THE Temuka Leader SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1903. PROHIBITION.

Temuka Leader, Issue 4014, 21 February 1903, Page 2

THE Temuka Leader SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1903. PROHIBITION.

In another column appears a letter on the subject of prohibition in which the writer disputes our article on the subject that prohibition does not prohibit. He also attempts to show that the scheme so frequently advocated by us will not prove so efficacious as prohibition, and characterises us as " a man with Anarchist tendencies." That is going a little too far. An anarchist is one who would have, no law at all. His policy is destruction. We never proposed to destroy the licensing law ; we merely proposed to amend it, therefore to characterise us as " a man with Anarchist tendencies," is simply absurd. But " Truth " makes an admission which really shows that we have beou rcaht all along. He admits that prohibition does not prohibit, and triumphantly points out that the laws against theft and murder, etc., do not" prevent crime. The analogy here is very obscure. No countiy in the world has licensed theft or murder, or other crimes , but there is •no civilised country which does not license the sale of drink. The whole world in fact recognises that to dunk or sell drink is no crime, whilst the whole world recognises that thelt, murder, and so on are crimes. That

makes a great difference, but that is not the point at issue. " Truth " admits that prohibition does not prohibit, and this is exactly what we have been pointing out all along. We have poinded this out and shown how sly-grog would be impossible, and complete prohibition brought, about by the people ceasing to nave any taste for drink. Our contention is that so long as the sale of liquor is in the hands of private individuals sly-grog will go on. The law allows a Balclutha man to buy for his own use all kinds of drink. Boarding-house keepers, retail grocers, and so on, can buy it for their own use, and having bought it what is to prevent them from selling it. What is to prevent a boarding-house Keeper from selling to persons he can trust ; what is to prevent the grocer from selling a bottle of whiskey and put it down as tobacco. But above all and before all, what is to prevent anyone from having drink in his own house as a standing temp-tation-to himself, his wife, and lis children. We have known men who never entered a publichouse die from the effects of intemperance in their own homes*. Again, has it not been frequently admitted that the bottle licenses of Otago were the cause of a great deal of intemperance amongst women. If they had to go to ' a hotel they would not go, and the law does not allow them to send their children to the hotel for it. Now the bottle licenses have been abolished, but they will be reinstated under the no-license system, and thus a new temptation will be placed in the way' of women. Retail grocers will get drink for their customers. Then "all prohibition does is to take away the license from the hotels. People can still buy drink, for home consumption, and. drink till they die in their own houses, and they can drink in sly-grog shops, and in fact get drunk whenever they like free of all the corrective influences of license laws. This is what can take place under prohibition, and consequently we are of opinion that the gain to the people will not be what prohibitionists expect. At any rate the mimber of policemen and detectives cannot be decreased for slygrog will impose heavier duties on them than the open public houses. Now, that is the way in which prohibition appears to us, and consequently we hold that the scheme so frequently advocated by us would be far more efficacious. Under it sly-grog selling would be impossible, for the reason that only the Government would have the drink for sale. No one else could import it or sell it. Shipowners would be subject to large fines if they were caught smuggling it ; no private in-iividua 1 could' handle it, and consequently there would be no sly-grog selling. Another reason why there would be no sly-grogselling is that there would be no necessity for it when those who wanted drink would get it in the open bar. This bar let it be remembered would, provide no accommodation for people they would only get their drink and go. "No woman would ever enter such a bar ; nc youth ever enter and consequently as soon as the present generation died out, the new generation would be unacquainted with the taste of drink ; ■theywould not go into the public bars, and they would have to shut up for want of support. There is nothing more certain than that that is better than prohibition ; but, ol course, prohibitionists will not have it unless their leaders accept it, and consequently rt is useless to argue with them on the point.