Believe it or not for some people in Britain, life without alcohol would almost be like life without oxygen. The beverage has a fundamental role in peoples’ lives for socialising, the opportunity to unwind, celebrating and ultimately happiness. It’s a pillar by which people come together and enhance their lives and perpetuate the culture of drinking.
A website explaining alcohol and society introduces the topic of how culture influences the way people drinking by quoting, “Over the course of socialization, people learn about drunkenness what their society `knows’ about drunkenness; and, accepting and acting upon the understandings thus imparted to them; they become the living confirmation of their society’s teachings.” 1 A story in the Observer newspaper by Amelia Hill, social affairs correspondent entitled “Britons can’t imagine a life without booze” talks about “The fear of a life without alcohol is so endemic that most adults say they are scared by the idea of socialising, relaxing, taking part in any celebration or trying to have a good night’s sleep without drinking.”
Unfortunately, this has left society in a bit of debacle, where currently youth drown in its abyss, families are torn apart and the NHS just cannot seem to cope with the ongoing & ever – rising health problems coming through its doors. In 2007, 112,267 prescription items for drugs treating alcohol dependency were prescribed by doctors an increase of 20% since 2003. There were 207,788 NHS hospital admissions linked to alcohol in 2007, more than twice the 93,459 recorded in 1996.
Yes, a lot of PROBLEMS OCCUR in society because of alcohol and because it is a human problem we need to solve it using the best solutions available to us. Currently the government is looking into measures such as increasing the pricing of alcohol, taxes, fines, penalties and more regulations on the drink industry, but will any of these measures solve the conundrum of alcohol?
With the current mindset we live in today, notions such as prohibition, and curbing freedoms are an anathema. Any such measure would be seen as absolutist and totalitarian. However, when one considers the compelling evidence of the effect of actions related to alcohol consumption, the aforementioned notions must be re-thought - or at least its foundations be reviewed because of the direct harm born out of it.
A society so overwhelmingly concerned about individual liberties to the detriment of the good of the community will be in conflicts. An individual is permitted the freedom to drink until they cause themselves irreversible liver damage. It not only costs the NHS millions of pounds and resources, but does incalculable damage to the ‘victim’ and their family. Alcoholics are expected to abstain, despite the fact it is part of fabric of modern culture and there are constant reminders of it in society. Whether it is a presence on supermarket shelves or adverts on television all theses play part in developing a “normal culture” for what can be, in effect, a lethal drug. The power lobbyists who gain from the drinks industry make sure of that.
For the individual right of a large corporation to make profits from alcoholic drinks is maintained, the government earns revenue through taxes, the media industry makes handsome amounts for adverts, and retailers take their cut at the point of sale. There are many financial beneficiaries from the sale of alcohol.
Yet, regrettably, an individual who consumes the alcohol gains the right to be sick and burden the NHS; relatives have to tolerate the abusive - often violent behaviour; the police having to pick up the pieces from drunken louts on the streets on Saturday night - or literally pick up pieces of cars from drink driving incidents. So, business benefits and individuals are harmed. So much for protecting the rights of the individual.
Governments claim to be upholding individual rights as their central focus when legislating, but in truth they will expose ordinary citizens to untold harms to protect the financial gains of business. In today’s society, Jeremy Bentham’s (1748 – 1832) adage of moral and political philosophy that we should seek to increase pleasure and minimize pain (Utilitarianism) seems to create a lot of unhappiness and significant human suffering.
Islam’s approach is very different. Islam deals at the point of cause. It works primarily on those preventive measures that avoid problems. Yet, if they do exist, firm measures are there to deal with them. The collective good of society is a bigger priority than the whims of affluent individuals, or the profits of vested interest groups. Such is the approach Islam takes upon many issues which we see as problems occurring today.
It is stated in the Qur’ân: “They ask you regarding wine and gambling. Say, in both of them is major sin, and there is some benefit for men, but the sin of them is far greater than benefit” (Surah Baqarah verse 219)
Life without alcohol would in fact then be one that did not entail devastating illness, family breakdown, and antisocial behaviour.
More: [dailymail.co.uk]
1. MacAndrew, C., and Edgerton, R.B., Drunken Comportment: A Social Explanation, Aldine, Chicago, 1969, p. 88.
June 4th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Excellent post and a poignant account of the ramifications of this socially accepted disease within the NHS.
It was only today i read a report about the nations attitude towards alcohol and how large supermarkets are leveraging their profit on the back of this social attitude by slashing prices below cost price as a marketing initiative to lure customers in, to the tune that booze was as cheap to buy as fizzy drinks. (Metro , June 4th 2008)
On the counter attack we have Police Chief Stephen Otter reporting the harrowing link between a rise in binge drinking and the general love for alcohol with the rise in sexual crimes, particularly rape, but imploring these multinationals to consider pricing responsibly rather than competitively.
This seems to be symptomatic of the nations approach of dealing with this endemic. To couple this is the new measure by the Government to set strict performance measures around financial management and standards of care and treatment that NHS managers have to meet or otherwise face the privatization axe where we will see primary care trusts and hospitals will go out to tender.
It seems the only metric that seems to count is the fiscal one. The government doesn’t know where its going as it with hands are bound by the shackles of political correctness and pragmatism. On one hand they cannot interfere with the free market and set prices proliferating the problem (why they don’t raise alcohol duty is beyond me) and on the other, they are setting strict measures on the NHS in the sober reality of this endemic further exacerbating the problem. Maybe im looking at it all wrong, maybe im being too harsh on the government. This is just my observation of the nations attitude towards alcohol and the financial hurdles the government has to consider before even getting close to the root of the problem.
June 4th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
What do you say to the following argument, that in the US in the 1920s, there was a prohibition of alcohol and people didn’t care at all about it. Alcohol was then what cocaine is today. Can prohibition really work?
June 4th, 2008 at 11:52 pm
Thats a very interesting question.
From this society’s perspective generally actions such as banning or prohibiting is something that is unacceptable unless in exceptional circumstances i.e guns. This is because there is strong mental mindset of an individual being able to do something whenever and whatever he/she wants to. The society is geared towards looking after the individual freedom and rights. Thus when the bill of prohibition was inacted in 1920, immediately it was getting increasingly unpopular, it did not fit with the psych of the general public. Coupled with the fact that many social problems have been attributed to the Prohibition era. A profitable, often violent, black market for alcohol flourished. Racketeering happened when powerful gangs corrupted law enforcement agencies.
So it was inevitable to remove the prohibition as it caused more problems and disagreed with the individual’s right.
In Islam the psych is completely different, when the prohibition of alcohol was revealed, the second the people heard they physically induced vomiting to remove any remenants of alcohol from the body fearing it will interfere with their salah.
To answer your question, prohibition in western society will not work, but there is evidence of it working in history.
For a people where constraints are looked down upon as FREEDOM is their creed, law will always be looked upon with disdain.
For a people where they have a mentality of being slaves to Allah(swt), obeying the law will be an act of worship!
June 4th, 2008 at 11:56 pm
Thats an interesting point Abdullah. I guess this is the worry i have with how problems are solved. Prohibition will never work in this society because it is a socially accepted past time, fully embedded within every social strata and equally championed by them as alluded to in the blog above (Observer article “Britons can’t imagine a life without booze”)
There are two conditions that will give way to a total prohibition of alcohol in society.
1) Life threatening consequences - If alcohol becomes decisively linked to fatality for the consumer or those around him/her.
2) Change in social attitudes - If an extremely persuasive argument is made that convinces them of the detrimental effects, socially and physically, of alcoholic consumption.
The first condition seems inconceivable to result in a total prohibition, in that it is not decisively factual and never will be. It will entail alcohol spontaneously taking on poisonous characteristic rendering the smallest sip fatal. We’l strike that one off!
The second condition may seem plausible even if you go down the whole ‘Smoking can kill (eventually!)’ line it will only manifest itself with a responsible drinking approach where large stickers are plastered on drink cans/bottles with ‘Drinking can rape and kill and waste tax monies etc’. But this will not lead to an absolute result.
Anything beyond this line of argument will tend to an ideological debate. One that questions ones right to drink and smoke and do whatever to express oneself freely. A debate that aint really going to be entertained. Will it?