pda.kp.ru
Russians Reject Gorbachev's Anti-Alcohol Campaign, but Support a Different Approach
A VTsIOM poll shows that while Russians negatively view Gorbachev's 1985 anti-alcohol campaign due to its heavy-handed methods, they would mostly support a similar initiative today if implemented differently; current trends show declining alcohol consumption and increased teetotalism.
- What is the public's opinion of Gorbachev's anti-alcohol campaign, and what does this reveal about current attitudes toward alcohol regulation in Russia?
- A recent VTsIOM poll reveals that while Russians largely disapprove of Gorbachev's 1985 anti-alcohol campaign, a similar initiative today would garner majority support. This seemingly contradictory finding highlights a crucial distinction: the methods, not the goal, are the primary source of disapproval.
- How do current trends in alcohol consumption and public attitudes indicate the potential effectiveness of alternative alcohol control strategies in Russia?
- Current alcohol consumption in Russia is declining, with per capita consumption falling from 9.43 liters of pure alcohol in 2018 to 8.44 liters in 2023, and the number of teetotalers rising from 27% to 48% between 2004 and 2024. This suggests that less heavy-handed methods, such as tax policies and public health campaigns, may be more effective.
- What were the perceived successes and failures of the 1985 anti-alcohol campaign, and how do these experiences shape current preferences for alcohol control measures?
- The 1985 campaign's flaws—including store closures, restrictions on celebrations, and vineyard destruction—led to negative perceptions. However, positive outcomes like reduced crime and mortality rates are remembered, suggesting support for alternative approaches to curbing alcohol abuse.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames the Gorbachev-era campaign negatively, highlighting its failures and drawbacks while emphasizing the positive aspects of the current, less restrictive approach. The headline and introduction set this negative tone, which is reinforced throughout the piece. The positive effects of the past campaign (reduced crime, mortality, increased birth rate) are mentioned but downplayed in comparison to the negative aspects.
Language Bias
The article uses words like "глупости" (foolishness) and "ошибочная" (erroneous) when describing the Gorbachev-era campaign, which are subjective and loaded terms. The descriptions of the current approach as "цивилизованным способом" (civilized way) and "потихоньку-полегоньку" (gradually) also carry positive connotations. More neutral terms could be used to maintain objectivity.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the Gorbachev-era anti-alcohol campaign and its perceived failures, potentially omitting discussion of other successful anti-alcohol campaigns or strategies. It also doesn't delve into the long-term economic effects of alcohol consumption or the economic impact of the campaign itself. The current, less restrictive approach is presented positively without a detailed comparison to past successes or failures in other countries.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy by suggesting that the only options are either a Gorbachev-style campaign or the current approach of regulation and public health initiatives. It ignores the possibility of alternative, more nuanced approaches to alcohol control.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article discusses a decline in alcohol consumption in Russia, a positive development for public health. While the 1985 anti-alcohol campaign is viewed negatively due to its methods, current strategies focusing on education and healthy lifestyle choices are seen as more effective in reducing alcohol-related harm and improving public health outcomes. The decrease in alcohol consumption correlates with a rise in the number of teetotalers and a fall in those viewing alcohol as part of national culture.