Many countries have tried various ways to prohibit or restrict alcohol consumption - and most campaigns or legislation have failed. A better way to improve the situation is investing into educational projects for children to promote healthy way of life. Mikhail Gorbachev’s introduction of the “Law about the Struggle Against Drinking and Alcoholism” in May, 1985, can serve as a historic illustration of the concept of unintended consequences.

Many nations, including the United States, long have been trying to reduce alcohol consumption. America’s total Prohibition between 1920 and 1933, which President Herbert Hoover called “The Noble Experiment,” failed miserably. A lesson was learned. It was never copied. However, many countries frequently attempt to reduce alcohol consumption, especially by young people, through laws restricting advertising, higher taxes, retail controls and tougher drunk-driving laws.

But frequently, these efforts do not take into account the concept of unintended consequences, described in the works of Adam Smith, John Locke, Robert K. Merton, Martin Feldstein, and other economists and social scientists. Unintended consequences result when an action creates an outcome that is not planned or completely unforseen. Both history and modern reality clearly show that without self-discipline, responsibility and development of individual personality, paternalistic laws frequently create unintended consequences. In the case of restrictions on alcohol consumption, educational programs and anti-alcohol advertising are alternative methods that often can improve the situation more effectively than legislation.

Sometimes, to me as a Ukrainian observer of the American scene, the activities of such well-known American organizations as Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) evoke images of the battle against windmills by Don Quixote de la Mancha. MADD’s campaign against Abercrombie & Fitch shops perhaps created publicity for the organization and increased public awareness about its goals. But there are clear doubts about the usefulness of protesting T-shirts printed with supposedly humorous messages or catalogues with descriptions of “drinking games.” MADD evidently does not realize that its campaign makes those T-shirts even more popular, since nothing is as attractive to students as something that has been banned.

In 2010, Russia will celebrate the 25th anniversary of the beginning of Perestroika – the start of the democratization of the communist state. But it also was the start of Gorbachev’s attempt to reduce drinking by tough legislation, through the “Law About the Struggle Against Drinking and Alcoholismm,” unveiled in May 1985. Russians traditionally have been heavy consumers of alcohol. Remember, they gave the world vodka – the widest-selling “hard liquor” in the West.

Much research has been carried out in various countries, including Russia, proving that excessive drinking can be a negative factor for the health of both adults and their children. However, the health of Soviet citizens did not improve after the 1985 Law, which meant that the price of vodka almost tripled overnight. And even then, vodka became scarce, since it was hoarded. People who normally would buy vodka only occassionally would stand in line at shops for hours, while officially being at work. People figured it would be even more expensive the next day, and even less available. Long lines caused accidents and illness, especially while standing for hours in a hot sun. Heavy drinkers started to replace more expensive alcoholic beverages with window-washing liquid, cheap perfume, and other alcohol-containing substances.

The 1985 law definitely did not improve public health. Plants producing cheap perfumes and washing liquids were not prepared for the increased demand. These products disappeared from shops right after delivery. People who were not standing in vodka lines were spending hours trying to buy products they really did not need. As could be expected, illegal alcohol production was started in many private apartments. Sugar disappeared from stores, because even families not involved distilling “moonshine” would try to store a few years’ worth of sugar. Even patients with diabetes, who do not usually consume sugar and alcohol, filled closets, pantries and garages, complaining to each other about inconveniences of limited space.

A “noble” objective of the “1985 drinking law” was to increase industrial production and make more effective use of each employee’s working hours. But efficiency could not improve when a large part of the nation’s workforce was using working hours to try to buy things it did not really need. Every superviser and manager also tried to fill his or her pantry. It was quite obvious that people understood each other far better than the government understood its people.

Officials in charge of the new law often carried out far more severe measures and regulations than necessary in order to gain promotions and higher salaries. Many wineries were shut down. Vineyards which frequently grew unique and very valuable grapes were destroyed.

The anti-drinking laws clearly illustrate that when laws try to change a people’s culture, the result very well may be hostile public reaction to everything offered by government. The Soviet government tried to change the drinking culture, doing so forcefully, clumsily and backed by all the power of the central state. Gorbachev attempted to force a cultural “revolution” that the Communist dictatorship, in its 70 years of iron-fisted rule, did not dare attempt – or perhaps it allowed drinking as a cynical replacement for something more dangerous for Soviets, religion.

It does not take a political science genius to know that governmental decisions must take into account deeply-rooted cultural issues, especially in multicultural societies. Prior to the campaign, Russians consumed 10 liters of alcohol per person per year. Currently, Russians consume 16-17 liters of alcohol per person per year.

Many specialists in the field agree that the best way to improve the situation is to develop individual responsibility and self-discipline, starting at an early age. Children should appreciate that there are other options than “partying” – which means drinking. More money should be invested in developing various attractive educational projects. Young people should be made aware – through student fairs, exhibitions, publications, meetings with peers – of the dire consequences of irresponsible drinking.

Another option for reducing consequences of alcohol consumption is to create anti-alcohol advertising and programs. The “designated driver” program and its major advertising campaign, which began in the 1980s in United States, aims at making drunk driving socially unacceptable. This program has been highly successful and is an excellent example of how to improve the situation by methods other than passing new laws. Even though it often is difficult to measure the success of each specific advertisement or ad campaign, it has been proven that the effect of such ads is stronger when directed at an early age group.

It often is forgotten, especially by government officials and lawmakers, that people have lived before us. And they have often made the mistakes we will repeat. However, governments are not prone to studying history. They are more prone to re-writing history textbooks.Many countries have tried various ways to prohibit or restrict alcohol consumption - and most campaigns or legislation have failed. As Gorbachev’s 1985 law clearly demonstrated, governments must remember the lessons of history. Long-range measures to influence the public - emotionally as well as mentally - can be far more successful than harsh new laws. Paternalistic measures that treat citizens as children have never been popular or respected, and most likely will fail from the very beginning.