THE DRINK QUESTION.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXVIII, Issue 18573, 27 November 1920, Page 8

THE DRINK QUESTION.

[The further our friend “Humanity” goes in discussing the drink question the more he twists and turns: The main points which, he set out to establish, and which we deny, are these:—That the whole of the money Bpent on liquoT is “ insensate waste ” ; that,,, three-quarters of New Zealand’s annual expenditure on hospitals, charitable aid, industrial schools, police, ■“ etc.,” is due to drink; that the increase In the consumption of liquor in the Dominion last year was responsible for an increase in crime as revealed in the Police Report. We have adduced facts and arguments to combat all these contentions. We have shown that a Substantial part of the “drink bill” consists of tax revenue, which is spent for public purposes. We have urged that if all drinking is unnecessary (and neckties and hatbands are equally unnecessary) the economic “waste” that is traceable is represented in the time, material and labour spent in production and distribution. We have met the assertion about expenditure on Mtmceg being due to drink by show-

mg that these expenditures doubled in ten year's while the per capita consumption of liquor fell, and we havo shown, in reference to the Polioe Report, that crime was greater in a previous year when drinking was less. Not one of our friend’s assertions has stood the test of examination in the light of facts and statistics. He now declares that one must not class intoxicants in the same category as " legitimate ” luxuries; in fact, it is clear that “ Humanity ” is steeped in prohibition fallacies and prejudices- Why lifts he run away from his original contentions ? Why does he not stick to the point and try to show, if he can, that last year’s, crime increase was due to drink and that 70 to 80 por cent of the expenditure on hospitals and so forth is due to drink? We suppose he has given up that line of argument because he finds it insupportable. He now quotes Adam Smith as saying that the “ labour” expended on producing drink is unproductive, and goes merrily on to adduce that “ therefore ” tho money spent on liquor is waste, which is quite a different thing. Adam Smith put lawyers and teachers in the! unproductive class. Then "Humanity” harks back to Mr Balfour (with the unpleasant and unworthy suggestion that that distinguished statesman’s views might be influenced by his pocket) and quotes him a« denouncing intemperance. Precisely! We agree entirely with Mr Balfour as to the evils of intemperance, and we say that nothing could very well bo more intemperate than prohibition. We have not spaoe to follow “Humanity” through all the byways he selects, hut we will just notice his further reference to statistics. He explains now that in licensed Palmerston North ” vriffii no-, license Invercargill” as to population and crime he quoted borough figures of population. But it is not the boroughs, but the districts, that are with or without license. Then he declares that he has the support of Mr A. S. Adams for saying that Parliamentary paper H. 87a enables a comparison and a oontraat to b© made between rlcense and no-license districts both as to the quantity of liquor consumed and cost per head of population for same.” If "Humanity” will try, as we suggested before, to stand on his own legs, and not rely upon quotations for his arguments, he may do better than he has done. If/he will obtain a copy of H. 37a he will discover that it contains absolutely no information about the quantity of liquor "consumed ” in any districts, licensed or not licensed. Mr Adams’a statement on this matter, with which we are. familiar, is founded upou a few faots and a great deal of imagination.