N.Z. DRINK BILL.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 1889, 18 October 1913, Page 14

N.Z. DRINK BILL.

DOES NO-LICENSE DIMINISH DRUNKENNESS ?

(By J. M'Combs.)

!A Parliamentary return published on August, 1913, gives the total quantities of liquor legally imported into NoLicense 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 £3,928,511. The value of liquor consumed per head of the population is thus: — 1 £ s. d. Dominion 3 14 11} License areas 4 6 0| No-License area 0 18 5j It may be objected that, in addition to the quantity of liquor legally sent into No-License areas, there is a certain quantity sent in illicitly. But the facilities for obtaining liquor legally are bo 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 0 except one or two, the source whence the liquor was obtained was traceable to places outside the No-Licenso area." No doubt £1000 would more than cover the total amount of liquor that goes illicitly into the twelve No-License areas annually; but for the sake of argument the sum might be put as high as £1000 a month, or £12,000 annually, and still the drink bill per head of the population in No-License areas would not exceed £1, while in the license areas it would bo over £4 per head. Anyhow, where docs the illicit liquor come from r It comes from licensed areas, and is therefore directly chargeable to the evils of license. The remedy is National Prohibition. Again, it may be urged that residents in No-License areas help to swell the drink bill of neighbouring license areas. This difficulty can be met in a very simplo way. Prior to 1908 all the NoLicense 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-License districts are completely surrounded by license districts, and we may take it that if the residents in tliem procure liquor outside the boundaries of the No-Liconse electorates they get it within these three provinces. Tho population of these partly dry provinces in 1901 was 316,401, and tho number of arrests for drunkenness in them was 3042. Clutha was then the only dry area. By 1906 tho 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 tho same period the arrests for drunkenness rose from 5015 to 6786, an increase of 1771. Hie arrests for drunkenness per thousand of the population, were as follow 1901 1906 1908 Provinces, wet 11 12.3 13.5 Provinces, partly dry 9.6 7.1 6.9 Hero, I think, we have positive proof that no-license does reduce drunkenness and diminish tho consumption of liquor in the'areas it affects. - Tho increnso in the total number of arrests, periods 1901 and 1906, is made up as follow:— Provinces, wet 1771 increase Provinces, partly dry ... 618 decrease Dominion 1153 increase Subsequent to 1908 six new electorates carried No-License, and as these are scattered very widely over tho Dominion it is impossible to continue the comparison on the above lines betfauso auito a number of provinces would,, like Canterbury, have one No-Liconse electorate within their boundaries. The only possible comparison now on provincial lines is that of tho two southern provinces with the rest of the Dominion. This comparison will be instructive because Otago and Southland have one No-License electorate to every 39 000 of population, whilo the proportion for the rest of the Dominion is one to every 127,000 of nopulation. Tho total arrests for drunkenness in the Dominion in 1911 were 11,699. and m 1912 11,884, an increase of 185. Otago and Southland with five NoLicenso electorates and a population of 191,130 (1911 census figures) had 1075 arrests for drnnkennes, and jn 1912 the mean population was 196.672, and arrests for drunkenness 1013. Tho figures for the rest of the Dominion with seven No-License territories ore (1911) 866,668, arrests for drunkenness 10,624. and (1912) population 892,188 and arrests for drun- [ kenness 10,871. The figures may be stated thus: — ARRESTS FOR DRUNKENNESS. • 1911 1912 dec. Otago and Southland 1,075 1,013 62 inc. Rest of Dominion ... 10,624 10,871 247 Dominion , 11,699 11,884 185 Tho arrests per thousand of' popular tion are:— 191 1 1912 Otago and Southland 5.6 5.1 Rest of Dominion 12.18 12.20 Tho above figures, with roughly a 2i to 1 advantage fqr Otago and Southland, bear a striking relationship to the figures given higher up, namely, 127,000 and 39,000, or roughly three to one. Tho relationship is almost mathematical when it is borne in mind that No-Li-cense is not total prohibition. Analyse the figures liow you will and compare one set with another, the evidon.ee is conchisivo that No-Licens© does diminish/drunkenness, and if local NoLicense under disadvantageous circumstances and with all its limitations can accomplish so much, what may New Zealanders not ©xpect from National Prohibition? . ■ The total amount of intoxicating liquor that went into the No-License areas in 1912. exceeded three hundred thousand gallons, and, taking the averago of five persons to a household, the consumption of liquor in the No-License areas would work out at nine gallons per annum per household. The NoLicenso law permits, under restrictions, the importation of liquor into No-Licenso areas, • hence those three hundred thousand gallons, which, from tho point of view of total prohibition, is three hundred thousand ■ gallons too much.

But tho amount of liquor which goes into No-License areas is not to be compared with the volume consumed in liconse areas. The total consumption in the license areas exceeds eleven millions seven hundred thousand galloiiß, and wftrlcs out at fifty-nino gallons per annum por household of five persons, or over one gallon per week per family. Considering the number of households into which no liquor enters, the weekly consumption in some must 1m very considerable, and be fraught with untold misery to thousands of innocent children. The 11,851 arrests for drunkennoss—large as that number is—give only a faint idea of the number of families that are cursed by the liquor traffic, because only hopelessly incapacitated persons are arrested, and numbers of liopeless drunkardß, 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 well-being of tho people is not fully realised. Eugenics, the latest and the greatest of our sciences, is beginning to reveal to us, among other tilings, the damngo to tho race and the deterioration which is directly caused by alcoholism. One of the greatest problems that ooiifronta the Western nations it how t« dwl with this rwsia! li&isw.

Opium is another poison which results in race deterioration, and it is to the oredit of patriotic Chinoso statesmen that they aro dofinitoly taokimg it along the linos of total prohibition. With ocean-girt boundaries and an enlightened people, New Zealand is an ideal place to try the only logical and complete remedy—that of National Prohibition. DRINK BILL PER HOUSEHOLD. (Family of five, nil ages.) £ s. d. Dominion 18 14 9 Liconso areas 21 5 3 No-License areas 4 12 5 GALLONS.—Drink Consumption per Household. (Family of five, all ages.) License areas 69 gallons No-License areas ... 9 gallons