A lady in her 40s would never be mistaken for sweet 16 no matter how sexy she might look in a spaghetti-strap top. And Bangkok should rejoice if a new driving age is enforced because it would mean fewer cars on the road, easing the daily traffic snarl.

But seriously, is this the way to go to discourage drinking?

It is, rather, an insult to any average person's intelligence. Do we need someone to determine at what age we are to be considered mature?

The intention to curb new drinkers is good, but the method naive, especially on the point of raising the drinking age to 25. In the end, the problem of controlling vices in Thailand lies in law enforcement.

It doesn't matter if it's 18, 21, 25 or 40, for the bottom line is how strictly do we enforce the law?

How many retailers got punished for selling alcohol to those under 18? How many under-age got fined? And how many drunk drivers actually got jailed for their reckless driving?

The law must also be enforced indiscriminately, meaning movie stars, celebrities and the sons or daughters of the influential would not be given special privileges no matter what.

Also, the punishments for drunk driving - and any untoward consequences that might result from drinking like brawling, causing disturbances to others, robbery, rape, etc - should be at least ten, if not a hundred, times harsher than they are.  

After all, a person can become drunk no matter the age. It's a matter of choice if a person wants to drink and ruin his own health. But the harsh punishment that follows should he cause trouble to others cannot be compromised. 

Another issue long overdue is making alcoholic beverages more expensive. But of course it must be a price high enough to make drinkers think twice, but not so high to the point of spawning a black market.

Meanwhile, the 'see less, drink less' logic targeted at new drinkers, which can translate into a wide range of measures including an advertising ban, is more or less acceptable. These measures should be given a chance because if not, we will never know if they would work in Thailand, as in other countries as claimed by the Public Health Ministry.

Although the advertising ban infringes on the right to know of consumers and right to tell of producers, the ban shouldn't be criticised too much. Since a lot of people believe the ban will have no effect on the desire to drink, then pulling advertisements off the air should cause no problem. With or without the advertisements, the behaviour of drinkers will still be the same.

Drinking is a way of life for many Thais. Many situations provide a good excuse to drink. To rejoice or to forget misery, drinking is often the chosen method.

Trying to make Thailand a clean, moral society requires much more than bans and punishments. It has to start with family values and education. It sounds very long-term, but instilling a sense of conscientiousness is the best defence against vice.

The younger generation must be taught how to think and distinguish between what's good and what's not. This doesn't apply only to drinking, but to smoking and gambling as well. Technology and globalisation enable anyone access to information in an instant. The advertising ban might be on in Thailand but that doesn't mean people will not be exposed to other media.

The last thing that Thailand needs is a "papa state", in which the government seems to know best. The interim government is trying hard to steer Thailand onto a moderate path and not obsessive capitalism.

A top priority is that they must find a way to educate the public and make them strong enough to withstand whatever enticement might come their way. This is very basic to a sufficiency economy.

By the way, should we also raise the voting age to, say, 30?

Veenarat Laohapakakul