THE DRINK PROBLEM IN BRITAIN

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 285, 21 August 1918, Page 8

THE DRINK PROBLEM IN BRITAIN

WHAT HAS BEEN DONE IN WAR-TIME

STRIKING PROGRESS

Lord D'Abernon, chairman of the Liquor Control Board, recently made, iti an interview with a representative of "The Observer," an interesting statement with regard to the position and prospects of the drink question in Britain. "We can claim in this country," ho said, "to have made some rapid progress towards the solution of the drink problem any country in the world. We can claim further to be on a more durable basis, because the restrictions imposed have not created any tendency among the public to resort to drugs or wotso alternatives."

His Lordship drew a striking comparison between the measures in force in this country and those in America for restricting the output of drink. He showed verv clearly that wo are by r< means bohind the United States—in fnct, in many ca6es the restrictions hero are moro severe—and that American parents may rest assured that we are in the closest touch with their authorities in ■ safeguarding their sons from dancer. "The position of the drinlt problem hero and the control of the alcohol trade." His I.ordshin sn'd, '/have not been fully understood on the other side of the Atlantic. Some sections of oninion there appear tn think that conditions prevailing; in England to-day are similar to those which prevailed in 1914 and previous years. Nothing could be further from the truth.

"As regards the measures in force, an examination of the restrictions which prevail here to-day will show that they are not only more severe* in many points than tho" which throughout the. United States, but also that tliev ha.ve been at, least, as effective in diminishing inteninerance. pull prohibition throughout the States cannot, come into force' before W*. T >i the meantime different .parts of the States are suliiect to vn.rvini» regulations, and'considerable difficulty is experienced on account of the innumerable frontiers between dry and wet States. You know the dani»»rs from such frontiers and their liability to create illicit traffic. Figures Compared. 'Let us compare existing conditions. As regards tho manufacture of spirits for potablo purposes, thai has been stopped both here and in the United States. Consumption of old stocks is apparently allowed in the States without restriction, except in special Prohibition areas, whereas in the United v Kingdom the quantity released from bond is restricted to 50 por cent, of tho amount cleared in 1916, which had 1 already been reduced far below the pre-war level. "With regard to beer, in the United (states the materials used lipve been reduced to about 70 per cent, of the prewar figures. Here they have been reduced' to below dO per cent. In the United States, under a new order which came into force at the beginning of tho year, no malt liquor—except ale and portermay now be produced containing more than 2.75 per cent, alcohol by weight, equal to approximately 6 per cent, of proof spirit. This corresponds to a gravity of about 1038 deg. In this country the average gravity of all beers has been falling rapidly in the last, two years, and by the new order it has been reduced to 1030 ,deg. "With regard to restrictions on sale, approximately G3 por cent, of the 100,000,000 inhabitants of the United States live' in Prohibition areas, and outside of these areas no war restrictions appear to have bfeen imposed except as regards sales to soldiers. 'In .the United Kingdom 38,000,000 out of '15,000,(100 inhabitants—that is 84 per cent.—live ii> areas under the Control Board regulations. The Test of Results. "This means that in the non-Prohibi-tion areas of the.United States sale continues apparently on a pre-war basis, except as regards sales to troops, whereas in tho controlled areas of the United Kingdom it is only permitted under severe restrictions as to time of sale, shortened hours, and numerous other safeguards against temptations to exceasive drinking. "It will thus be. seen that this country has certainly not been behind the United States in imposing restrictions framed to diminish intemperance and excess., Personally, I see jno call for— and no justification of—any more severe measures than those in force. Indeed, I am convinced that greater severity in the past would have meant less'progress and less efficiency. Had we gone further we should have achieved less. "In itself there is nothing admirable in Severity. Merit does not reside in restricting refreshment-or recreation, but in preventing excess. It is by its results that, any system must be judged; and the results in our own case I have already indicated." National Efficiency. Turning to the effect upon national efficiency of the regulations in force, His Lordship said, "1 cannot do better than draw your attention to', the extraordinary contrast between the tone of public debate here on this subject in 1915 and in 1918. In the spring of 1915, -Mr. Lloyd George, in passages of great eloquence and force, stated with general assent that 'drink is a greater enemy than either Germany or Austria,' and that 'drink is doing us more damage in tho war than all the German submarines put together.' During the last month two long debates havo taken place in the House of Commons, the. first on the subject of Prohibition; t'he second on tho subject of the deficiency of shipping output. In neither of these debates did any speaker advocate prohibition on tho_ ground that drunkenness was now interfering with national efficiency. This is a remarkable change, and appears to rne to show conclusively that public opinion recognises that tho drink problem as regards national efficiency has been solved. In his address at the City Temple on March 13, Mr. Lloyd George. himself dealt with the subject at considerable length, and while promising his hearers that, if it came, to a choice between beer and bread, the' Government would not hesitate, he made ho mention of drink as a cause of industrial difficulty. "With regard to American soldiers and sailors .here, all reports agree that their conduct has been exemplary. If there is any approhension among American fathers and mothors regarding danger to their sons from the very restricted conditions which obtain in this country respecting drink, they can rest assured that we are-in close touch with the American authorities, ai)d that any special nction which they or the American Government might consider necessary will be carefully considered, and will be adopted if possible. Personally, however, I regard anv apprehensions on this score as groundless and as being an aspersion upon tho self-control of the American troops in this country, which they arc very far indeed from deserving."