It’s crucial to address the assertions made in The PUNCH publication dated 5th of March, 2024 regarding the purported link between sachet alcoholic beverages and mental illness. It is important to critically examine some of the assumptions and biases underlying their arguments.
Firstly, the assertion that sachet alcoholic drinks uniquely spike mental illness needs to be scrutinized.
There is a lack of comprehensive evidence directly linking sachet alcoholic beverages to mental illness compared to other forms of alcohol. Alcohol abuse ( whether you choose to drink beer or spirit in a sachet or bottle ) and most importantly substance abuse ( drug and substances) can indeed exacerbate mental health conditions, but attributing this solely to sachet alcoholic drinks without considering other factors and types of alcohol consumption is reductionist and potentially misleading.
Moreover, the focus on indigenous Nigerian brands of alcoholic beverages raises questions about bias and discrimination. Why are these Nigerian brands being singled out when foreign alcoholic beverages, which are also consumed regularly, are not subjected to the same scrutiny? This bias against indigenous brands suggests a lack of cultural sensitivity and may perpetuate harmful stereotypes about Nigerian produced goods.
It seems to me that there is an agenda to label Nigerian brands as inferior to their foreign counterparts. Spirits are enjoyed by both the rich/wealthy and the poor. The variety in market allows Consumers make choices based on their taste income and preferences . Unfortunately, with this recent narrative, Nigerian brands are suddenly brandished as the cause of mental illness while the foreign counterparts are given a free pass. The truth is Nigerians are on the verge of destroying Nigerian owned businesses with irresponsible narratives if they are not checked.
How about we support local owned business instead of killing them by pushing a particular agenda. Nigeria is for Nigerians and everyone should be given a fair and equal level playing ground to thrive.
Furthermore, suggesting that mental illness is predominantly associated with the poor who consume sachet drinks overlooks the complex socioeconomic factors influencing alcohol consumption and mental health outcomes. Mental illness does not discriminate based on socioeconomic status, and attributing it solely to the affordability of sachet drinks oversimplifies the issue.
Importantly, the argument for maintaining the ban on sachet alcoholic beverages should be based on evidence-based public health considerations rather than arbitrary judgments about certain types of alcohol. While there may be legitimate concerns about the accessibility and affordability of sachet drinks, blanket bans without addressing underlying socioeconomic issues and providing alternative solutions may not effectively address the root causes of alcohol-related harm.
In conclusion, it’s essential to approach this issue with nuance and avoid stigmatizing indigenous brands or perpetuating stereotypes about alcohol consumption and mental health. Any policy decisions regarding alcohol regulation should be based on comprehensive research and consideration of broader socioeconomic factors impacting public health outcomes.
Uche Nwakwe, a Public Affairs Analyst writes from Anambra
