Prohibition Laws that Don't Prohibit

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLIV, Issue 2500, 31 October 1922, Page 7 (Supplement)

Prohibition Laws that Don't Prohibit

A Prize Essay :

Dy C. S. P. ( Wellington).

“What corrupts civilisation, religion, law, and convention, is the constant attempts made by th wills of individuals and classes to thwart the wills and enelavo the powers of other individuals law becomes tyranny. And ’ a tyrant? Quite simply, a says to another person you shall do as I tell, you; you shall make what I want; you shall profess my creed, you shall have no will of y°ui °™j and your powers shall h© at the <nposal of my will.’ ’ —George Bernard Shaw. I am opposed to prohibition because all forms of prohibition are opposed to the love of freedom in human nature, and a prohibitive law so opposed is almost certain to -become inoperative. To take a few recent instances: Some time ago our Government an anti-shouting Act. Everybody knows what happened, a few. prosecutions, and it died. The public simplj would not obey it. It may, for a I know, "be still on the Statute Book; perhifps lion, members each pay or their own drinks at Bellamy s ? Perhaps notl

The law, against Bookmakers we are told, will not work because it is next to impossible to get a New Zealand jury to convict.

I have heard somewhere that it is illegal to send away 6s -to Tatt.’e in the hope of getting £SOOO. In this caso it is probable that there are many more Tatts tickets coming to this country than before they were prohibited, for the simple reason; that Tatts was advertised and people said: What is tins the Government says I must not do. What is it to them what I do with my spare cash ? It is to be noted here that the three inoperative measures mentioned above are .all more or less concessions to wowserism.

A few weeks ago it was reported in the Daily Press that the Catholics of a certain Canton of Switzerland had been threatened with excommunication if they read the works of Anatolo France. Result, an unprecedented run on this anther’s works, with which, for a time, the booksellers were quite unable to cope. Customs. Just one more instance : —Customs! Avoiding Customs duties is almost instinctive. A traveller returning from • Europe or elsewhere naturally thinks: What are the things that duty is charged on at homo ? His or her next thought is, where will be the best place to hide what I want to take? And because this ie human nature, we find individuals of the highest social and religious standing constantly breaking this law, and instead of feeling ashamed, openly boasting of their success. This brooking of laws made by our legislators arises from tho fact that human wit has not .been able to doviso

any scheme by which any intelligence can be secured in a Parliament, superior to that of the people it -represents. Fortunately for us, we have also the example of America before us 3 whei© human nature has made the law inoperative and worse. Efficiency. A short time ago Mr Massey was asked in the House what he proposed to do if prohibition was carried at the next election? His reply was that he should immediately convene Parliament. Presumably to devise some scheme by whioh an already overburdened people could be further taxed to meet a large deficiency in revenue. Our prohibition friends tell us that when the happy day comes,, there will at once arise so great an increa.se of efficiency, caused by the compulsory sobriety of the people, that the increased taxation wifi not be felt. haps? Here, again, we have to be thankful to America for showing us this increased efficiency—strikes from one end of the country to the other and 6,000,000 unemployed. Paying the Piper. There is a means of raising the revenue which lhight bo made necessary by the passing of prohibition, which strikes me as just and fair, although up to now I have quite failed to convince any of my wowser friends of its fairness. There is an old saying: He that calls the tune must pay the piper,” and there you have it Ever since New Zealand has had a Government and a revenue, some part or that revenue has been drawn from the sale or importation of alcohol. For all these years the consumers of alcohol-, have paid this revenue cash down, with every glass of beer or spirits they have consumed, and no grumbling worth mentioning. More than tlvab, by their votes (always a majority) they have from time to timo expressed their willingness to continue to do so. Meanwhile the wowser has ©njoved the benefit of this evex-inereae-ing contribution to the revenue, and never bad to get bis band down for a penny, except perhaps on tbe sly. Well, now, put the problem to any fair-minded sportsman. The pusisyfooters say we will not allow yon to do this paving in your way any more Our love for our fellow man makes it imperative that this wicked traffic must he suppressed at all costs. Surely it follows that these disinterested reformers should now take their turn, and either by an open ballot or some other means it should he contrived that only those who want prohibition should be asked to find the revenue lost by the carrying of this great reform. . This sounds right to me and it is good logic, and now is their time to make the offer because revenue from the liquor traffic ha-s a nasty wav of growing with every Budget. Yet I wonder ? Somehow I can’t see prohibition being carried at any time if our friends on the other side had to pay tho piper.