Though the state came under the dry law in 1989, yet it seems the battle of the bottle has not settled down as consumption of alcohol, instead, is on a phenomenal growth. It is an open secret or to admit it frankly, no longer secret that alcohol is plentiful and available for a price. The undiminished demand of alcohol means that more people drink despite prohibition. This then raises a pertinent question of what should be done about alcohol consumption. Whatever may be one’s perception of opinion about alcohol, prohibition has not been effective anywhere and therefore a serious thought needs to be given about the law on one hand and the social aspect on the other. Banning consumption and sale of alcohol with the hope that it will turn the state dry so that life would be peaceful and hunky dory proved to be an illusion. If the prohibition law was to achieve just this, despite the inherent cost in the form of loss of huge revenue; then it has failed and the loss of the state has become a multiple gain for those involved in black marketing. Those who support prohibition seem to ignore the folly of expecting much by merely passing a law and hoping the uniformed personnel will to the job. The reality is that the enforcers are unable to check every nook and corner and despite the arrests and seizures, there does not seem to have had any effect. The trade goes on as alcohol continues to be consumed by an increasing number of people. How can the dry law be enforced when many enforcers are also habitual drinkers and where choicest alcoholic brands are served in VVIP parties? This has made the dry law in Nagaland a farce, the same that it is in states where this law was imposed. The objective of prohibition is to create an alcohol-less society. However killing this desire will require a vigorous effort from church and voluntary organisations through effective awareness campaigns and strategies to win the minds. It is now nearly three decades after the dry law came into force in the state and it is time to do a serious rethink. The point is if the law cannot be enforced at all, then what should be done? Should there be more efforts with better strategies or should the law be partially lifted? If the concern against alcohol is its negative effects on quite a significant number of people, then does this mean that solution rest only through prohibition? What comes out of this issue is the social need and for which the legal means have been resorted to. Even under the current dry law, it is clearly evident that so-called “social evils” have not diminished, be it alcoholism or offences under the influence of alcohol. The facts are for all to see and it is perhaps time now to have a serious debate over this issue and decide what needs to be done. While the debate goes on, all smugglers of IMFL strongly support continuance of the law. The proponents of the dry law have proudly declared that losing revenue was better than losing life. The ground reality is that while smugglers make more money, there are also more consumers who succumb to the lethal effects of spurious brands. Something serious needs to be done to do what should be done.