BEER

Press, Volume LXXVIII, Issue 23803, 24 November 1942, Page 6

BEER

Sir,—ln the concluding sentence of your editorial on November 21, you mention my name and refer to my recent statement that antagonism to alcohol was not inspired by a narrow Puritanism nor by what is known as “wowserism,” but is based upon sound scientific knowledge of the effects of alcohol upon the numan body; and brain. I am quite prepared to discuss your criticism but obviously that cannot adequately be done in one or even in a few letters within the limits allowed in your correspondence columns. Laboratory science and the history of the race furnish evidence that should guide the Government policy in relation to alcohol. It is fatuous for the Government to talk of “an all-in war” while it encourages and provides facilities for developing a taste for alcohol which is demonstrated, alike by scientific tests and by practical experience, tragically to impede its successful prosecution.—Yours, etc., M. A. RUGBY PRATT. November 23, 1942. Sir,—Your leading article with the short title omitted to mention that beer and spirits have been responsible for more traffic crashes than anything else on earth. Could you please inform parents just what the Government proposals are m regard to territorial canteens. Haven't parents enough anxiety in these hectic days without having habit-forming liquors sold to sons still in their teens? I have seen with sadness the faces of a few young soldier boys “lit up” with alcohol; and, like many other men and women, much prefer to see them bright and keen of eye in their natural youthful eagerness. If every parent who objects would write and tell their member of Parliament, they would be snowed under with letters. Thinking people who supported the Government for its social legislation will be hard put to it to support such an unnecessary and unsocial action. Who is responsible?— Yours, etc., FRED. T. MILES. November 23, 1942. '