CORRESPONDENCE “SAVE THE YOUTH.”

King Country Chronicle, Volume XXXII, Issue 4594, 21 January 1938, Page 5

CORRESPONDENCE

“SAVE THE YOUTH.”

(To the Editor). Sir, —“Father” says “that human nature takes its characteristics from the environment in which it is developed.” That is, I think, one of my principal arguments —and we in the King Country, especially those who are in their malleable youth, take our characteristics, our fondness for overindulgence in liquor, from the environment that is bred of the laws that prevail.. “Father” may argue as to the causation of this environment — young men will be young men—but he does grudgingly admit that temptation might be lessened by the introduction of licensed bars—and. then informs us that this would do no good, because as youth is likely to sow its wild oats, drinking would not be greatly diminished! Such reasoning does not appeal to me. Lessen the furtiveness and temptations of drinking, if possible; but don’t say just because things are bad all we can do is to sit down and appeal to youth to give up drinking and tackle social problems. Appeal by all means —there is room for it—but tackle the physical as well as the psychological aspects. If the sly-grogger trades on the weakness of youth, don’t merely tell youth to be strong; eliminate the sly-grogger in the only possible way, by eliminating the laws that breed him, and make special provision for control of public bars when they are opened. As for the assertion that the consumption of liquor in the Masterton no-license district is about half that of a licensed town of its size, I would like to point out that this district is very small in area, and how many residents would drink out of town, or even not bother about declaring? And sly-groggers as a rule declare only sufficient to explain away the liquor found on their permises—a car seems a necessity.—l am, etc., SON.

(To the Editor)

Sir, —The caption over previous correspondence on this subject amuses me by the poverty of the suggestions to do the job. Saving the youth cannot be done by substituting licensed houses for the present system, even if it does result in “less diving by the weak into filthy dens; less gathering round the kegs where you have to drink up and drink deep or your three shillings’ worth of beer will be poured down some more capacious throat.” Drinking under these conditions is certainly a bad business, but is not by a long way the whole of the problem. Does your correspondent “Son,” and youth generally, note the less spectacular and apparent consequences, such as spoilt careers, wrecked homes, forced marriages and crimes which are attributable to consumption of liquor under other conditions—at dances, at private parties, at sports and other meetings? Our concern as a community is not only with the more obvious evils of the business, for the whole thing is rotten, and its cost so great that only fools will talk about liberty. There are dozens of instances which could be given of cases in this community, known to all but not mentioned specifically, to justify the elimination of this scourge in the public interest. And who are the “weak” we talk about? Let us not think of them as precious few where drinking to excess is concerned. As for those vile enough to take advantage of men’s weakness through sly grog trade, we will have them plying some equally vile traffic if .this means of livelihood is taken away from them, and, anyway, an amendment of the law is not required to deal with them. That is a job for the police. Much of the credit for the present conditions rests with the older generation, but that only increases the need for a better order, and is no excuse for the younger ones. If youth is really concerned, let it build that better order in terms of character that casts this evil aside. The point is that to-day we think we can do whatever we like, and escape the consequences. We have deluded ourselves into believing that we can juggle with moral issues and come out unscathed. Sometimes, and I believe this is such an occasion, we are seized with the evils of such a course, and instead of mending our own ways and attempting in a spirit of humility and love to spread the high influence, we cry out for a system of control. We must realise that much of the evil is due largely to the indulgence of what some of us would term our freedom, but which is really our desire to indulge the animal side of our nature without thought of our own good or the welfare of others. Is our conception of life so small that we choke and kill our finer qualities by such associations and habits, and our manhood so poor that we so abuse our freedom? I do not believe this statement of the position can be termed an exaggeration. Whether we like it or not, we have a responsibility to the community and to ourselves. If we neglect the issue of personal responsibility for this and every other public evil we will certainly get somewhere, but it will not be towards social and ! individual betterment. We must stop

talking about a faulty law (it’s the enforcement that’s at fault) and shoulder our responsibility as individuals. The way to do it? The only way is to regulate our lives by the highest standard there is. The standard I refer to is the one the Churches are seeking to reveal, or should be revealing. If they are not they are included in this condemnation. It is a standard that began 1900 years ago with a cross, and is the only motive power available to every man which will enable him to accomplish anything worthwhile, whether it relates to saving the youth from sly grog and drink, or any other social disease. —I am, etc., »•

ANOTHER SON.