Dear Editor,
Alcohol is the most common mood alleviating drug, used at social gatherings including holiday parties without much consideration being given to its addictive potential. The contradictory effects of alcohol are likened to the proverbial double-edged sword. Indeed, alcohol alleviates moods while also trapping many in addiction, even in some cases after a single drink. Editor, we all know alcohol addiction is an epidemic in Guyana and has plagued our society for many decades, causing tremendous distress.
Addiction is described by the National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA), as a chronic, relapsing brain disease involving obsessive, compulsive and impulsive drug seeking and use, despite harmful consequences. Addiction is an extremely difficult disease to cure and should be avoided, at all costs. It is manifested by maladaptive drinking patterns, correlating well with neuro-anatomical and neuro-chemical brain changes, responsible for disrupting rational decision-making, thus propelling the need for solutions. Solutions rely heavily on preventative measures like the use of tax levies and prohibitions.
Tax levies had been previously shown to be generally effective in reducing alcohol consumption and work on the principle of the economic law of demand, which states that price is inversely related to demand. Therefore, price increases will definitely lower demand while also reducing related problems and generating revenue as added incentives. A case in point is the success with which the state of Massachusetts has used tax levies in discouraging the purchase of alcohol, while simultaneously reducing traffic accidents, alcohol related deaths, sexually transmitted diseases, violence and crime. They have also benefited from generating revenue for social programmess.
Editor, on the one hand taxes can rake in maximum gains when targeting non-addicts who are naïve about alcohol, first-time drinkers, social drinkers, heavy drinkers and those abstaining as well as relapsing. This population has the ability to weigh costs versus benefits in making decisions about whether to buy alcohol when prices are high. On the other hand, taxes will yield minimal to no gains when targeting addicts, because their thought processes are severely disrupted. They do not have voluntary self control and will continue to buy this substance, even at outrageously high prices, thus prompting the need for drastic measures, like the use of prohibitions.
Prohibition will net deeper gains in terms of this problem simply because of its ability to target a wider range of the population consisting of both addicts and non addicts, than taxes would. Prohibition may also be the single most effective measure in reducing alcohol consumption among addicts. As an illustration, the USA successfully prohibited the sale, production, transportation, importation and use of this substance, in the early twentieth century during the dry movement. However, its use was not without troubles. It caused many problems, including illegal smuggling and bootlegging. Nevertheless, Prohibition was an effective means in making deep dents in this problem. Prohibitive measures along with medical and social interventions are probably the best combination of options in helping addicts.
All in all, the irresponsible use of alcohol in Guyanese society is mainly responsible for creating high levels of alcohol addiction, causing severe distress for society with an overwhelming public outcry for solutions. Tax interventions or prohibition, are necessary to confront this problem and should be applied with taxes working best among non-addicts, and prohibition effective with both populations. These interventions would also result in rum shops shutting their doors and a huge success for our society.
Yours faithfully,
Annie Baliram
