DRUNKENNESS STATISTICS

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 290, 7 September 1928, Page 12

DRUNKENNESS STATISTICS

Sir The New Zealand Alliance slates in your issue of August 28: "Immediately upon the introduction of six o’clock elos- ■ iug there was a great red: .tion in drunkenness convictions.’ Xliat is absolutely incorrect. The high level of drunkenness cases in New Zealand was in 1014, when they totalled 13,480. In the years following they were 13,384 for 11)15, 10,1)1)8 for r,)IG, and 8807 for 1917, in December of which year six o’clock closing became operative. It will be seen that prior to six o’clock closing there had been a decrease of over 4000 in the yearly total. In 1918 the convictions showed a further drop of 1601 to 7296; bid rose again in 1919 to 8067; in 1920 to 8593, and in 1921 they were 8804, after four years of early closing. It will be seen that up to that period the greatest reduction took place before six o’clock closing was instituted, and that, as a matter of fact, the yearly totals rose in the first tour vears of that system. Taking it on the population basis we find that from 1914 to 1917 the reduction was roughly four per thousand of population ; and that in the next four years under six o’clock closing the reduction was under one per thousand. That is just another mis-statement of the New Zealand Alliance nailed down. It is important to note that the gratifying reduction in the drunkenness statistics of New Zealand is symptomatic of a real temperance trend in this country. In 1914 the drunkenness cases amounted to 11.82 per thousand of population; in 1927 t.hev were only some 4.5 per thousand. During that same period a similar trend has been demonstrated in Great Britain, and to a lesser degree was being demonstrated in the United States until the infliction of the Eighteenth Amendment reversed it. It is one of the saddest features of the prohibition experiment of thq United States that it checked the natural trend of that country towards temperance. The Alliance says: “The L.R.A. would like to confuse the people by quoting voluminous statistics about the U.S.A.”; that it has “said before” and repeats "that the position in the U.S.A, can safely be left in the hands of the people there.” No, Sir; I am afraid it can not. A short lime ago the alliance was proclaiming the success of prohibition in America, ami urging that unless this Dominion, ami in fact the whole British nation, followed the American example we would be outdistanced in the race of nations. Here is a choice extract from the alliance official organ, "The Vanguard,” of May, 1920: “Beery Britons may splutter and curse at America as they will, but the simple fact is that every day is increasing the distance between dry America and wet Britain in the commercial race, and improving the prospect that America will be so far ahead as to leave Britain out of sight.” A short time ago the New Zealand Alliance was proclaiming the success of prohibition in America. Today it would rather not discuss America —that country “can safely be left in the hands of the people there.” The fact is that the greatest experiment in sumptuary law that the world has ever seen has been tried in America and has lamentably failed.

The alliance says that if we would compare “the year 1920 —the first prohibition year—with a normal license year,” we would be giving your readers “some approximation to a fair comparison.” But why the first prohibition year? If prohibition is a success surely the prohibition years should show a progressive record of success. But what do we find? Anyone can consult the World Almanac at the Public Library. On page 326 will be found a table of cities in the U.S.A. which shows that in 1921, the second year of prohibition ,in the complete records of the 35 cities tabled, there were 203,664 drunkenness cases, and that in 1925, the sixth year of Prohibition, the cases totalled no less’ than 403,170 —showing that drunkenness in those cities under Prohibition, had almost doubled in four years. If we take a few examples and compare their records for. a period of years before Prohibition hud positively increased under Prohibition with the prohibition years we find that in many eases drunkenness has positively increased under. Prohibition. The figures to be quoted are derived from the Anti-Saloon League Year Book, 1925, and the World Almanac, 1928. Philadelphia’s record for seven years prior to Prohibition, 1913 to 1919 inclusive, show an average of 32,079 drunkenness cases per annum; while the average for the six Prohibition years, 1920. to 1925 inclusive, show an average of 38,845. Chicago’s wet years show au average of 49,537 drunk and disorderly cases, while the Prohibition years show au average of 66,995. Take a smaller city, Richmond, Va., the wet average was 1902, the dry average 2440. City after city can be quoted showing similar records, and there is no doubt that there has been a further increase since 1925. Why does the New Zealand Alliance dodge these plain facts. This is not a game. The fate of the country is at stake. On every hand come warnings against Prohibition. From America, Canada. Norway, Finland, the story is the same. Prohibition is a gigantic and destructive failure. It is useless for the New Zealand Alliance to try to confuse the issue by introducing the subject of local no-license. No-license is no Prohibition, it. simply alters the method of obtaining alcoholic liqurs; it does not prohibit them. The New Zealand Alliance was fully alive to that difference in 1904, when it issued its famous manifesto against the suggestion