THE LICENSING ISSUE

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 11, 7 October 1927, Page 12

THE LICENSING ISSUE

Sir,—There are quite a lot of people who, whilst accusing others of blindness, are going about with their eyes closed very tightly. They absolutely refuse to see the obvious advantages of prohibition. The only thing they can see is' the loss of revenue in the event of prohibition being carried. Your correspondent, “Temperate,” appears to bo one of these. If he would only give the matter a little serious thought ho would sec that the abolition of the liquor traffic would not diminish our national wealth by one penny. It stands to reason that, ns the same amount of wealth is available for the levy of taxes, it would only mean a different method of collecting same. .1 don’t think for one moment that our financial stability depends on the continuation of the liquor traffic. Economically, the liquor traffic is a parasite. The production and sale of liquor does not create wealth, but on the contrary it destroys wealth. Not only does it destroy large quantities of valuable foodstuffs annually, but also that most precious of all things, human life. In mentioning those who already carry the heavy burden of direct taxation, “Temperate” overlooks the fact that very many of these realise that prohibition will eventually mean a reduction of taxation and are therefore staunch prohibitionists. Now, “Temperate” will probably call this guesswork, but the fact remains that prohibition must mean increased all-round efficiency. Who is the better worker, the man with a clear brain and steady hands, or the man whose brain is clouded and whose nerves are shattered through excessive consumption of alcohol? The answer, of course, is obvious. Increased efficiency means increased production and consequent reduced cost of production, resulting in increased national prosperity and reduced taxation. If “Temperate” reads the daily papers ho must note the large number of crimes committed bv persons whilst under the influence of liquor, and it is reasonable to assume that these crimes will be eliminated if prohibition is carried. Reduced expenditure on upkeep of prisons, etc., must naturally follow. Many cases of insanity are caused through alcohol, and its abolition would cause a reduction in expenditure on mental hospitals and inebriates’ institutions. Other public institutions that would greatly benefit by the abolition of the liquor traffic are hospital and charitable aid boards, as no doubt a lot of hardship is caused by liquor. Even “Temperate cannot deny that all these things would have a tendency to reduce taxation. That our Minister of Finance would ■ find a just and equitable means of collecting the revenue, lost through the abolition of the liquor traffic, in another way, I have no doubt, and I do not think that ho will need my advice. As I previously pointed out ho still lias tho same amount of national wealth to work upon. Why “Temperate” should assume that the money would be raised by direct taxation I do not know, but perhaps he is in the Minister’s confidence. That tho huge snni annually spent on liquor will he diverted hito more useful channels I have no doubt, despite anything “Temperate” may say to the contrary, as I cannot imagine anything more grossly extravagant than money spent on liquor. There are many other things strongly in favour of prohibition, some of which “Temperate” will probably call sentimental. We cannot, however, entirely eliminate sentiment from our national life, or we would become a nation of misanthropists. There is, for instance, tho greater security for women and children against molestation by men. whom alcohol lias turned into beasts. There is also the certainty of a happier home life for many women and children who suffer innocently and are often deprived of the necessities of life, owing to tho husbands’ and fathers’ indulgence in alcohol. Many people look at this matter from a selfish instead of a national point of view, as for instance your correspondent “Continuance.” They assert that the moderate drinker should not be deprived of his liquor on account of the man who has not the will-power to resist the temptation of drink. This, however, is entirely wrong. It is—always has-been, and always will be—our duty to protect the weak; that is one of the principles on which rests the greatness of the British Empire. There are thousands of moderate drinkers who are perfectly willing to forgo any pleasure they may derive from the consumption of liquor for the sake of national welfare and prosperity.—l am, Wellington, September 28.