Alcoholism

Press, Volume CV, Issue 30977, 5 February 1966, Page 14

Alcoholism

Sir,—One aspect of our otherwise excellent legal system has always seemed to me anomalous. It quite rightly penalises a drunken motorist just for being drunk in charge of a car, yet if the same man’s alcoholic proclivities lead him to maltreat his family, or fight in a public place, or steal a car or burgle premises it is always argued in extenuation that he was drunk. Why? If he pleads diminished responsibility on this account it is, after all, a condition of his own making, and I think that the penalty for this offence should be stepped up rather than the reverse. If a completely sober man—otherwise than one known t be of violent disposition—beats his wife, she may perhaps in some measure have merited the assault. A drunk doing the same thing is simply venting an alcoholic urge to violence on the easiest subject—however sorry he professes to be next day. —Yours, etc., I.S.T. February 3, 1966.

Sir,—On the subject of alcoholism, I am heartily in agreement with your correspondents, “And Why” and “Not a Wowser.” I think it a great mistake that alcoholics are told that alcoholism is a disease. If it is going to be called a disease at all it should be called a “self-inflicted disease.” From what I have seen of many of them, they are just trading on this “disease” label. They should not be a charge on social security. There are plenty of really sick people, and old people, deserving of much more attention from the Social Security Department than they are getting at present.— Yours, etc., NOT TEETOTAL. February 3, 1966.