A SCHOOL PAMPHLET

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18562, 24 May 1922, Page 8

A SCHOOL PAMPHLET

THE LIQUOR QUESTION. PROTEST BY MODERATE LEAGUE. DEPUTATION TO THE MINISTER. 9 ■ ■■ (Pbb United Prim Association.) WELLINGTON, May A deputation of the New Zealand Moderate League waited upon the Minister of Health and Education to-day to protest against the ’ wording, especially from a scientific point of view, of the Education Report No. 13—“ Alcohol in Relation to the Human Body and Mind.’’ Mr D. M. Findlay (president of the league) stated that in regard to the teaching of temperance in schools and the principles laid down by the Minister himself in connection with the matter members of the league were in entire approval. They had always approved of the teaching of temperance in schools. He maintained, however, that in its wording pamphlet No, 13 was not truly scientific nor accurate. Pamphlet No. 13 referred to Messrs Horsley and Sturge’s work. The report of the British Scientific Advisory Board (specially set up to ascertain the existing state of scientific knowledge on this subject) made no recognition of the work of Messrs Horsley and Sturge, though contributions of numerous other investigators were quoted. Pamphlet No. 13 went far bevond the declarations contained in the report of the British Scientific Advisoiy Board of Education. The pamphlet said: “It must be emphasised that alcohol causes the weakening of self-control and therefore of will-power, and that this is true even of small doses.” That, and other sentences of the education report, had the effect ot a slur on those who might take alcohol in moderation “I say,” added Mr F !"'; Ua 7’ “that this pamphlet undoubtedly holds up to disrespect in the minds of every child their parents, if those parents are known by the children to make even a moderate use of alcohol. _ , * The Minister remarked that he did not think that was a fair deduction from the teaching of the pamphlet. , , . Mr Findlay said that tli® Moderate League suggested that the pamphlet should bp ■withdrawn and revised. Mr Purr, in replying, sard that the quc.tion of the scientific propriety or otherwise of the pamphlet was' not a new one. It cropped up last year when the newspapers took exception to it. This report, v marked the Minister “which is one of a series prepared by the Education Department with regard to diet and drink, v\as prepared in 1919. It had _ been in schools for some time, and it was for the use of teachers in givins ipstmction -L"® Prohibition party had nothing do with it. It was prepared by the school of medical service and received the careful supervision and approval of the senior doctors of the Health Department. It attempts to out in concise, scientific form the instruction regarding the effects of that was contained in the syllabus as far badk as 1901. It must not be forgotten that this teaching was an essential part of the curriculum for the past 30 year*. I am assured by the officers of the Health Department that there is no statement m the pamphlet that no scientifically Bound pamphlet has the imprimatur of the Health Department upon it, and presumably this department is quite impartial. Therefqie, until it can be shown to me that, according to modern science, its statement of the case is scientifically unsound, I see no necessity for action on my part. The Minister said that the statements ot tRe deputation would receive his consideration, and he would give a more detailed reply to the criticisms which had been aclMessrs Frengley and Caughley also spoke in explanation of the pamphlet, ,