Dear Sir,

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 10, Issue 97, 21 February 1947, Page 4

Dear Sir,

Letters to the Editor must be clearly written on one side of the paper only and where a nom-de-plume is used the name of the writer must be included for reference purposes. The Editor reserves the right to abridge, amend or withhold any letter or letters.

SANE DRINKING Sir, —Having read the article under this title in Friday’s Beacon it seems only fair that your readers should have the opportunity of comparing this with the other side of the story, on a few points at least—space forbids dealing with all points raised. It is certainly refreshing to find the Liquor Traffic champion openly stating that “their concern ... is purely one of self-interest.” This immediately brings to mind the fat dividends so regularly paid out by the drink traffic. But that is only part of the story. Their “self-inter-est” goes deeper. Looking back to American prohibition days we find that the drink traffic spent enormous effort and money in seeking to convince the people that prohibition was such a failure that a change back to liquor was imperative. Then came the vote for repeal and the result shows that all their effort and expenditure had failed to arouse the majority of the people to the point of action. Out of a total number of vofers of 60,135,604, repeal was carried by .only 14,811,529 votes! Over 40 million voters were still so unimpressed by the so-called failure of prohibition that they simply didn’t bother to vote at all! It was anything but a popular vote. Since then the drink traffic has had its own way, in a measure, and what is the result? The latest statistics available show that today in America over 25 million people are living under prohibition again! This is by their own choice (through a local option vote) and remember this, they have made this choice after actual experience of prohibition and of repeal. They evidently consider that repeal is a greater failure than prohibition, even though local prohibition is admittedly more difficult to enforce than national prohibition. That this is a direct threat to the drink traffic, read this from the pen of Frank Weaner, President of the Spirits Club of Chicago, and editor of the National Liquor Review. He said: “It is estimated that one-sixth of the United States is now dry. This is a sort of creeping prohibition, which is almost.sure to continue to make important gains, especially in rural areas.” And at the last annual convention of the Idaho Beer Dealers’ Association the 65 delegates were told by the general manager of one of their largest breweries: “Prohibition is coming again, and unless we can keep the beer business on a decent level we will have option.” Further, read this from the U.S.A. “Brewers’ Journal”: “Local option elections in most eastern States are getting to be a costly pain in the neck of brewery organisations, but in view of the wider areas affected by their results, must be followed with unrelenting vigilance.” That last statement was long ago as 1944. So in America it seems that even the' liquor traffic is able to read the hand-writing on the wall! Bo when the American Liquor Traffic speaks of “self-inter-est” it is alluding not only to dividends, but to its very existence. And an article admittedly written from a motive of self-interest is very liable to be nothing better than plain, bald, propaganda. That the authority for the drink traffic is a doctor fails to impress when one knows that breweries, etc., have not only some doctors among their shareholders, but others in practically every walk of life. These will naturally speak and act in defence of their “self-interest” (and their dividends). This statement is supported by a list before me containing the names and occupations of large shareholders in certain breweries. Now we are told that instead of making drunkards, the drink traffic is working to prevent drunkenness! The traffic evidently now finds itself faced with the necessity of changing its face, The drunkard is no longer to be recognised as the finished article of their trade. It seems that at last they, may be ashamed of their own handiwork, and seek to place the blame elsewhere. When one stops to consider this claim and asks ‘Then who is responsible?” its transparency becomes only too evident. Where will we look for drunkards in the making? In the milk bars? In the tearooms? In the restaurants? Oh no! but in the bars of the drink traffic, as ever before, and amongst the

moderate drinking, who we are told are drinking sanely, intelligently. This is what the traffic now seeks to champion: moderate ing as the remedy for drunkenness. As alcohol is a narcotic poison the same principle should apply to the other narcotics (opium, cocaine, morphia, etc.O, but . what doctor would advise the moderate use of any of these to avoid becoming an addict? Tell me, how many drunkards have you known of who were not once moderate drinkers? I am reminded of an earlier • effort along somewhat similar lines, also in America. A Council for Moderation was formed to show young Americans how they successfully could drink alcohol in moderation without suffering evil consequences. Where is it now? Within two years this Council for Moderation was dead! Young Americans found that even in moderation, drinking a dangerous poison led to drunkenness and degradation. Moderation is not the remedy. And .is it not a well proved fact that no permanent cure has been found for alcoholism which does not require total abstenance? Read what a prom inent overseas authority, Dr. D. A. R. Aufranc, M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P., L.D.S., says moderate drinking: “By far the safest and wisest plan is to make an absolutely clean sweep of all harmful practices and even of those which are doubtful.” The accumulated experiences of centuries proves that the drink traffic is such that for the sake of humanity its product cannot be sold freely but must be controlled, must be limited, must be licensed (even in those days .when few things were licensed). It is the one industry that is not proud of its finished product (the drunk). By the voice of the people it is voted out altogether in many areas of hte U.S.A. and elsewhere, while no other industrial products are so banned by society. Nb other industry carries such a definite stigma by mankind in the many organisations, societies and churches that are working for its elimination, and not working for “self-interest”' but for the betterment of humanity. The fundamental question is alcohol or no alcohol, and concerning this let me refer in closing to one of the best-informed authorities of presentday Britain. Sir Arthur S. MacNalty studied the problem of alcohol while Chief Medical Officer of the British Ministry of Health and Board of Education, and also as Editor-in-Chief of the Official Medical History of the recent war. His studied opinion is: “For the quality of the race, alcohol is certainly detrimental: It is a taint which biological experiment has shown to be heritable, and it leads to poverty, overcrowding, parental neglect of the offspring, mental degeneracy and crime. It is one of the most destructive enemies of family life.” ’

Yours .etc..

INTEGRITY.