THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES WEDNESDAY, APRIL 6, 1932. LIQUOR CONTROL IN FINLAND.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21612, 6 April 1932, Page 6

THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES WEDNESDAY , APRIL 6, 1932. LIQUOR CONTROL IN FINLAND.

The Government of Finland has lost no time in giving effect to the desire of the people, as expressed in a national referendum, that the prohibition law should be repealed. Just three months after the vote was taken, Finland is celebrating its release from thirteen years of prohibition with such revelry as is considered appropriate to the occasion. Finland was the first country to attempt the experiment of a prohibition law. As early as 1907 the Finnish Diet voted for prohibition, but, since the liquor tax went into the Imperial coffers, the Czar vetoed the measure, both then and in 1909. In 1917, however, he sanctioned it, and two years later the law came into, force. Almost immediately, as it is recorded, “ bootlegging” set in, and the geographical conditions favoured it. The recent referendum was notable for the surprisingly large majority -which favoured repeal. Only four years ago an unprejudiced English writer, Major Poison Newman, in summarising his observations of conditions in Finland, remarked that some form of liquor control would be more successful than the prohibition law, which was flouted on all sides, but, he added, “ no political party can oppose the prohibition movement without losing its power in the country, and the women’s vote is the determining factor.” When the Government Bill providing for a consultative referendum came before Parliament early in December, it passed the third reading with only 14 dissenting votes, the political parties

agreeing that the question should be decided on non-partisan lines. Significantly enough, the English writer’s comment was borne out unexpectedly in one respect, for it was estimated that the female vote was instrumental in tipping the scales in favour of repeal, which was approved by seventy per cent, of voters. Under prohibition Finland suffered much from the activities of violators of the law, and the keynote of the Government’s criticism was that prohibition had brought forth none of the blessings that were expected when the country became “dry” in 1919. The continued wholesale violations of the law, it was stated, had not only nullified the efforts to enforce prohibition, but had led to a growing spirit of general lawlessness. Prohibition had brought unfavourable economic consequences in its train, by placing a heavy burden on citizens living on lawful incomes, while the horde of purveyors of illegal intoxicants escaped taxation. It was asserted that sobriety had not become more general, but crime had increased enormously, and the imperative need for new sources of income demanded a policy of taxing a trade which flourished in spite of all efforts to outlaw it. This indictment of Finland’s experiment having received the approval of the people, the Government promptly outlined a new liquor Bill. The principle that is observed in the measure is the regulation of the liquor trade by the State. Cabinet selects a control board, and the right of manufacture, import, and sale of liquor is vested in a monopoly, which, subject to the approval of this board, issues licenses to retailers, hotels, and restaurants. Finland is a comparatively small country, with just over three and a-half millions population, but its experience of prohibition seems to tally somewhat closely with that of the United States. Doubtless the operation of the new control system will be watched with interest by Americans who, in view of the present financial difficulties in their country, may be im'pressed by the comment of the Governor of the Bank of Finland: “ Finland could not afford to leave her liquor untaxed and her liquor trade in the hands of professional criminals.”