The ongoing attempt to force alcohol prohibition on the country is ill-advised and should be stopped. Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha has twice gone against the bureaucrats who have ceaselessly pushed for forced national abstinence. Yet even as the premier issued the official, sensible rejection of the New Year prohibition, advocates pushed through other bans using sleight of hand. Having a glass of champagne this New Year's Eve is okay, but a completely new ban has been slapped on all drink sales at the end of Buddhist Lent.
The campaign for national prohibition has emanated for several years from officials at the Department of Disease Control of the Ministry of Public Health. The face of the demands has been Samarn Futrakul, veteran director of the department's Alcohol Control Committee. Dr Samarn has become well-known for attempts to ban alcohol sales for various reasons, at various times of the year. The committee has not said it favours total prohibition, but it has given the public that impression.
The latest attempt to ban alcohol took a two-pronged approach. Beginning on Dec 3, Dr Samarn's committee launched a high-profile campaign that aimed to forbid all alcohol sales through two periods: next week's end of 2014 holidays, and the April 13-15 Songkran celebration. Media and public opposition was immediate and strident. Twice Gen Prayut said the proposal made no sense. He properly noted there are many laws that can mitigate or prevent alcohol-related crimes and incidents.
Gen Prayut's calm rejection of the New Year's alcohol bans was met with an extremely low-profile response from the Alcohol Control Committee. With attention focused on the doomed attempt at New Year's prohibition, Dr Samarn resuscitated a six-year-old proposal and brought it to the Committee for National Alcohol Beverage Control, which oversees alcohol-related policies. Seemingly out of the blue, it called for a new ban on alcohol sales for the final days of Buddhist Lent.
For reasons he has yet to explain, Public Health Minister Rajata Rajatanavin opposed the New Year ban, but allowed the new anti-alcohol law. The minister called for an in-depth study of whether New Year bans would be useful. He did not call for such a study for the Lenten prohibition, which next year will be in August. This confusing denouement to the teetotal debate leaves the issue unsettled instead of where it should be — off the table.
The attempts to use state control to ban alcohol are misguided. Prohibitions of alcohol have never worked in an open society. As can easily be seen, even the prohibition of dangerous drugs has resulted in negative impacts on society. Apart from turning Thailand into a police state, prohibition would cause many problems while solving virtually none.
The nation has plenty of laws which, properly and fairly enforced, would cut deeply into the abuse of alcohol. Similarly, the Alcohol Control Committee is arguably backing prohibition because it has failed in one of its primary tasks, to educate the country — particularly young people — of the horrendous dangers of alcohol abuse.
By using back-door procedures and raising Buddhism, Dr Samarn and his committee give the impression of using religion to justify their anti-alcohol crusade. This is unacceptable.
Buddhism is tolerant, not dogmatic; educational, not forbidding. The creeping prohibition of alcohol, epitomised by the new sales bans at Lent, do not just give Thailand the image of a stern police state. They also employ such methods.