THE NEW ZEALAND DRINK BILL.

Otago Witness, Issue 3111, 29 October 1913, Page 80

THE NEW ZEALAND DRINK BILL.

DOES NO-LICENSE DIMINISH DRUNKENNESS?

*4O By .J. M'Combs.

A parliamentary return published August, 1913, gives the total quantities of liquor legally imported into no-license areas. Worked out on the same basis as the Dominion drink bill, this return shows that the no-license areas consumed liquor to the value of £152,651 during 1912, leaving the value of the liquor consumed in license areas as £3,829,511. The value of liquor consumed per head of the population is thus;—

It may be objected that, in addition to the quantity ot liquor legally sent into no-license areas, there is a certain quantity sent in illicitly. But the facilities lor obtaining liquor legally are so great that there is little reason for risking illegal importation. Inspector Mitchell, in his 1909 report on Invercargill, says:—“Cases of drunkenness have been few, remembering the facilities that exist for legitimately obtaining liquor. In all cases, except one or two, the source whence the liquor was obtained w.is traceable to places outside the no-license area.” No doubt £IOOO would more than cover the total amount of liquor that goes illicitly into the 12 no-lieense areas annually; but for the sake of argument the sum might be put as high as £IOOO a month, or £12,000 annually, and still the drink bill per head of the population in no-licenso areas would not exceed £l, while in the license areas it would be over £4 per head. Anyhow, where does the illicit liquor come from? It comes from licensed areas, and is therefore directly cnargeable to the evils of license. The remedy is national prohibition. Again, it may be urged that residents in no-license to swell the drink bill of neighbouring license areas. This difficulty can bo met in a - very simple way. Prior to 1908 all the no-license areas, with the exception of Grey Lynn, were in the provinces of Otago, Southland, and Canterbury. Grey Lynn is a suburban area, and it had but one hotel. The no-licenso districts are completely surrounded by license districts, and we may take it that if the residents in them procure liquor outside the boundaries of the no-license electorates they get it within these three provinces. The population of these partly dry provinces in 1901 was 316,401, and the number of arrests for drunkenness in them was 3042. Clutha was then the only dry area. By 1906 the population of the three provinces had risen to 340,080, and with four additional dry areas the arrests for drunkenness had fallen to 2424, a decrease of 618. In the wet provinces during the same period the arrests for drunkenness rose from 5015 .to 6786, on increase of 1771 The arrests for drunkenness per thousand of the population were as follows:

Hero, I think, we have positive proof that no-licensc docs reduce drunkenness and diminish the consumption of liquor in the areas it affects. The increase in the total number of arrests, periods 1901 and 1906, is made up as follows: Provinces "wet” 1771 increase Provinces partly "dry” 018 increase Domtnion 1153 increase Subsequent to 1908 six new electorates carried no-lieeso, and as these arc scattered very widely over the Dominion, it is impossible to continue the comparison on the above lines because quite a number of provinces would, like Canterbury, have one no-lieense electorate within their boundaries. The only possible comparison now on provincial lines is that of the two southern provinces with the rest of the Dominion. This comparison will he instructive, treatise Otago and Southland have one no-liccneo clectroato to every 39,000 of population, while the proportion for the rest of the Dominion is one to every 127,000 of population. The total arrests for drunkenness in the Dominion in 1911 were 11.099, and in 1912 11,884, an increase of 185. Otago ami Southland, with five no-licens« electorates amt a imputation of 191.130 (1911 census figures), had 1075 arrests for drunkenness. and in 1912 the mean population was 196,672 and arrests for drunkenness, 1013. The figures for the rest of the Dominion, with seven no-lieense territories, are (1911) population 866,668, arrests for drunkenness 10.624, and (1912) population 892,188 and arrests for drunkenness 10.871. The figures may be stated thus; — ABKESTS FOB DBUXKENNESS.

The arrests per thousand of population are: —

The above figures, with roughly a 2 3 to 1 advantage for Otago and Southland, bear a striking relationship to the figures given higher up—namely, 127,000 and 39,000, or roughlv 3 to 1. The relationship is almost mathematical when it is borne in mind that no-license is not total prohibition Analyse the figures how you will and compare one set with another, the evidence is conclusive that no-license does diminish drunkenness, and if local no-license under disadvantageous circumstances and with all its limitations can accomplish so much, what may New Zealanders not expect from national prohibition? The total amount of intoxicating liquor that went into the no-license areas in 1912 exceeded 300,000 gallons, and, taking the average of five persons to a household, the consumption of liquor in the no-lioense areas would work out at nine gallons per annum per household. The no-Ticense law permits, under certain restrictions, the importation of liquor into no-license areas; hence those 300,000 gallons, which, from the point of view of total prohibition, is 300,000 gallons too much. But the amount of liquor which goes into no-license areas is not to be compared with the volume consumed in license areaa The total consumption in the license areas exceeds 11,700,000 gallons, and works out

«t 59 gallons per annum per household of five persons, or over one gallon per week per family. Considering the number of households into which no liquor enters, tho weekly consumption in some must be very considerable and be fraught with untold misery to thousands of innocent children. The 11,551 arrests for drunkenness— large as that number is—give only a faint idea of the number of families that are cursed by tne liquor traffic, because only hopelessly incapacitated persons are arrested, and numbers of hopeless drunkards, the despair of their families, have never been before the court. . , ... Tho magnitude of tho drink evil and its damage to the moral and economic wellbeing of the people is not fully realised. Eugenics, tho latest and the greatest Oi our sciences, is beginning to reveal to us. among other things, tho damage to the race and tho deterioration which is directly caused bv alcoholism. One of the greatest problems’ that confronts the Western nations is how to deal with this racial poison. Opium is another poison which results ji] rflco dotorioration, sod'lt is to tlic credit of patriotic Chinese statesmen that theyaro definitely tackling it along tho lines of total prohibition. DRIKK BILL TT’.R HOUSEHOLD (Family of five, all oges.) £ s. d. dominion n License areas 2 * ® *! Ko-lictnse areas * 6 GALLONS. —Drink Consumption per Household. (Family of five, all ages.) License areas ... «» ons No-lioense areas gallons

£ s . d. Dominion 3 14 Hi License areas 4 5 01 No-license area 0 18 51

1901. 1906. 1 1903. Provinces “wet” ... 11 12.3 1 13.5 Provinces partly "dry” ... 9.6 7.1 6.9

1011. 1012. Otago and Southland .. 1075 1013 62 dec. Hest of Dominion . 10,624 10 871 247 inc. Dominion 11,600 11,884 185 ino.

1011. 1912. Otago and Southland . .. 5.6 5.1 Rest of Dominion ... . .. 12.18 12.25