PROHIBITION.

Waimate Daily Advertiser, Volume XXIII, 24 May 1922, Page 2

PROHIBITION.

DRINK PAMPHLET IN SCHOOLS. MODERATE LEAGUE’S PROTEST. Press Assn. —By Tel.—Copyright. WELLINGTON, May 23. A deputation of the New Zealand Moderate League waited upon the Minister of Health and Education today to protest against the wording, especially from the scientific point of view, of the Education report No. 13, “Alcohol in relation to 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 connexion 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 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 Horsley and Sturge, though contributions of numerous other investigators were quoted. Pamphlet No. 13 went far beyond the declarations contained in the report of the British Scientific Advisory Board. The Education pamphlet said:— “It must be emphasised that alcohol causes weakening of self-control and therefore of real power, and that this is true even of small doses.” That and other sentences of the Education report had the effect of a slur on those who might take alcohol in moderation.

“I say,” added Mr Findlay, “that this pamphlet undoubtedly holds up to disrespect in the minds of every child, their parents if those parents are known by 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 Mr Findlay said that the Moderate League suggested that the pamphlet should be withdrawn and revised.

Mr Parr, replying, said that the question 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,” remarked the Minister, “which is one of a series prepared by the Education Department with regard to diet and drink, was prepared in 1919. It has been in the schools for some time. It was for the use of teachers in giving instruction. The Prohibition Party had nothing whatever to do with it. It was prepared by the School Medical Services, received careful supervision, and the approval of the senior doctors of the Health Department.

“It attempts to put in a concise and scientific form, instruction regarding the effects of alcohol that was contained in a syllabus as far back as 1901. It must not be forgotten that this teaching was an essential part of the curriculum for the past 30 years.

I am assured by the officers of the Health Department that there is no statement in the pamphlet that is not scientifically sound. The pamphlet has the imprimateur of the Health Department upon it, and presumably this Department is quite impartial, therefore, 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 of the deputation would receive his consideration and he would give a more detailed reply to- the criticisms which had been advanced.

Dr. Frengley, chief medical officer of the Health Department, and Mr Caughley, Director of Education, also spoke in explanation of the pamphlet.

OPPOSITION ALLEGATION. SYDNEY, May 23. The Opposition has alleged that the Coalition party, prior to the elections, gave its pledge not to support an early liquor referendum in the event of being returned to power, and if pressed to the last ditch, the Government was to stipulate that a referendum was to be held next election day, that is in three years’ time.