Questions On Drinking

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31094, 24 June 1966, Page 15

Questions On Drinking

Pupils from five Christchurch secondary schools put questions on aspects of the problem of alcoholism to a panel of five at the annual meeting of the Canterbury branch of the National Society on Alcoholism.

The panel consisted of Dr. E. T. Hall, Medical Superintended at Sunnyside Hospital, Mr E. S. J. Crutchley, SA!., Mr. M. G. L. Loughnan, a solicitor, “Bill,” a member of Alcoholics Anonymous, and the Rev. Father J. E. Goulter, of St Bede’s College. The chairman was Mr C. T. Ford, reader in education at Canterbury University. The schools represented were Villa Maria College, Christchurch Boys’ High School, and Aranui, Burnside, and Cashmere high schools. In reply to a question of what was the difference between an alcoholic and a drunkard, Dr. Hall said drunkard was a heavy drinker but he could stop drinking if he wanted to —an alcoholic couldn’t

“Bill” said an alcoholic drank because he had to. The panel agreed there had been an increase in teen-age drinking mainly through people having more money, experimenting earlier, and parents not exercising as much control as formerly. Mr Crutchley said that 30 years ago it was almost unthinkable that any teen-ager would drink at all, but today it was regarded as one of the ordinary requirements of a teen-age party. It was asked if longer drinking hours would reduce the amount of drinking. Mr Loughnan suggested that if a man went home to tea and then got settled In front of the fire and television set he might not feel inclined to go out for a drink although he had intended doing so and was legally free to do so. He said drinking would be more moderate if hours were extended.

"Bill” said extended hours would not have any effect on alcoholics. Alcoholism was not something that came in flagons or glasses, it came in people. Asked if alcoholism would ever be treated with drugs simply as a disease. Dr. Hall said drugs were used now but that treatment was too complex for drugs alone to be used.

“8111“ said the physical ele-

ment should be treated by drugs but they could never treat the spiritual part of a person. Even if there was such a drug that could magically turn an alcoholic into a social drinker they would rather remain as they were and enjoy life as they had learnt to enjoy it without drink. Dr. Hall said be did not think there was any single physical element which predisposed a person to become an alcoholic although some thought the biochemical reaction of alcoholics to alcohol differed from the majority of persons. A widely broken law was one which prohibited the sale of liquor to minors; should the law be changed?

Mr Loughnan said If there was any change it should be by increasing the penalty—the law was something to be kept. When asked why young people drank, the panel suggested it was in an effort to overcome shyness, to increase social status, or simply because other people drank.

Father Goulter said that as - long as teen-agers regarded drinking as being for adults ■- only they would want to try '; it out “You are not one of them * If you don’t drink.” said a - schoolboy “you are not' New Zealander if you don’t • It is one of the things we do.” He said young people were under pressure.

In reply to what should be the guiding principle of ■young people in the use of alcohol, Mr Crutchley said the whole matter should start in the home. Children should be taught what drink was, the advantages of moderate drinking always with food, and the dangers of drink. Dr. Hall said the dangers of getting intoxicated should also be emphasised. Alcohol affected areas of the brain where the highest faculties were centred and judgment began to wane after two or three drinks. It was all very well to say, “don’t drive if you have had too much to drink” but a person’s judgment of whether he had had too much or not was affected.