Is it really worth spoiling the party?

There was a recent ban in a college from all drinking.

Someone had to find the real loser in this recent directive. On the face of it, it did look like the students had the raw deal and the institution was probably effective in its order. Could this be true? After all, stopping people to drink does not look a good way to stop people from drinking.

Given the restriction, there was not a single person drinking near the party. The students did follow the rules there. However, the real drinkers were nowhere near and that is all. Instead, they started using the driveway, the lawns near the buildings, and the rooms that overlooked the party. The music was available with the booze and probably in a even more cozier environment. What else do they want? What it did do was the occasional drinker who spent most of his time dancing on the floor started to drink more as he had nothing else to do except watch the others dance (which did not happen either. The party proved effective only where there is booze around. Else, the number of people dancing on the floor dropped exponentially). As the directive was issued to prevent drinking and the serious drinkers are not going to be bothered with such rules who could be the cause of trouble in the first place, the directive hence was useless.

Given this, we need to find who lost in this: The social cause of entertainment to all of the students, dancers and drunkards inclusive and the economic benefit to the canteen department. We can check if the social cause is going to cause any harm to the studies cause an important stress reliever is being curbed and the second one is something that we can calculate.



While the margins are on the conservative side, I still see that there is a huge loss for the canteen department. The department, in the first place, employs more people during these days giving more employment -> more salary -> higher benefits -> better standards of living due to better consumption -> higher distribution of wealth from the 'have' to the 'have not'*. Is it right for the institute to do such a sinful act where such transfer of wealth is being curbed?


*Though the students do not have money either, they still earn much more to compensate for today's' expenditure.