, sale, import, export of it. This "neither here nor there" type of legislation only add to the social evil, not reduce it. It makes people to drink more (binge drinking) whenever they get a chance to drink (higher probability that a person from Bihar, whenever get a chance to go to any other state, is likely to drink more than he/she can manage soberly, for example). People will engage in bootlegging, illegal sale/distribution of alcohol and profiteering, amounting to loss of revenue, law and order issues and higher social cost of alcohol abuse.

Most open state in terms of liquor has been goa, I don't think the local goan population in general is suffering more from alcohol abuse and other evils associated with alcohol than any other state.

P.S. Gujarat, where prohibition is a long held policy, is among the top states in terms of alcohol consumption. go figure.

[noopster]

Originally Posted by sdp1975

I fully agree with you.

And if you're pro-liqour per se , there's nothing anyone can convince you otherwise either ( You'll anyways say it's out of context ).

You probably think that's a clever repartee but it just shows that you are unable to think beyond your own ideology and empathize with others who do not share it. The people who own, run and are employed in outlets impacted by this move have been running legitimate businesses that took years to build. Overnight their world has collapsed (I am not being dramatic- please ask around) by this arbitrary and draconian ruling.

I understand that the original litigant in this case was himself a victim of drunk driving that caused him a permanent disability. His intention was good and what he propounds no doubts saves lives. But the courts' job is to take the larger view. You are right when you say that alcoholism is a serious problem and the root of several social ills. But there is a significant proportion of people in this country who drink responsibly, out of choice and in moderation. And where the judgement fails in my opinion is that the 500m rule is arbitrary and has no scientific basis. Why wouldn't someone desperate for a drink take a small detour to get what he thirsts for? What about the legitimate hotels and eateries that fall under the scope of this ruling by sheer accident of location? Don't those business owners and employees have any rights?

Already the silliness of the 500m rule is becoming obvious, resulting in amendments like this one. Why 220m now? It defies all common sense and logic.

The unintended consequences of this "noble" act of the SC extend far and wide. In Pune, which has expanded rapidly in the last decade, most arterial roads running through the city are state or national highways. It has meant that popular downtown eateries have had to shut down their lucrative liquor business for no fault of theirs. Additionally several residential areas are impacted, for example Kothrud, a large suburb which has the misfortune of having 2 state highways running through pretty much all of it, has seen all its wine shops shut down, so if a Kothrud-niwasi wants to have a quiet beer in his own home, he needs to drive all the way to near where I live, where the only two wine shops that are spared thanks to being >500m away from the highway are doing a roaring business. However this means that almost every evening, especially weekends, you have traffic snarls with vehicles double- and triple- parked trying to get their evening medicine.

Also, I don't think you have read any of my earlier posts, so am just reproducing something that you may agree with:

Originally Posted by noopster

Throwing out the baby with the bathwater is never a good idea. To wander just for a moment, unfortunately it is the default way to handle any issue in this country. A woman gets raped on her way back from work? Ban all women from working late shifts! Some perverts misuse full-tint glasses to kidnap and molest an innocent? Ban all sunfilm, however transparent!