Some of the comments in the last post pointed out that easy availability of liquor in some states could be the reason why these states have higher rates of violent crimes against women.
Domestic violence definitely increases with alcohol abuse. Nearly all my domestic helpers have had husbands who were not able to stick to regular jobs because they (sometimes as young as in their early twenties) were completely addicted to alcohol. Many started their days with a drink, many couldn’t eat but needed to drink, all were violent and the desperation for the next drink drove them to harm their families. These men’s dependence on alcohol generally destroyed all peace, happiness, health and hope in their families. [Read how here, here and here]
If there was one single thing that could change their lives, it would be without doubt de-addiction from alcohol (which is not much different from addiction to drugs I feel).
Also, is there any doubt that alcohol abuse leads to violence by men against other men, against women, against their own children, against family members and even against themselves?
But somebody who identifies themselves as Moral Police, sends me links to newer theories and latest research that show (amongst other things) that alcohol consumption is more harmful when women are doing it.
…Researchers recruited 27 binge-drinking males and 13 females and gave them neurophsychological tests and “spatial working memory” tests to complete.”
…Male binge drinkers showed some, but less, abnormality as compared to male non-drinkers. This suggests that female teens may be particularly vulnerable to the negative effects of heavy alcohol use.”
Moral Police would have approved of the outrage against drunk driver Nooria Haveliwala when she killed two and injured four when she lost control of her Honda CRV. Take a look at this comment delighting in a not-worth-linking article that claimed women needed to prove they could drink responsibly (unlike the rest of the world) before they could be allowed to drink.
The commenter seemed glad there were ‘tragic consequences’.
…women there want to ape men in their drinking habits, and don’t prefer a soft ladies’ drink as an alternative… When women drink, they are simply aping men, for they want to join the liberated class and be away from societal shackles – with tragic consequences.
Does it matter that the drunk driver was a woman? Another comment made much more sense,
“The question here is ‘Drunk driving’ pure and simple. Anyone who does it hopes to not get caught or killed or to kill someone. Little black dress, suit, dhoti, pajama etc are all irrelevant.”
Women aren’t the only ones who are seen as incapable of deciding what’s good for them. Bombay has raised the alcohol age from 21 to 25 – aiming to stop young adults from underage drinking. Is this restriction likely to be followed and respected? What are the chances that this would become one more way for the police to harass young Indian adults? (Remember Muthalik? And Constable Sunil More misusing the Obscenity law?)
I have no idea if these politicians are going to ensure the age limit is respected amongst the slums and villages where my domestic helpers live. Will younger men having to ask older friends to buy their drinks benefit the families mentioned above (here, here and here)? Does it look like the government is serious about tackling crimes related to alcohol abuse?
Should the government have a say in the legal drinking age, or should adult citizens be seen as capable of deciding when and how much to drink?
Why is drug addiction a crime but alcohol is not?