LICENSING REFORM.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19204, 21 June 1924, Page 18

LICENSING REFORM.

TO THE EDITOB. Sib,; —Mr Irwin’s reply to my letter is a good example of the shuffling indulged in by supporters of the liquor traffic when faced with a few hard facts. The supreme note, of Mr Irwin’s letter, like that of all our “moderates.” is selfishness, no regard being shown for the less fortunate people. Those who are unab'e to resist the cravings of alcohol, despite the fact that such lack of self-control may not be the fault of the individuals themselves, Mr Irwin would imprison or otherwise punish. Not much brotherly love or regard for their welfare or that of their dependents in that! I am quite willing to admit that there is no real pronouncement against the legalised sale of liquor as we know it today in Christ’s teachings. An evil which did not exist, or was not one thousandth part as extensive then as to-day, could hardly ho condemned by Him. Christ did, however, provide us with principles by which we could judge such evils as they arose; and by those principles the liquor traffic is condemned utterly. Christ condemned all sin, and more especially the agencies or people that fostered sin in any way. Strong drink fosters crime, cruelty, poverty, selfishness, and unjustness; in fact, everything which Christ’s whole teachings were directed against, ami in so far as it causes or helps to cause any of these things does it merit condemnation. Christ did not condemn slavery, but no one in his sane senses would contend that such an omission justifies slavery! The drug traffic as we know it to-day was not condemned by Christ, but that does not mean we should legalise the sale of drugs or should launch some scheme for “controlling” the drug traffic. These three things, not to mention others, which could be named, were not condemned by Christ, but the standard of conduct He left to guide us makes these things more and more impossible as we approach the ideal conditions He set as man’s ultimate goal. The spectacle of so-called Christian men seeking to protect the liquor traffic with God’s words of love, mercy, and justice is not without parallej. Some leaders in the Christian Churches last century in the same way sought to defend slavery by the same means. As for some system of State control as a means of correcting the evils of the liquor traffic, Mr Irwin is surely ignorant of the repeated failure of all such attempts. Despite countless efforts by sincere reformers and also by those who wfre eorced to seek some method of control to save their business, there has never yet in any country been found any system of control which was a success. Those who think a means of controlling the liouor traffic exists should remember that if it were possible to control the traffic and appcciably reduce its attendant evils such a system of control would be in universal operation to-day. It is simply because all attempts to “ control ” the drink traffic were unavailing that America was finally forced to adopt total prohibition. The manner in which the trade flouts the licensing laws and breaks daily the restrictions which have so far been placed on it holds out small hope for any control which would seriously interfere with the profits of the business. I would remind Mr Irwin that it is not so much with those who at present sell drink that prohibitionists quarrel as it is with the stuff they sell. Drink whether sold by John Brown or by a paid Government servant would still be intoxicating and the evils would still be there.—I am, etc., Liberty.