THE RIGHT WAY WITH DRINK
THIS month the coming-of-age of the Carlisle system for the control of the liquor traffic is being cele- brated—or rather, since little in the way of publicity or ceremonial seems to be contemplated, taken note of. It is well that it should be taken note of. It would be well if the recommendations of the last Royal Com- mission on the Drink Trade were adopted, and the Carlisle experiment extended to some area where it could be put in operation on a larger scale. For the Carlisle system is based on the fundamentally sound principle that so far as possible the incentive of private profit should be eliminated from the drink trade. At Carlisle there are no dividends to be earned to satisfy shareholders, no salaries which fluctuate according to the amount of liquor sold. Beer, wine and spirits are supplied to people who want them ; no steps are taken to encourage anyone to drink.
That is a principle on which the strongest insistence must be laid. Selling intoxicants is not an ordinary trade, for the consumption of intoxicants has not ordinary effects. It is a perfectly legitimate trade, but a trade none the less which no one would dream of leaving unrestricted. Whether the moderate con- sumption of intoxicants is beneficial or otherwise is a question on which medical opinion is divided and laymen have no title to dogmatize. But that an ex- cessive consumption is an unqualified evil no rational person, least of all any magistrate or judge, is likely to deny. Excess in drinking, moreover, does not mean the consumption of liquor in such quantities or of such potency as to induce intoxication or anything like it. It means consuming enough to impair that accuracy of judgement and precision of action which is so vitally important in a dozen walks of life, and actually a factor whose absence or presence may make the difference between life and death when the driver of a motor vehicle is concerned. For that reason the many restric- tions with which the retail sale of alcoholic drink is surrounded are by common consent not only justified but essential. They may be vexatious ; some of them may seem perverse and illogical ; but no political party would ever contemplate in the light of experience increasing materially the facilities for the unrestricted consumption of a commodity to which so large a pro- portion of the crime and poverty of the country can be directly traced.
As regards legislative action, little question arises, for no one seriously suggests the removal of existing restrictions ; indeed the imposition of additional restric- tions in the case of clubs, which are still free from many of the limitations laid on licensed premises, is long overdue, and is at last to be taken in hand in the present session of Parliament. But in the interests of national well-being much more in the way of voluntary restric- tion is called for. Legislative restriction is obviously not adequate to eliminate intemperance. If it were, convictions for drunkenness would not be steadily rising as they have been for the last five years, after a heavy and welcome drop before that date. What is imperative is personal restriction, such as the vast majority of good citizens exercise. Total abstinence from intoxicants may or may not be a counsel of per- fection ; that is a matter for the individual judgement. All that need be said about it is that while drinking too little never harmed any man, drinking too much has harmed and is harming very many—including, all too often, third parties.
But there is a form of restriction to which too little attention is being paid. No one needs any encourage- ment to drink ; many would be the better for con- siderable discouragement. To extend encouragement; except in the way of normal hospitality, is to incur a grave responsibility and argues a serious disregard for the public welfare. Encouragements take many forms and are inspired by many motives. The most obvious of the latter is financial gain.. Firms that brew beer or distil spirits or import wines are naturally concerned to increase consumption, and consequently dividends, by every legitimate means. Hence the expenditure of vast sums in advertising the merits of someone's beer or whisky or port or sherry on thousands of hoardings and in thousands of daily and weekly papers. Not, let it be said, in all papers. This journal in particular does not feel called on to preach total abstinence, but it does preach temperance, and it prefers that no part of its revenue should be drawn from adver- tisements designed to encourage the consumption of alcohol. In that it stands by no means alone ; the same line is taken by, among others, such papers as the Observer and Punch and by all the publications of the B.B.C. The Post Office, moreover, admits no drink advertisements to its books of stamps. The principle is sound. More than enough drink is consumed without encouragement. All deliberate or even heedless en- couragements are bad.
That is no fanatical view. It was not fanaticism, but simply a practical concern for national efficiency, which led the Liquor Control Board to impose a no- treating order over the areas under its control, com- prising some three-quarters of the country, for the period of the War, and Lord D'Abernon, the chairman of the Board, who testified emphatically to the value of that particular enactment, is es little like a fanatic as any man living. But there are more subtle and insidious encouragements than treating, and it is unfor- tunate to find the B.B.C. so ready as it is to find room in its programmes for what may be termed the cult of drink. As has been said, it refuses liquor advertisements in its publications, but the oblique advertisement it gives for nothing over the air must be indirectly worth far more to the trade than paid insertions in the Radio Times. That aspect of the matter is not particularly relevant here. What is relevant is the effect on the average, especially perhaps the youthful, listener of reiterated references to the vogue of drinking. No one desires to see the subject banned, but it is reasonable to ask that due proportion be observed. It was stated by a vigilant listener recently that in two consecutive weeks the National and Regional Programmes between them contained respectively 116 and 13o references of one kind and another to drink. Many, of course, were incidental, occurring in the course of a variety or other programme. But there is hardly evidence here of the neutrality which the Governors of the B.B.C. undoubtedly approve, as their liquor advertisement policy indicates. This week, on November 6th, the National programme includes an item in which, according to a London paper, " by dialogue, verse and song the virtues of wine and wine-drinking will be extolled for a full hour." That may or may not turn out to be a just description. Listeners on Saturday evening will be able to form their own opinion. But, speaking generally, there does appear to be good reason for appealing to the B.B.C. to observe in this matter, not indeed total abstinence, but temperance.
Previous page
