THE DRINK QUESTION.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXVIII, Issue 18573, 27 November 1920, Page 10

THE DRINK QUESTION.

TO THE iKDITOK. , . . Sir,—ln reply to your criticism of tny letter of the twentieth, I must first thank you for your kindly patience with my persistency. I now feel constrained to submit that your extra Bpe-oial plea Viat money spent- on non-essentials-jach as liquor, tobacco, sport, amusement, novels, fine clothes, and so Tor ill, is anything- but wasteful 1 , since it goes to take the drabness out of life, very plausibly begs the whole ~on at issue. No prohibitionist Aas ever claimed that all money spent Upon luxuries is wasted or lost. Jjuxifry, per se, is "'quite legitimate. The hope of betterment, of winning a competence which may lie used reasdkiablo and lawful pleasure, or tin things innocent in themselves, which add to the enjoyment of hie, is a laudable incentive to labour. But it is yuito boside Mi 6 murk to class mtoxicants in the same category as the legitimate luxuries and the haimless of life. Liquor drinking ttands on "a far lower moral and soonomio level. It was Charles Booth, the eminent sociologist, who said, m his book on “ Pauperism and the Endowment of Old. Age’l.:—“ Of drink, in all its combinations,, adding to every trouble,, undermining every effort after good, destroying the home, the stories tell enough. ‘ Drink must, therefore, be aocoiuitea the most prolific of all causes, and it is 1 the least necessary:’ In their work on the “ Elementary Principles ot Economies,’’ Professors Ely and 'Wicket affirm.: “It goes without toying that harmful consumption calls for the censure. of the economist no less' than for that of' the ethical teacher, since it is in the highest degree wasteful, whether regarded from the point of new of the individual, or of societv. Professor Adam Smith, in his “Wealth of Nations,’’ declared that, “All the labour expended on producing strong drinks is-utterly unproductive; it adds nothing to the wealth of the com--munity.” Therefore, the direct expenditure on liqnor, (unlike that upon such articles as the “.pictures, novels, neckties,, fine clothes, fancy stockings, d even the barmaids’ boots ” that you mention as being on an economic par with liquor) ib wholly n loss to the purchaser, because,- more olten than not, impaired moral, - physical or mental health only remains. Hence, collectively considered, beer, expenditure is unproductive because only the money value remains in the community j whereas, if the same money be spent on housebuilding.- other legitimate utilities, or oven - such luxuries as sport and innocent amusements, tho.se things substantially remain or add greatly to the sum total of human health and happiness, • thus' creating a double value m the, country. Furthermore, it is a proved economic fact that everyone has to meet an extra expense because, the consequences of the use of intoxicants • impose upon society such tremendous burdens of inefficiency, poverty, insanity, and crime. In this connection, with"' your permission,. I challenge your correspondent, “ Veritas Vineit,” to deny the well-known fact that the liquor traffic . is largely responsible for the existence of tho “ Red Plague,” anent which he suggests that Miss Mackey and yours truly 'ought to “ bestir ourselves.” Moreover, lit 1 is generally admitted that the indirect cost' of alcoholic drink to a nation, in crime, loss of time, health, efficiency, life, is at least equivalent to the direct cost. And it was doubtless this drab aspect of the problem that prompted tho late Efficiency Board to place the liquor tradp at. the very bottom of its list of non-essentials, and to advise its early permanent abolition The work of those who are employed by the liquor trade M-brewers, maltsters, barmon, barmaids, on the one hand, and;, the extra police, gaolers,- clerks, magistrates!. judges;' on the other hand, to cope frith the criminal fruits of the Trade", does nothing either to produce good .morals, healthy, pleasures, improved 'intelligence,. ■ or materials, for profitablo consumption, and is therefore a great national waste and loss. Hence, M still maintain, by reason of all the valid expert testimony available, that about three-fourths of the, Christchurch public evils ore.due to the ,almhob'c dope traffic, which is much akin to the Chinese opium traffic in its remits. ! Now, concerning my quotation from fhe Hon A. .T. Balfour, you toy, “ you/ feel sure, that Mr-Balfour would Bcout -tlje idea that the use of beer should be prohibited on economic grounjM” Well, sir, that all depends upon circumstances. Probably lie would scorn .prohibition if be were at fill finandail'y interested in a liquor business. ! That would be a horse of quite anothpEeconomio colour. However that may bej it is on record that Mr Balfour ?ojme years ago actually declared that, ''“intemperance at this moment.is one of-the greatest social, scourges we have -to undergo, for it is the parent and producer of countless evils, and if we oppld put an end to it, by any means, Are should deserve the gratitude of posterity.” In this respect, you have so far chosen to ignore my relevant queries, (1) as to whether you admit, 1 j the historic fact that the English deer trade was originally licensed to exploit .the workers, (2) that there is any jlose : Connection - betwixt the liquor traffic, and crime, disease and destitution, "and if so,'of what proportion is it responsible forP Now.'regarding my no-license versus -license figures, which you qssjert “were wrong and that nothing hut blunders can be shown with faked; figures.” your readers, if any have followed, this controversy, will be greatly surprised to learn from you that ; our Government Year Book statistic’s are “ faked,” and I find. that even a I member of the first Efficiency ; Board, iMr W) D- Hunt, had used from that 1918 Year Book, the very same population figures flint...l quoted viz., Invercargill—last., census—l7,B62; Palmerston North, 14,006. Then again, you assert that mv figures quoted from the Parliamentary paper H. 37a are “not! there bpt were got from a prohibition publication.” Well sir, . my authority is one of this Dominion.’s leadipg; lawyers, Mr .A. E. Adams, of Dunedin, and he distinctly states in his 1919; “/New Zealand Drink Bill,” that “ a return H 37a was presented to Parliament on September 20, 1920. which enables 1 a comparison and a contrast to be made between license and no-lSeenso

districts both as to the quantity of liquor consumed, and cost per. head of population for same.” Who is wrong in this case? Thanking you in anticipation.—l am etc. HUMANITY.