BACK TO LIQUOR

Evening Post, Volume CXIII, Issue 3, 5 January 1932, Page 6

BACK TO LIQUOR

(To the Editor.) Sir,—The cable news from Finland it very appropriately headed in your columns '^Back to Liquor." If it be true that the licensed sale of liquor is to be reintroduced into Knland.it will undoubtedly be a backward step. But since the Finnish Constitution does not, or has not hitherto provided for a referendum on any subject whatever, one feels it advisable to wait ior further news before accepting the cable message at its, face value. Suggestions of a referendum on prohibition had been made, but were regarded as dan"erpus—introducing a precedent. One mar have been held, but to within recent months our advices were that "There is no danger of the repeal of Prohibition; the legislative proceedings make it impossible for some years." Hence one wonders what sudden developments have taken place if the cable news is correct. Under prohibition it was legal to make and sell 2.20 per cent. beer. This, despite the plausible arguments of the light wine and beer advocates, failed to satisfy the alcoholic thirst it created, and the strength was increased. If now, Finland has decided to return to the general consumption of alcoholic liquors, it will, like Norway provide another demonstration that alleged light liquors fail to satisfy the alcohol craving created, and simply lead to the consumption of strong spirits,' ■—-.I sin, etc., J. MALTON MURRAY, : General Secretary, J Kew Zealand Alliance. '