SPOT FOR "SPOTTERS."

Taranaki Daily News, 30 September 1922, Page 6

SPOT FOR "SPOTTERS."

HOW MUCH IS THE DRINK BILL. The N.Z. Alliance estimates ■'hat 7J millions yearly are spent on intoxicating drink in N.Z. This estimate, made on the lines adopted many years, is very much too low. The real figure is nearer 12 million pounds per annum. For instance, take th*j number of nips out of a bottle of whisky—an expert in Wellington recently measured them and got 28 and a bit oven Men often take much less than the measured quantity, and that makes more nips at 9d a time. But take 28 at 9d and there’s 21/- a bottle or £6 6/0 a gallon. The Alliance in its estimate reckons it at only £3 a gallon. In 1921 spirits released for consumption and presumably sold to the consumer totalled 1,043,696 gallons which at £6 6s Od a gallon makes the expense to the public £•6,5’75,287. Take beer at an average of 8/- a gallon. There were 13,669,777 gallons of N.Z. -beer produced, which mokes a total of £5,467„905. Every drinker knows that with ‘ponies’ ‘mediums’ etc., beer makes much more than 8/- a gallon to the licensee. Still, there, you have it, 12 million pounds in those two items. WHAT ABOUT REVENUE? That 12 millions spent on drink has been producing only a little over 11 millions in revenue. If it had been spent on food, clothing, glass, china, clocks, sporting goods, boots and shoes, toilet preparations, perfumes, etc., imported, it would have produced over 3 millions in revenue without a penny of increased taxation. The point is the money is actually spent on drink. Its just -a question of spending the same money on something else, which not only gives more than twice the revenue, but would increase employment and general prosperity. Of course if it was not spent on those things, but ceased to be spent on intoxicants, the money would still be there, and if the Government took H millions by some other means of taxation, the community would still be 10? millions in pocket. Don t forget the money is being spent now, is actually gone out of the people’s pocket, so to spend it on something else instead of drink should not be any hardship —on the contrary it would be better for the revenue and better for the people.

ABGUT SELLING WATER. By the way, spirits are broken down by the addition of anything from 25 to 33 per cent, of water. About two-thirds of imported spirits come in bulk and are thus broken down. In 1921 the amount of water added to spirits and presumably sold at 9d per nip was 149,099 gollons. Taking this as being sold at £6 6/0 per gallon, it runs up to the snug little sum of £939,473, which is, in effect a handsome net profit for the liquor sellers. On top of that, whisky cost them 4'/7 per gallon less in 1921 than in 1'920, and that reduction of price to them meant over an additional £205,000 profit. So you see, by raising the price to the consumer, selling water at so much per nip, and the reduction in cost of price, the liquor traffic stood to make well over a million pounds profit in 1921. Then by taxing the liquor sellers, the heads of the traffic have 'bled the public for an enormous campaign fund with which to fight prohibition. The consumei’ has had to put up that fund, for of course the licensee adds the campaign fund levy to the price of the drink—plus a little extra profit for himself. They are hoping to be in a position to do that for the next three years if tl\ey can only prevent the people voting prohibition. No wonder they can afford big and costly advertisements in the papers —the public is footing the •bill.

WHAT JUDGE GEMMILL SAID. Quite recently the liquor people have been quoting Judge Gemmill of Chicago alleging that he is an authority for saying there has been an enormous increase in crime in. the U.S.A. I happen to have on file a statement issued by Judge Gemmill on May, 12th, 1922, in which he rebuked the National Association Opposed (to Prohibition, in tthe U.S.A, for making false and misleading statements. I won’t give the thing in detail, but here are specific statements made by the Judge:—“Twenty per cent, of the jails of the United States have been without prisoners since prohibition went into.effect; and in 80 per cent of them the percentage of the number of prisoners has been reduced anywhere from 15 zr to 80 per cent.” “During the year previous to the enactment of the prohibitory law, 169 persons died in hospital at the Bridewell from alcoholism; last year one person died in the same hospital from the same cause.” “Our criminal business in the Municipal Courts has so fallen off on account of prohibition that we have, abandoned two courts that have existed since the Court was created, and instead of having ten to twenty drunks in the bull pen now on a morning we have less than half that number.” And then the judge gives a wealth of statistics showing that in many big cities arrests for drunkenness in the last ‘wet’ year were all the way from 43 up to 409 per cent, greater than in 1920. So you see how the liquor traffic in N.Z. —just like the liquor people in the U.S.A.—seek to twist and distort, things and ' try. to make disguished people out to be taking a line they have never taken. Keep your eye on the liquor lie is a useful motto just now.

DO WE ARREST ALL DRUNKS? In 1921 the arrests for drunkenness were 8.670 according to the Police Report. Does this represent all the drunkenness? No. Mr. Lloyd George says that for every drunk arrested there are ten not arrested. He is probably right. Move about our cities when the drunks are going home, and count up those you can see. Then look at the Magistrates Court news and see how many have been arrested. Ten is not an over-estimate. So that the liquor traffic in N.Z. is to-day producing 8'6.700 cases of drunkenness per annum at least. Note I say cases of drunkenness. I mean that some home is darkened by the entrance of the drunk—that’s the point I’m getting at. Just think a minute, and try to remember how many homes you know where drunkenness is a blight and a misery and the drunkard has never been arrest-

cd yet, although he ha«s been a ‘drunk’ for years. 'The liquor traffic never talks about this side of the case. DO YOU TALK BUSINESS? I was talking to some business men the other day and—they were moderates —they trotted out the old charge that the churches and the sort goods merchants want prohibition because they think they will get more money. Well what doe<? the liquor traffic want Continuance for? For profit, of course. Well, let’s talk business. LeaVingi out all other considerations, from a money point of view, which is best, to encourage trade that means more demand for milk, butter, cheese, food, clothes, necessities and luxuries—thus increasing employment—or to encourage a trade that is responsible for waste, loss of efficiency, misery and much crime? Just from a business point of view, which is the better policy? (Published by arrangement.)