THE DRINK BILL.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXVIII, Issue 18583, 9 December 1920, Page 9

THE DRINK BILL.

SO TH* KDITOH. visf —In tha arena ox this conflict thsr@ first appeared your bosom friend, Liberty" (Oh, Liberty, what monstrous crimes have been committed in thy sacred name!), to sneer at that little army ,of “ oontemptibles ” called prohibitionists, in their defence ventured timid " Humanity,” exit brave ‘Liberty”; and boldly enters “Sir Editor ” with his noble battalions of up-to-date figures and “ tests-” To assuage “ Humanity,” then comes benevolent “ Lady Journalist,” for which kindly act she bad to endure a surprise attack by gallant “ Veritas Vincit, Exit V.V., and now appears pother of yonr courteous allies, Sobriety” ; and what a fearful plateaux he flings against poor “ Humanity ’’ an d bis “ tribe.” Note the number of verbal gas bliolls (“ duds ” tliough they be—about twenty of them) u i lc i l Sl,c b classical phraseology as o-nl C c • ® an P r Neros and Cali8, , la R choice ornate specimen. Shades of Dickens and Shakespeare! inen observe, if you please, the logical of * VOUr nG ' r ally, for he says it is a great mistake, I consider, Zr>nU eV f int P a deputation with these P, Plo, for by doing so ivo (mark the "o) concede their claims.” Thon, what does polite “Sobriety” doP Does no not forthwith verily “ concedo their claims, ’ by himself engaging in a “disputation ’ with one of the “ woollyhramed enthusiasts,” by his- quiz about lias. I l or he soberly asks “loquacious” Humanity ” to “ kindly state the sum h®. reckons sufficient to quench the thirst of the Dominion’s people, reckoned at sixpence per bottle of “ fizz.” •or a calendar year? Well now, Sir, as aforesaid, I am no statistician, much less a “ fizz ” calculator, so that query must fizzlo out as far as I am concerned. " u t I will adopt the proverbial Scotch plan of answering “ Sobriety’s ” question by asking some of him. Firstly, I submit the proposition that there is a vast economic contrast betwixt the Dominion’s expenditure on alcoholic liquors, and that upon non-alcoholio beverages such as tea, coffee, cocoa, feerated waters and other soft drinks. Supposing, for examplo, that the Dominion’s total strong and soft drink bill for last year was £12,001),000, equally divided between both,kinds, and that three millions of each variety was locally manufactured, as is the case of New Zealand beer, eto. So far as can be seen, all sorts of “thirst” (whioh “Sobriety” deems a “natural affliction”) have been either satisfied or gratified, and only the money value remains. ( This first bxpon.se to tho community is known as the “ direct cost.” But what about the admitted after-effects of some of our beverage consumption? As. a tree is judged by its fruits so thq, intoxicant trade is judged by tho consensus of British and American medical. social, judicial and economic expert opinion to bo largely responeiblo r' or , a very heavy burden of “indirect costs” to a nation. It is at this point where the two groups of beverage traders and their respective patrons P art “ temperately divides them thus: “Liberty loving persons and “ oilV wily wowsers.’ Now, to deni briefly with the individual aspect of the drink problem, and from a personal knowledge and observation viewpoint, 1 shall ask “ Sobriety ” some pertinent questions. As he argues that people would be physically worse off through drinking “ ginger-pop, I RSk Sobriety ” if he has ever heard a man arguing that “ there were two. bottles wliero there was only one oil the counter,” saying " tooral-looral instead of “ trtjly-rural,” or has ho ever seen a man “ slip down a verandah post into the gutter,” or try to hold on to the ground to save himsdlf from falling upwards,” through drinking too much ginger-beer or “fizzP’ Again, has he ever known of a “neighbours two young boys having to be sent to an industrial ' school,” )of a . hour boing sent to an mebriatea home or a mental hospital, through imbibing overmuch herba.il beer or hop ale? Furthermore, has 'Sobriety ” ever seen a son “ strike bis father on the head with a bottle,” oi known of a wife, to save her life, being forced to engage a constable to mind her husband in his D-T’s, or of a husband smashing furniture _ and will dows, and burning Jiis hats through ahuso of lithe-juice or lemonsquash? Has '‘Sobriety” ever heard of men being killed by being struck by other men just after stepping out of i* soft drink shop? Has he also noticec. tho number of suicides and murders reported recently in the papers, and observed whether the influence of coffee, tea or cocoa, had anything to do with any of them? Surely even'“Sobriety ” must see that it is • the powerful narcotic poison called alcohol —that staggor-juice to be found in all intoxicants—that dees the mischief. It is this fact which prompts leading judges, doctors, social workers and political economists to declare that alcoholic liquor is responsible for about three-fourths of a nation’s preventible crime, disease and poverty, and indired costs. Now, I shall ask “ Sobriety ” to answer, if he can, the two question.l- - ignored in our recent controversy. (1) Is it not an historic fact that the beer trade was originally licensed in England to exploit the farmers peasants and artisans, of the sixteenth century, by “ providing some sewers or channels to draw or suck from them their money by subtle and indirect means, to be handled insensibly?” (2) If V Sobriety ” will acTmit that there is some connection between the liquor trade and crime, disease and poverty, for what percentage of those evils does ho bold tho " Trade,l’ responsible?— I am etc., HUMANITY.