CANADIAN PROHIBITION

Wanganui Herald, Volume LIII, Issue 160639, 4 May 1920, Page 6

CANADIAN PROHIBITION

LAWS OPENLY VIOLATED

Whether or not prohibition of liquor as a beverage will continue to be the permanent policy of the Canadian Provinces is the subject of considerable speculation (writes the Toronto correspondent of the Times). Under the emotion of the war the movement for, prohibition became irresistible. Even the Legislature of Quebec sanctioned a prohibitory measure. Since then, however, by vote of the people in a referendum the sale of beer in licensed places is permitted in the French province.

It is no secret that when the Ontario Legislature established prohibition as a war measure, it was not intended to interfere with purchase of liquor by private persons for use in their own bouses. But by an Order in Council the Federal Government prohibited importation into any province which had adopted prohibition, and thus Tntario became “bone dry,” as did all the other provinces, although there was no demand from the Provincial Governments for such action at Ottawa.

LIQUOR CARRIED IN COFFINS,

But it has to be admitted that even under the “bone dry” legislation liquof came steadily into Ontario and into the other provinces. It was transported in coffins, in dry goods boxes, in oil cans, as cheese or butter, and in many other disguises. Freight cars were detached at rural stations and unloaded. The traffic by motor was continuous and considerable.

Practically all this liquor was consigned to private persons, and even with whisky at 40 dollars a case many orders in defiance of the law were secured by the illicit traders. There is no doubt that in the towns and cities of Ontario the hotels, with few exceptions, have observed the law, while in the clubs no liquor has been served.

„ In Quebec the law has been less rigidly enforced. In the clubs members have been permitted to keep liquor in their lockers and to serve guests as they would in their homes. It is also true that it has been less difficult to get liquor in the hotels of Quebec than in those of Ontario and some of tho other provinces. But it is very doubtful if there has been more drinking in Quebec than in other provinces where there has been greater apparent observance of the letter of the prohibitory regulations. It was blindly declared in the Alberta Legislation that 80 or 90 per cent, of the men of the province treated the law with neglect and contempt. That there is general evasion of its provisions is freely admitted. For this reason chiefly the United Farmers of the province have declared for a “bonedry” regulation, making it illegal to keep liquor even in private houses.

PRESSURE ON PHYSICIANS,

In British Columbia the law is notoriously violated. The Provincial Government has practically confessed that enforcement is difficulty, if not impossible. Apparently the Cabinet is greatly divided over the issue; the one side wants to legalise sale of liquor by Government agents without medical prescriptions; the other wants to make the province “bone dry.” The Medical Association of the province has just adonte da resolution which declares;—

“There is at present a large public demand for liquor, whether for medical or other purposes. The medical pn-■ scriptio nis the only method whereby liquor can be obtained. This has led to undue pressure on the physician and has become an intolerable nuisance to the medical profession. The profession, therefore, demands that it sbn]l be entirely relieved of the responsibility of dispensing liquor. In other provinces as well, issue.of liquor prescriptions by doctors has become a serious abuse.