STATE CONTROL.

Evening Star, Issue 19063, 5 October 1925, Page 2

STATE CONTROL.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir—There are one or two facts appearing in the report of the Carlisle experiment, published in your issue of Saturday last, which deserve comment.. Without wishing to draw upon myself the epithet “fanatical,” which term is several times applied to Prohibitionists in the article (the “trade,” it is notable, does not receive any description, except perhaps to call it “powerful,” which may be admiration), one cannot help being convinced by even

this apparently favorable report that State Control is certainly not a remedy tor the evils of the drink traffic. First and foremost it says that the system lias been attended' by an increase in drinking by women (which, however, lias been the experience of the country generally). Then also it says that “ not a penny goes to bonuses or commissions on drink, not a penny to drink piopaga,nda and propagandists, not a penny to drink advertisements, not a penny to help ‘trade’ members to Parliament —not a penny, in short, to promote the influence, avowed and pinavowod, of profit-makers, etc.” Now, sir, if a system of State Control, with every aid to promote temperance, lias still the same increase (any increase would be reprehensible) in women drinking as the rest of the country under “trade” management, wherein lies the improvement? Furthermore, the British licensing statistics (not published by “fanatical” Prohibitionists) show that, while Carlisle has the smallest number of licenses out of seventy, eight boroughs, it has the highest number of convictions for drunkenness tor sixty of these boroughs. I have given the percentages in regard to convictions for drunkenness per 10,000 of population in your paper before, so will _ not repeat them; but what has been given here shows clearly that even with every aid State Control is anything but an improvement even over the rest of the country under license. —I am, etc., Liberty. October 5.