If a right person rules wrong person's wrong doing into right person's right doing,then that right person right doing will become wrong. There is difference between telling and ruling because there is difference between sense within and same sense sensing other/s. Even though liquor is bad for anyone in society,that doesn't mean both liquor and liquor-consumer are bad. If both liquor and liquor-consumer are bad to each other,there will not be need for demanding liquor prohibition.Pl.don't think that I am for pro-liquor lobby after reading this. My word is spiritually practical. My word is that we should be passive to liquor consumption while telling to avoid liquor consumption. Pl.observe that a drinker will not get money to drink liquor as that money has to be given to him by some employer or customer for his work. That means person(employer or customer) who is giving money is also socially-criminal as he is encouraging liquor consumption indirectly. So if anti-liquor lobbyists demand liquor prohibition,they should demand "making payments to drinkers" as criminal at first.

తప్పుడు వ్యక్తి  తప్పుడుగా ఉండటము ఒప్పు .
అయితే తప్పుడు వ్యక్తిని ఒప్పు వ్యక్తిగా మారి తన తప్పుడును ఒప్పుగా మార్చుకుని జీవించమనే చెప్పే స్వేచ్చ  అనేది ఒప్పు వ్యక్తి కలిగి ఉండవచ్చు కాని అలా జీవించమని నిర్ణయము తీసుకునే హక్కు ఒప్పు వ్యక్తి కలిగి ఉండలేడు -కలిగి ఉండరాదు -ఎలా కలిగి ఉండగలడు ?