NONG, NONG! WHISKY-SO!

Men are simple creatures. We have simple needs. We live by simple principles.

1) Do not insult a man's work. A man's work is his personal footprint in history; his achievement in life. It puts a roof over his head and provides for his family.

2) Do not mess with a man's woman. She's his love, his life, the mother of his children and the person he takes orders from.

3) Do not take away a man's whisky. Because after putting up with the work and the wife day in and day out, a man, any man, if there's any justice in this world, on any given day, deserves a drink ... or 10.

But the argument for banning the sale of alcohol during the Songkran festival, at first glance, seems a sound one: Too much drinking and driving results in too many deaths on the road. Saving lives. What could be more important?

From an economic perspective, a business's goal is to make profit - profit that keeps the roof over your head, the wife in your bed and the whisky in your glass. However, banning alcohol sales for a couple of days won't bankrupt any hotels, pubs, wholesalers, retailers or producers. But Songkran is a peak time and millions of baht in potential revenue will be lost.

Are millions of baht of potential revenue worth one human life? No.

Does that mean I am in favour of the ban? Of course not. "Give me 'whisky-so', or give me death" - the motto of any red-blooded male who is proud to call himself Thai.

If concerned authorities wish to ban the sale of alcohol during Songkran, citing an increase in road accidents and fatalities due to drink-driving, then concerned authorities had better show proof of the corelation between drinking and a significant increase in road accidents and fatalities during Songkran.

Certain questions must first be answered: Would banning sales actually stop people from drinking? In the past, how many accidents during Songkran were actually caused by drink-driving (a study by an independent body, if you please)? If the ratio during Songkran is no more than on normal days, what then is the point? Unless you were to ban alcohol from society completely, but that's an entirely different argument.

Any proposed regulation needs to first prove its worth. Too often the authorities propose laws that seem born out of nothing more than convenient presumptions and gut feelings - rather than from a thorough investigation, careful research and a pile of irrefutable, untainted evidence.

I don't pay taxes so that my employees can pass laws on such ill-conceived notions. I demand excellence in service, and so should everyone.

If studies actually show a significant increase in drink-driving and road accidents during Songkran, then there's validity in the proposed ban.

However, let me elaborate further. Road accidents happen for a variety of reasons: People too irresponsible to realise they shouldn't drive while intoxicated; people too corrupted to provide well-lit, proper and safe roads; people too selfish to obey traffic rules that are meant for safety; and people too uncaring for rules and laws because Daddy can buy their way out of anything.

When a vehicle hits another, or hits a pedestrian, it's not because of alcohol - rather it's because of irresponsible, corrupt, selfish or careless people. So don't blame my good friends Jack and Johnnie.

Quick-fix solutions are for the intellectually inept, those capable only of responding with knee-jerk reactions awash with irrational thoughts and tainted emotions that can only result in the dumbing down of society at large.

Barring strong evidence, one cannot presume that banning the sale of alcohol during Songkran will result in fewer road accidents and fatalities (not least because such a ban won't actually stop anyone from drinking). On the other hand, providing well-lit, proper and safe roads; training policemen to effectively manage and monitor traffic; and nurturing society to be intelligent and responsible will go a long way to solving the problem.

This issue is similar to banning the sale of alcohol on the eve of an election. It won't encourage more voters to turnout. A hangover doesn't prevent people from turning up at the voting booth. Corrupt politics and/or a shallow, apathetic society is what prevents people from voting.

Driving while intoxicated or laying sick in bed with a hangover on election day are merely symptoms of being irresponsible. Banning sales of alcohol for a couple of days during Songkran or on the the eve of an election won't cure irresponsibility.

Likewise, if anyone were to accuse this opinion piece of encouraging people to drink, then there had better be some proof that reading this article overwhelms any and all rational senses, erasing people's capacity to choose and brainwashing them into an uncontrollable urge to yell out: "Nong, nong, whisky-so!"

Any form of banning or censoring is taking away responsibility from individuals. It basically says to society: "You're too stupid to make decisions for yourself."

Well, okay, that statement may be true to a large extent, but the solution is not to keep society stupid and irresponsible, rather the solution should be to nurture intelligence and responsibility.

And any proposed law should be backed up by thorough investigation, careful research and a pile of irrefutable, untainted evidence - not presumptions and gut feelings.

In the end, a dumb society will result in more fatalities than any drink-driving.

voranaiv@bangkokpost.co.th.