THE TREATMENT OF DRUNKARDS.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 915, 13 September 1889, Page 27

THE TREATMENT OF DRUNKARDS.

In a previous article wo commented upon a portion of the Inspector of Prisons’ report, wherein he spoke of the present unsatisfactory treatment

of drunkards. In that article we held au opinion that time was ripe when au

enlightened Government should recognise drunkenness as a disease, and drunkards treated not as criminals, but as diseased persons. For many years past philanthropists and medical writers have been impressing upon the world that a more rational treatment of drunkards was necessary, but with that British hatred of infringing upon the liberty of the subject, the Legislature have been too frightened to deal with the matter. They stilL cling to the mannersandcustomsof the darker ages, and are slow in moving for social improvements among the people. It is only when matters are absolutely forced upon them that alterations are made. AVe in New Zealand pride ourselves that we are exempt from many of the prejudices of the stay-at-home [Englishman. We can and do look upon social matters in a broader light than is the custom in England. But in this one point of an improved treatment of drunkards we are as far beyond the requirements of this enlightened age as they are in Great Britain. The medical " profession, and _ indeed the greater bulk of our thinking population, will agree with us that drunkenness is a disease and not a crime. It now remains for our legislators to adopt the same views, and we would suggest that during the coming recess our members of Parliament might do worse than intelligently study the question with a view of legislation being brought to hear upon it during next session. It is undoubtedly the duty of a good and wise Government to provide for the care and treatment of drunkards when it is so well-known that the consequences of unrestrained action may be bo serious to the individual concerned, when families are so often thereby plunged into deep distress or absolute ruin, and when the amenity of society is so frequently outraged by a display of mischievous eccentricity or glaring indecency, or by the occurrence of some flagrant crime, The liberty of the subject, we must admit, is a precious trust, but the absence of law to meet the case of the insane drunkard—for drunkenness, is a species of insanity—is in reality license for evil, since no precaution is taken to prevent most grievous infringements of the liberties of others. It is certainly an overstrained delicacy in legislation to shirk interference with a class of cases which lead to so much private misery and public expenditure, as- the records of our Courts of law, prisons, and lunatic asylums can attest. But considering the case of the drunkard from another point of view, a facility by law to control would confer upon himself an unspeakable benefit. It would thus afford him his only chance of cure and restoration to society, instead of permitting him to go on to wreck and ruin. Indeed, the neglect of law to provide such a check and remedy seems inconsistent, unjust, and inhumane when we consider that, while it permits the insensate drunkard to endanger his life, to waste his property, and deprive his family of that to which they are justly entitled to expect at his hands or fall to them at hia death, it holds him responsible for any criminal act he may commit. No doubt the law assumes that he drinks voluntarily and with his oyes open to all the consequences, and that his practices, therefore, form an aggravation of his guilt; but such is not the case, for he drinks generally involuntarily compelled bv his disease or morbid, condition, aud without any reflection as to ultimata consequences, and be is manifestly unable to exercise his reason aright or govern his will. The State rlenls with almost every other class of dniease, and the most stringent measures are resorted to in order to stamp out disease, and yet we neglect one of the most mischievous forms of disease drunkenness. That drunkenness can be cured by rational treatment is now an ack owledged fact. The question then comes, How can tne State de.il with such a question. In America a magistrate or Judge has power to provide out of the estates of persona committed to his care for drunkenness for their safe keeping and maintenance. But America docs not go far enough ; it does not give ic-gai power to treat all drunkards campuhoriiy. Toe State .should provide a home for this class of persons, where medical skill should treat by the most improved methods the disease of a morbid craving for intoxicants. This home could be made self-supporting by compelling those able to afford iu to pay for their keep, and others to work at some employment of a remunerative character,

Such people would be classed simply as inebriates, and the detention in a home, ot the kind we suggest would convey no more stigma than a temporary visit to our local hospital. It would remove them from the contamination of gaol life ■ it would remove the possibility of the slur being cast upon their relatives that they had worn the prison dress ; it would bo a rational civilized mode of treatment, and an honour to New Zealand to lead the van in such a desirable scheme of legislation.