PROHIBITION IN NORWAY

Hokitika Guardian, 18 November 1922, Page 3

PROHIBITION IN NORWAY

INCREASING UNPOPULARITY. ENEORCE.ME.VT OE LAW IMPOSSIBLE. 45 (I > res s Toloirrani). DUXKDiX. Xov 11. A Norwegian visitor to Dunedin, nlio lists had sonm experiences oi tho

re-nits of limited prohibit ion in bis own country that is, banted m spirituous liquo-v 'em-, ta In- - ~ means enchanted with the results. 9 ids genth man states that from be time’ of the war .uiieu prohibition was introom :■;! mainly feu tb.. sake of economy, it had not proved a success, and it 1 -" lendeney was not in the dire.- iii of temperance. The Norwegian people bad in.ui temperate in their habits l>eloro this, and for that leason lie considers that proiiibitiou legislation was not necessary, and bad proved objectionable and inelfeetive to many of the people. Now a revulsion of feeling was clearly setting in. Prohibition, i veil in this limited form, find prove:! a failure, and bad had a. lowering instead ol an elevating elfer-t. The legislation bad proved irk-ome, and it bad beeuinn evident that the real feeling of lit bulk of the people of Nervi". wa' gai. t ! r liibition, and if seemed highly probable that there would bo a inversion to the old system. The election of members of Parliament, last, year had shown that there was a i evulsion of fooling.

Cue of the effects of prohibition in Norway had been the birth of smuggling on extensive and daring linos. During the period of prohibition ®ld parts where smuggling had died out bad been revived, nmt there was smuggling from outside the three miles limit. Another feature of the trouble that had, arisen was that the liquor con-sued wan impure and harmful to the (ousumer. li was far from equal in qualify to that dispensed to the (oinmunity before the carrying; (. prohibition. The visitor explained that the prohibition, only covered gin and sptr t and that Vh« use op wines and beer:--was not forbidden, though tho alcoholic strength bad boon limited to 14 per cent. One iv-.uk el prohibition in Norway had been to place the distribution of spirituous liquors in the hands of the medical man and the chemist, and in that case there was no need for inquiry into tho casts, and this led to abuse. It also meant that the wealthy class i mild get liquor and the poorer classes could not. There wins great competition amongst those who smuggled spirits into tho country, anil they worn not very particular about the methods used. The penalties imposed did not linnet the ease, a. L10IK) line being easily made up by subsequent ventures. Tho liquor was smuggled ashore by fast molor-looats .front without the three miles limit, and tho boats were so speedy that they were practically safe from interference by the Customs officials.

Hitherto in Norway they were very strict in enforcing the laws, but under tho altered condition there seemed to have arisen a certain degree of laxity in this respect, if bad been found that tho-e' in nulho-ity bad been set

an almost Impossible task. Prohibition was a law that could not be enforced in a completo form, and some officials find even gone the length of eer signing rather than attempt to carry ’ out duties almost impossible of per--1 formance. He quoted the words of ! Djoernsou, who in an interview said .that under prohibition Norway would : be altered to a sanatorium for drunk- ' arils, and, as on previous occasions, the far-sighted author had been right, j ! The paper-; all over the country wore | filled with reports about people breakj ing the law to obtain liquor. The | “Afteu Poston” hail said on September sth that thirty-two smuggling boats, some equipped with wireless and with police on board, had been seen at the entrance to the Christiania Fiord the previous night, and a. smuggling boat with a seventeen-year old commander had been caught near 10ram111011.'*