health
Gujarat has had prohibition since it was formed, and Bihar since 2016; Nagaland and Mizoram also restrict alcohol. Supporters, often women’s groups, cite reductions in domestic violence and spending on drink. Critics point to illicit liquor and hooch tragedies, such as deaths from spurious liquor in Bihar, the loss of excise revenue that funds other states’ budgets, and the burden on police and courts.
Take a stance to see what people think.
Results open up once you've answered, so they don't sway you.
Mark an argument convincing even if you took the other side. It shows which points persuade people across the divide.
Prohibition protects families from the harms of alcohol.
Alcohol is linked to domestic violence, road accidents and poverty; women in many villages have campaigned for bans.
Some studies of Bihar after prohibition found falls in domestic violence and more household spending on food and education.
The Constitution’s directive principles ask the state to work towards prohibition of intoxicating drinks.
Bans drive drinking underground and cost lives and revenue.
Prohibition creates a black market; spurious liquor has killed hundreds of people in states with bans.
Excise on alcohol is one of states’ biggest revenue sources, funding schools and hospitals; prohibition states lose it to smugglers.
Enforcement fills jails with poor offenders and gives police opportunities for corruption.
Whether prohibition reduces drinking and its harms, or mostly drives it underground. Evidence from Bihar on domestic violence and health, set against illegal trade, poisonings and lost revenue, is the heart of the question.
