chic's blog

Early this week, a drunk driver in Bangalore ran over and killed 3 employees of the General Post Office in Bangalore who were working on the night shift. So drunk was this media executive that he didn't even know he had run over these people. He reached home and slept. The sorry incident should have brought to focus the legislations for drunk driving, but it unfortunately has not. The only lament heard in the local media was that the presence of a canteen in the GPO premises would have saved the 3 people, who had to go out and use the canteen in the New Indian Express building across the road. Can this one man's behaviour justify imposing prohibition in Bangalore, the pub city of India?

The most common reason cited in favour of prohibition is the prevention of alcoholism. We all know that alcoholism is a disease and alcoholics are known to have debt-ridden lives, beating wives and children and generally wasting themselves away. People who turn to alcoholism are usually those who cannot stand stress and are either weak or irresponsible individuals. Their alcoholism is just a manifestation of their inner selves. But all those who drink are not alcoholics. We need to make a serious distinction between the two. Responsible drinking as a concept is possible. For example, in many countries where laws are very strict about drinking and driving, people don't touch their cars even after just one pint of beer (which hardly alters the senses!).