The anti-drug abuse agency NACADA on Wednesday, July 30, 2025, rattled Kenyans with a new package of alcohol restrictions so sweeping and draconian that they reveal more about the agency’s policy bankruptcy than any pragmatic strategy to combat substance abuse. 

The proposed measures – raising the drinking age to 21, banning supermarket and restaurant sales, prohibiting online deliveries, and barring celebrity and influencer endorsements – demonstrate that this flailing agency is desperate and has lost direction. 

With 4.73 million Kenyans currently using various substances of abuse, and children as young as six beginning tobacco use, NACADA’s response is to reach for maximum restriction rather than practical interventions.  

While officials may view this blueprint as a necessary public health policy intervention, in reality, it is a sign of desperation and moral panic. 

The international context exposes just how radical Kenya’s approach is. While the United States, for example, maintains a drinking age of 21, alcohol remains freely available in supermarkets, restaurants and fuel stations.  

In most developed nations, the legal drinking age is around 18-20, with European countries like Germany allowing responsible consumption from 14. 

Even state-controlled alcohol regimes in Nordic countries provide wider retail access than Kenya proposes.  

Only countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Somalia – operating complete bans based on religious law – approach Kenya’s level of restriction. 

Kenyan policymakers should think deeply about the potential enforcement challenges they face.  

How will authorities monitor whether 20-year-olds enter alcohol-selling establishments? 

How will they police online sales when digital commerce increasingly drives retail? 

Because these measures are practically impossible to enforce, they will end up criminalising ordinary behaviour rather than addressing underlying substance abuse issues. 

NACADA’s own track record undermines confidence in its approach. Despite seizing 2.8 million litres of illicit alcohol and making 30,000 arrests in 2024, drug-related court cases rose 44 per cent between 2016-2018, and substance abuse remains stubbornly high. 

Previous heavy-handed attempts, including former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua’s “one pub per town” proposal for central Kenya, collapsed under practical and economic pressure. 

Not surprisingly, the backlash against NACADA’s proposals was swift.  

The Alcoholic Beverage Association of Kenya criticised the “exclusionary” process, while lawyer Donald Kipkorir warned the measures would “kill the hospitality sector.”  

Industry leaders argue the restrictions will drive consumers toward illicit markets – precisely the problem NACADA claims to address. 

Kenya should learn from successful interventions elsewhere. Portugal’s decriminalisation model, coupled with adequate treatment structures, dramatically reduced drug-related deaths.  

Nordic countries balance access with strong social safety nets and early intervention programmes. 

We should abandon these prohibitionist fantasies and invest in proven strategies: expanding school-based prevention programmes, strengthening treatment facilities, implementing early intervention systems, and addressing underlying socioeconomic factors driving substance abuse.