Nearly three and a half years have elapsed since the outset of an alcohol consumption reform in the USSR. During the first six months there was a case of euphoria due to intoxication by sobriety. It looked like a couple of steps forward. Another couple of liquor shops closed would mark the advent of universal sobriety so desired. That was the time when there was a dominant naive notion that the adoption of an important state decision would inevitable lead to a quick solution of the issue of alcoholism. Such a hope was backed by wishing, rather than by a precise scientific calculation or real potentials. Social ailments of this nature, are features of everyday consciousness. They became intrinsic parts of both popular demands and value orientations. Through decades of firm implantation into the evéryday life of the population, alcoholism has come to be perceived of as strong and persistent. Such social ailments are equally capable of affecting the development of the social organism.

In the process of a three-year struggle against drunkenness there have emerged serious difficulties and new acute problems many of which require substantial corrective efforts to be undertaken rather than tougher or stronger measures be introduced.

There are no easy ways of solving very complex social problems. No one needs a quiet assessment of results achieved or an equally illusive estimation of newly-emergent perils followed by thoroughly considered coordinated actions devoid of fussiness. One must draw a line across a white sheet of paper: one of its parts will list achievements, the other one unsolved tasks and new problems. Then sum it all up and say: "'What do we do next?".

The decisions adopted in summer of 1985 were extremely necessary, there is not a shadow of doubt about it, although the assessment of the way they were implemented is far from being uniform. There are two major positive results of the reform: firstly, it became undeniably apparent that with active involvement drunkenness can be successfully curbed; secondly, people came to realize what a great thing it was to have no drunks lying in the streets. They stayed away from drinking at production lines, from having a collective drink at work with or without a cause and from drinking parties with bosses and eminent guests. Other positive results can also be mentioned but one has to keep it in mind that a growing birth rate, declining mortality, and longer life expectancy depend on a degree of alcohol consumption in society and also on a variety of other fundamental factors.

Now the urgency of the struggle against drunkenness and alcoholism is as pressing as it was three and a half years ago. The alcohol consumption situation in the country is again growing increasingly alarming. Basic indices employed to take stock of alcohol consumption testify to this unhappy trend. In 1984 on the eve of the reform, the production of liquors in the country amounted to 8.36 of pure alcohol distilled per capita of the population with 3.36 distilled in 1987 which is 2.5 fold less than in 1984.1 However if one takes into account the underground distilling of moonshine, the consumption of alcohol per capita is now at the level of late 1984-early 1985 according to approximate data provided by most research.2 The number of registered alcohol addicts in the USSR amounted to four million persons in 1986 or 15 persons per 1000 and medical detoxification facilities provided services to around 9 million persons — 33 per 1000.3 Now (the end of 1988) the number of alcoholics and that of detoxification facility clients remains at approximately the same level. The share of vodka in the range of state distilled alcoholic liquors amounts to 50 percent, and taking into account the amount of moonshine consumed the share of stiff' alcohol liquors, i.e. most socially hazardous ones amounts to 70-80 percent. Comparing it to the amount of stiff' alcohol liquors consumed in foreign countries, it appears that the Soviet Union is among the world's leaders in that respect.

Previous sore points are still there to this day: school children's alcoholism, growing women's alcoholism and younger drinkers. Among the new or acute problems one can primarily name: a sea of illegally distilled moonshine, a fearsome rise in drugs addiction and toxemia as well as a growing number of poisonnings by substitutes and alcohol liquors profiteering. Alarmingly, abandoning the streets drunkenness is lurking in home life, in fami-lies, and in the privacy of apartments.

Such alcohol consumption control "innovations" that have already failed in other countries as alcohol consumption coupons and cards, zones and months of sobriety have brought about undesirable repercussions without being effective in the least. Long queues to liquor shops would not make the road to sobriety any shorter. Instead they further aggravate the alcohol consumption situation.

The ultimate question is — what are the root causes of these difficulties? This is a very difficult question with no easy answers in sight. Presumably the analysis of root causes is of interest to both home and foreign researches. In Etny case in this country despite early break-through the current alcohol consumption situation seems to leave none satisfied. We do not undertake to provide an exhaustive explanation of the existing situation. We just expound a possible version. A collective search for the truth is necessary and the opinion of our foreign counter-parts on this issue is of considerable interest to us.

The alcohol consumption reform launched in the USSR hinged on bans and restrictions, on administrative and prohibitive measures. But drunkenness, undeniably a social phenomenon, would not lend itself to eradication by administrative measures and penalties no matter how numerous and severe they are and how zealously they are enforced. The alcohol liquors consumption is conditioned by the demand, although illusory (in our concept), harmful and extremely hazardous, but still a mass urge of hun-dreds of millions. With many people this urge is so pressing that it is given preference before other demands. It is extremely difficult to do away with it, to eliminate or substitute this urge. This necessitates a large scale social campaign whereas bans administrative rebukes provide an instant (sometimes instantly passing) effect but are unable to exert any impact on the causes of alcoholism and even more so to uproot drunkenness.

An all-out cavalry assault was undertaken instead of a persistent siege winning over the territory meter by meter rather than an ungrounded attempt to capture a fortress, virtually a hard nut to crack.

They totally disregarded the fact that alcohol consumption restrictions can only be efficient and success-ful when they are backed and supported by a majority of the population.

The principle package of alcohol consumption restrictions was aimed at curbing a further uncontrollable alcohol liquor consumption and at containing excesses. For these reasons the distilling and sales of alcohol liquors were the first to be cut down. The both were gradually scaled down: 90 percent-80 percent-70 percent but were still there for the alcohol consumption legislation did not stipulate a prohibition. Alcohol consumption continued as before although limited in the beginning.

That means that in practice the emphasis was placed on a limited and moderate alcohol consumption although this had never been declared or specified. At the same time lip service was given to the goal of complete eradication of any alcohol consumption and attempts were made (alas, with little effect) to substantiate word with practical initiatives. In other words an essentially moder-ate policy was run under the extremist slogan of struggle for absolute sobriety. Such a discord between the essence of the policy and the spirit and shape of anti-alcohol propaganda has led to extremely undesirable conse- quences.

Equally contradictory were the results of work at the alter stage. The most abominable manifestations of drunkenness and workshop drinking plummetted, were reduced to a minimum in some cases and even eliminated at all. This constitutes a great victory over the extreme, most inadmissible consequences of alcohol consumption. At the same time the verbal struggle for sobriety lost momentum, causes a variety of serious aggravations and collapsed by 1987. For another year the media and TV would babble continuous sobriety slogans but then gave it up.

This was not accident. The majority of the adult population were absolutely unprepared for the idea of complete sobriety and outwardly calmly but firmly op-posed this extremist slogan and of course there can be no sobriety slogans but then gave it up.

There is another important contradiction — between the general policy of perestroika and glasnost which is in keeping with the present-day requirements of social development and the aspirations of the sound part of the populations and the miserable style of a number, of anti-alcohol initiatives with their primitive and insulting wording. Perestroika is based on scientific notions, sensible compromises and a flexible approach to problems, on sincerity and openness in discussing any issues. It appeals to the maturity, responsibility and dignity of educated and intelligent people. At the same time the anti-alcohol propaganda and such initiatives as the artificial scarcity of liquors are backed up by outdated approaches to management, notions of social life, of people, vocabulary and stylistics. In short they are in direct opposition to the essence and spirit of perestroika.

The outset of perestroika and the beginning of the alcohol consumption reform coincided in time. The goal of stepping up the struggle against alcoholism is a constituent part of higher social policy. However in real fact the struggle against drunkenness came to be implemented by outdated, formerly so familiar methods. Voluntary policy making, high-handed actions, red tape, window-dressing, disregard of public opinion were reported in many areas in the process of alcohol consumption reform implementation.

Another serious methodological fault is that the Society of the struggle for sobriety regarded everyone who consumed alcohol liquors as a depraved person. The fact that liquor consumers and drunkards are not synonymous seems quite apparent and requires no proof. There is a substantial difference between them. But the management of the Society of the struggle for sobriety does not differentiate drunks from moderate alcohol liquor consumers. They consider the latter more dangerous, public enemy number one, proceeding from the assumption that the evil starts with the first drinking glass. This ostensibly faultless position will frustrate any anti-alcohol effort. Drinking is bad, very bad, awfully bad. But if you do not discern various types of alcohol consumers, mixing them all up, then there is no chance of understanding or undertaking something tangible. In fact, alcohol consumption will not decline a bit in this case. Lawyers distinguish: a banal case of disrespect, hooliganism, murder, without lumping them together. Alcohol consumption equally calls for distinguishing its type groups in order to choose corresponding kinds of "treatment."

The home experience (before and after the October Revolution) of fighting alcoholism has been totally disregarded and ignored.

Science has not been duly approached and used for the ends of the struggle against drunkenness and alcoholism.

Excessive powers vested in the All Union Society for the struggle for sobriety and the immeasurable swelling of its personnel were also a serious mistake. In our opinion the major flaw of the regulations of the society is illustrated in the following quote, according to which only a teetotaller qualifies to be a member. Y.P. Pronin, a Board member of the Central Council of the All Union Society writes as if he announces a verdict: "Having just been born this society requires the services of an intensive care ward."'

Among various miscalculations made were: an unwarranted reduction of distilled alcoholic liquors, longer queues to liquor shops, excessive liquor price increases, unwarranted beer sale cuts, barbaric destruction of vineyards. AlI of this simply produced a formal and window-dressing effect, presenting departments in a good light. However,this only gave rise to alternative ways of meeting the demand in alcoholic beverages. Moonshine and drugs are the most harmful of these alternatives making any formal achievements worthless.

Boris Levin is chairman of the Research Committee on Deviant Behavior, Soviet Sociological Association, U.S.S.R. Academy of Sciences, Krzhizhanovsky St. 24135-5, 117259 Moscow, U.S.S.R. His son, Michael, is currently a graduate student at the Department of Sociology, University of Wisconsin at Madison.

Footnotes

1 Reference book USSR National Economy.

2 Zaigrayev G.C., Industrial Gazette, June 14, 1988.

3 Znaniye, United Front Against Drunkenness, 1983, p. 33.

4 Pronin Y.P. "Sobriety: to be or not to be." Moskovski Avtozavodets, Feb. 9, 1988, p. 2.