THE PROHIBITION FALLACY

Waikato Times, Volume 90, Issue 14025, 31 March 1919, Page 3

THE PROHIBITION FALLACY

[Published by Arrangement.]

(By John W. Warren)

The logical conclusion to he drawn from the dogged silence of both the Liquor and Prohibitionist parties in regard to my strictures on them in your issue of the tilth February last, is tiiat my arguments were unanswerable. One quidnunc certainly adopted a derisive attitude in reply, hut made no attempt to controvert my arguments. Being now on the eve of the Referendum, and having heard _ the pros and cons of both sides, it is needless to recapitulate them, as only one honest deduction can lie arrived at, viz., that Commercialism, Covetousness and Cupidity are the primary principles influencing the Prohibition movement, to which the ethical moral, social -.nd intellectual interests and surroundings of the community are to be offered up in sacrifice. I have no brief for the Liquor Trade, and am up against its villainous monopoly, but we have seen it maliciously impugned notwithstanding that it quietly submitted to being penalised' more than any other trade during the war. No other trade would have tolerated such treatment. Bad as the Liquor Trade is under existing conditions, it cannot be accused of Pharisaism or humbug. Wo have seen, however the hypocrisy of the Prohibition movement under the catchcries of “ sacrifice ” and “ efficiency ” —mere camouflage for “ avarice ” and “ greed.” We have seen how the principle of prohibition offers a premium for the allurement of our young womanhood to moral and social degradation through its warmest supporters engaged in the Dress Traffic. We have seen Indisputable figures produced showing that there is no decrease in either crime or lunacy in dry areas. Indeed a few years of prohibition will probably sec us down to the level of the most cruel, lustful, and essentially prohibitionist nation in the world —the Turkish. We have seen how prohibitionists invariably derided our soldiers and traduced their characters —even from the pulpit—and lied generally about them. We have seen prohibitionists trying to stop the rum ration —as if they were competent judges on this point. If it had not been for the facility with which Lieut. Dimmer was able to obtain alcoholic liquor he would never have bceirable to decimate the Prussian Guards and thus gain his V.C. This is a matter of history.

We see to-day the prohibitionist crawling to the soldier who' has ■fought for liberty and civiilisation abroad, and at the same time trying to rob him of his liberty at home. We further sec a “ prohibition ” league taking one solitary plank from the platform of the late Efficiency Board, and thereby considering itself justiled in stealing the title as well—more chicanery and subterfuge to gull the thoughtless and innocent. Efficiency, forsooth! Were the men who made and developed this country prohibitionists? Grey, Atkinson, Ballance, John McKenzie, Seddoa Gadman, and a host of others, including the heads of our banking and commercial institutions —were they inefficient? NO. They were not even teetotallers! And the truly great men of to-day who stand for Liberty and Temperance as against Bigotry and Intemperance are not prohibitionists. If the soi-disant Efficiency League were- to devote its energies to the material, interests of Returned Soldiers it "would do more to justify its assumed designation than by trying to saddle the country, with a four-and-a half million pounds loan which is going to involve a total cost to the country,' 1 before it is paid off, of over ten-and-a-half millions, to compensate the plutocrats of the Liquor Trade for its abolition, without any security against its future restoration which a revulsion of feeling might bring about; to say nothing of what it will cost the country to run prohibition if it is carried. And all this on top of the £lO 000,000 War Loan that we are threatened with, and will most assuredly come; so we may confidently look forward I to increased taxation and increased cost of living. In conclusion, are we really going to allow our personal liberty to be controlled by a prejudiced body, the distinguishing characteristics of whose leaders are mendacity and calumny? I think not. We have too much self-respect. We might as well prohibit the sale of playing cards, and all kinds ol sport because some fool who loses his money by gambling shoots himself; or prohibit smoking because Sir Robert Stout — the prohibitionists’ great lollie-suck-ing Oracle has pronounced his ipse dixit that nicotine is as bad if not worse than alcohol! Some of our own leading local prohibs claim the right of private judgment on this question, which right they will not allow on the question of alcohol. We therefore cannot fail to see (unless we wilfully shut our eyes to plain facts) that Prohibition is but the stepping stone to the sacrifice of all the freedom, joyousness, and social surroundings of life to the great god Mammon, and to the facilitation of commercial exploitation and legalised robbery by the few, while Poverty and Misery will be the inevitable fate of the many; and wo shall live to curse the law which precludes us from following the advice of one of those out-of-date ancient writers so repugnant to the prohibitionist comprehension; — u Give strong drink unto him who is •■emlv to perish, and wine to those that be of heavy hearts, Let him drink and forget his poverty, and remember his misery no more.”—Proverbs xxxi., 0,7.