By NUNATSIAQ NEWS

Despite its sometimes questionable recommendations, last fall’s report of the Nunavut Liquor Act Review Task Force got at least one thing right: that Nunavut’s destructive relationship with alcohol is rooted in culture, specifically “drinking culture.”

By this they mean the widespread veneration of the 60-ounce plastic jug of vodka — by large numbers of binge drinkers who consume liquor as if there were a prize at the bottom of the bottle.

“Our recommendations place major emphases on efforts to change the drinking culture…,” the task force said.

By “culture” they mean learned behaviour: what people actually do in their lived lives. Alcoholism and other forms of substance abuse are not genetic or confined to any particular race. They’re rooted in unhealthy practices that people learn and then transform into rigid habits and destructive addictions.

The people of Nunavut aren’t alone in this. Binge drinking and chronic alcoholism fester throughout the world’s northern regions. Russia, Finland, Norway, Alaska, Ireland, the United Kingdom and many other places also suffer from dysfunctional drinking cultures.

Substance abuse isn’t genetic. It’s rooted in learned behaviour. And that’s why the task force recommends using the levers of government to change the drinking culture.

To that end, they urge harm reduction, not prohibition. Their stated goal is two-fold: to promote moderate drinking and to reduce bootlegging by eliminating incentives that motivate the buying and selling of illegal liquor.

But the Government of Nunavut, and MLAs, must exercise caution in carrying out its recommendations. Regardless of what the government may decree, these deeply-rooted practices won’t change overnight.

For starters, after this fall’s territorial election, the GN will look at experimental retail sales of beer and wine from either or both of its warehouse outlets in Iqaluit and Rankin Inlet. This is aimed at reducing bootlegging and promoting moderate drinking.

If the GN goes ahead with this, they must prepare for a backlash, especially in Iqaluit, where many residents will resist retail liquor sales.

Second, the GN must prepare for the possibility of increased, rather than decreased consumption. People can binge on wine and beer as easily as they can binge on vodka — and the early consequences of such an early experiment may not be pretty to look at.

The task force also recommends the eventual creation of a Nunavut Liquor Corp. that would hold a territory-wide monopoly over all Nunavut liquor sales, wholesale and retail — and a near-total ban on legal liquor imports from outside Nunavut.

We hope the GN considers all this with the utmost care.

Wrapping all liquor management functions together into a Crown corporation may turn out to make good sense. But government-run wine and beer stores? If it’s the GN’s goal to normalize the moderate, non-destructive consumption of wine and beer, they ought to instead consider — if communities want it — the licencing of such sales within existing retail stores.

The GN possesses little or no experience in running retail businesses. Entities like Arctic Co-ops Ltd., the North West Co. — and others — do possess that experience — they already know how to do warehousing, pricing, supply-chain management and security.

Also, MLAs must be prepared to rescind the 2010 motion that imposed a moratorium on the purchase of European Union alcohol products. The member responsible for it, Baffin South MLA Fred Schell, said this past March that the assembly should do just that.

If they don’t, the proposed elimination of import permits could blow up in the GN’s face. Residents who want Irish beer, Scotch whisky and Italian wine would be handed an incentive to break the law.

And if it’s the GN’s goal to reduce bootlegging, it’s difficult to imagine how the liquor system’s currently limited range of products would wean people away from bootleg vodka.

Yet another missing element is the virtual absence of treatment and counselling for alcohol and other substance abusers in Nunavut. The absence of such services contradicts the goal of harm reduction, especially if new supplies of retail wine and beer come flooding into a troubled community like Iqaluit.

As for alcohol education committees, it’s encouraging that the GN has decided to eventually eliminate them. Such bodies have existed in communities for more than three decades, and few, if any, have ever done anything that could be described as “education.”

Replacing local alcohol education committees with carefully crafted purchase and import limits looks like a better way of preventing bootleggers from buying big quantities of legal liquor for illegal resale. JB