Running on Rumors: When Governance Gets Outsourced to Idiots

 Running on Rumors: When Governance Gets Outsourced to Idiots

Today I came across a gem of a post on a BJP worker's Facebook page. It read: “If it’s illegal to drive under the influence of alcohol, then why isn’t it illegal to run a government by selling alcohol?”

Let that sink in.

My first thought was what an idiot. But then again, calling someone an idiot for publicly displaying a lack of understanding about governance might be unfair. The real problem here isn’t the individual. It’s the systematic failure to educate a vast population about how governments actually work.

Let’s get a few things straight because clearly, some people are getting high on bad analogies.

1. Humans Discovered Alcohol, Not Governments

Alcohol, like many other psychoactive substances, predates modern governance by centuries, if not millennia. People didn’t wait for a government to give them permission to drink; they just did it. For pleasure, escape, ritual, boredom you name it.

Then came governments, primarily to bring some order to the chaos. When unregulated alcohol consumption began resulting in accidents, disease, violence, and social disruption, governments stepped in not to endorse it, but to regulate it.

2. Regulation ≠ Promotion

There’s a fundamental difference between selling alcohol and regulating its sale. The latter is what governments do and should do because prohibition, as history has taught us time and again, simply doesn’t work.

Take Gujarat and Bihar, for example two Indian states with official alcohol prohibition. And yet, illegal alcohol continues to flow freely. Not only do these states lose over ₹15,000 crore in annual tax revenue, but that loss doesn't vanish into thin air. It gets funneled into unregulated, underground networks local mafias, bootleggers, and politically protected black-market operations.

The very people who shout the loudest about morality are often the ones who benefit the most from these shadow economies. That lost ₹15,000 crore? It doesn’t go to schools, hospitals, roads, or addiction programs. It goes into the pockets of criminals and corrupt networks, often with political cover.

And here’s the kicker: Despite prohibition, these states have the highest alcohol-related deaths in India, largely due to the consumption of toxic, unregulated liquor. So what exactly are we achieving here besides sacrificing lives for optics and letting crooks get rich off false virtue?

3. The Revenue Argument (Backed by Data, Not Drama)

In functional democracies, governments use revenue from alcohol taxes to fund healthcare, education, public safety, addiction recovery programs, and infrastructure. This isn't theory it’s documented policy in countries across the world.

Look at the United States. Marijuana legalization was once a political hot potato. But when the government realized:

• A) People are going to use it anyway
• B) Criminalizing users is costly and ineffective
• C) Taxing it generates massive revenue

…they opted for regulation. The result?
Revenue went up. Consumption didn’t spike. Jails weren’t clogged with nonviolent offenders.
And the public got better-funded services.

That’s what governance looks like.

4. Why the Car Analogy Crashes

Comparing running a government to driving a car under the influence isn’t clever it’s lazy. A drunk driver endangers lives by acting recklessly. A government that regulates alcohol sales saves lives by acting pragmatically.

If we extended the same analogy logic, then governments shouldn't regulate tobacco, gambling, or sugar either because those can be harmful too. Should governments stop taxing those industries as well? Or would that deprive the outrage machine of its fuel?

5. The Real Con Behind the Moral Rhetoric

When BJP social media warriors spew these slogans, let’s not be naive. This isn’t about public health or morality. It’s about controlling the narrative while allowing certain corporations and bootleggers to make unchecked profits.

They posture as saviors of the moral fabric while enabling the very black markets they claim to oppose. If that’s not hypocrisy dressed as patriotism, what is?

Final Thought

Governments aren’t drunk drivers. They’re elected to make tough, rational decisions in a complex world full of grey zones. Regulating a vice is not the same as endorsing it. And making analogies without understanding context isn’t clever it’s just embarrassingly dumb. So next time someone says something like this, do them a favor don’t get angry. Just send them this article.