A growing reliance on illicit liquor amongst some segments of our society is not merely a law enforcement problem. It is a clear symptom of a policy imbalance that has ignored economic reality, public health consequences and social behaviour.
While successive Governments have justified steep excise hikes on alcohol as a means of raising revenue and discouraging consumption, the unintended result has been the steady expansion of an unregulated, dangerous and deeply entrenched illicit liquor market. The logic behind high taxation is simple and, on paper, persuasive. Make alcohol expensive, and people will drink less. In practice, however, experience has shown that consumption does not disappear when prices rise beyond reach. Instead, it migrates.
For large sections of the population, particularly low-income and rural communities, the choice is not between drinking and abstinence. It is between legal alcohol and unsafe alternatives that are cheaper, readily available and largely unchecked.
The widening gap between the price of legal liquor and illicit brews has created fertile ground for illegal brewers and distributors. Kasippu (Moonshine) and other illicit spirits are sold at a fraction of the cost of taxed products, with no quality controls and no accountability. When affordability is ignored in taxation policy, the market simply adapts, which often translates to a higher risk for consumers’ lives.
This is where public health considerations must take centre stage. Illicit liquor is not just untaxed alcohol. It is frequently contaminated, improperly distilled and sometimes lethal. Periodic deaths linked to methanol poisoning serve as grim reminders of the consequences of pushing consumption underground. A policy that claims to protect public health but drives people towards substances that are far more dangerous is a contradiction that can no longer be defended. Especially in the wake of irrefutable proof, which sadly comes as a death toll.
Yet enforcement alone cannot resolve this crisis. Raids, arrests and seizures may disrupt supply temporarily, but they do little to address the underlying demand. History has shown that when enforcement intensifies without policy reform, illicit networks become more sophisticated, more violent and harder to dismantle. Meanwhile, communities continue to rely on these products because legal alternatives remain out of reach.
A sustainable solution requires a balanced approach. Taxation must be rational rather than punitive. While alcohol should never be cheap or aggressively promoted, pricing must reflect economic realities.
One option is introducing a lower-priced, regulated alcohol category to help draw consumers away from illicit products, reduce health risks and recover lost State revenue. This should not be an endorsement of increased drinking, but an acknowledgement of existing behaviour and a harm reduction strategy rooted in pragmatism.
At the same time, public health policy must move beyond moral posturing.
Education, treatment, and community-based interventions are essential. Alcohol dependence is a health issue, not merely a social vice or a criminal act. Without accessible support services, punitive measures only deepen cycles of addiction.
Enforcement still has a vital role, but it must be strategic and tactical. Targeting large-scale producers, transport networks and corrupt facilitators within the system will yield far greater results than arresting small-scale sellers or consumers. Strengthening regulatory oversight, improving intelligence sharing and ensuring accountability within enforcement agencies are critical steps in dismantling the illicit trade.
Equally important is the recognition that lost excise revenue from declining legal alcohol sales weakens the very State capacity needed to address public health and enforcement challenges. When policy drives consumers away from the legal market, the Government loses funds that could otherwise support healthcare, rehabilitation, and regulatory improvements. This creates a vicious cycle where revenue shortfalls justify further tax hikes, pushing more people into the illicit market.
Like on many other issues, Sri Lanka stands at a crossroads regarding alcohol consumption. Continuing along the current path will only entrench illicit liquor further into the social and economic fabric of the country. A recalibration is overdue. Policymakers must accept that taxation, affordability, public health and enforcement are not competing priorities, but interconnected pillars of an effective alcohol policy.
The choice is stark. Persist with policies that look virtuous on paper but fail in practice, or adopt a balanced, evidence-based approach that protects lives, preserves public revenue and restores credibility to governance, as illicit liquor thrives in the gaps left by rigid thinking.