TEMPERANCE COLUMN

Evening Star, Issue 19431, 14 December 1926, Page 5

TEMPERANCE COLUMN

THE APPEAL OF THE CHRISTIAN ETHIC (Published by arrangement with the United Temperance Reform Council.) We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak and mot to please ourselves.—The Apostle Paul. Part I. It is now an accepted fact in the world of science that alcohol is not what our fathers imagined it to be. According to the unchallenged reports of scientific research upon the subject published by the British Government in 1918 (new improved edition, 1924), alcohol is not a means of building up the constitution or of keeping out the cold or of curing indigestion, it does not safeguard against doubtful drinking water; indeed it weakens the body’s resistance to infection; it is not a safe remedy for fainting attacks, nor a true heart stimulant; it is, in fact, from first to last not a stimulant at all, but a narcotic drug. Its first effect, even in small doses, is temporarily to ])aralyse those parts of the brain and nerves that do the work of self-criticism and self-con-trol (i.e., the work of conscience), and as the dose is increased or more fully absorbed into tiio blood the paralysis may spread to all functions, and even at last bring about death. The belief often held both by hand workers and by brain workers that they produce better work under alcohol is due to this paralysing effect on the capacity for self-criticism, and is contradicted by hard fact. These are incontestable facts. The strong representative Medical Committee appointed in 1916 reported in 1917. Its findings have never been seriously challenged, and are now reinforced in the new edition These findings obviously provide a basis for the advocacy of total abstinence. and are being excellently used by the chief societies as propaganda. But there is reason for some anxiety lest this line of argument should bo too exclusively pressed. In the first place, it does not by itself quite prove the case for total abstinence; and in the second place the motives to which it appeals are neither the most compelling nor the most persistent. (1) The former of these two suggestions needs very few words. The eight distinguished medical men who prepared the report under the chairmanship of Lord D’Abcrnou repeatedly emphasise their view that with proper safeguards a moderate amount of alcohol cau ho taken without visibly producing the evil effects of which they speak. It is possible, of course, that thu committee gave too little weight to some modern observations of the effects of minute doses. Still it is clearly possible to conceive of a dose of alcohol for a normally healthy man, small enough, sufficiently diluted, and .sufficiently seldom taken to produce only .negligible effects. And if a person enjoys (if that is the word for it) such a potion, these doctors, ns doctors, have nothing to say against him. (2) But the second reason for thinking that the purely medical argument may bo too exclusively used is that it appeals mainly to self-regarding motives. These are neither so compelling nor so permanent in tlicir effect as tho argument wo derive from the Apostle Raul’s phrase: “ 1 will eat no meat while the world standeth, if meat make my brother to stumble.” (a) There is a weakness inherent in all arguments based on advantages accruing to the abstainer himself, whether the advantage is better health, longer life, better ivork, or a quicker conscience. Such arguments seem at first sight more effective, but they are sure sooner or later to be weighed against one disadvantage which is incurred by all total abstainers who move in any but the narrowest teetotal circles, and that is the disadvantage of singularity. Tho singularity of total abstinence is less to-day than it used to be, but in many circles of society its influence is still strong. And the dislike of singularity of any kind is keener than it was. Probably the camaraderie encouraged by war lime made it so, ibe more a man hates to be singular the more likely ho is to abandon a total abstinence founded mainly on sclMntemst. For an ideal, lor a political party, for any cause one may bo content to be thought odd, but for a more or less debatable advantage to oneself (bj There are two facts on which the Paulino argument for total abstinence has always been based—(l) that there is a large class of persons wiioso only, hope of safety lies in the path of total abstinence; and (2) that the abstinence of others helps them to preserve in that safe path, that, in iact, it is absurd to coniine total abstinence to the weak pathers, many of whom would cease to abstain under such conditions.