PROHIBITION.

Southern Cross, Volume 1, Issue 28, 7 October 1893, Page 7

PROHIBITION.

TO THE EDITOR. Sin, —I have now to consider how far, and why, individual liberty would be suppressed hy prohibiting the tiaffic in intoxicants, and also to what extent conscience restrains people from excess in their use. And first, all laws are a curtailment of liberty, and “ Spectator ” will no doubt admit that it is right to curtail people’s liberty in some things. For instance, I will take it for granted that lie is so fax* in favour of social well-being and home happiness as to agree with the suppression of gambling houses, and houses cf ill-fame, and of the sale o!' obscene books and pictures. (Hy the way, may I ask if there is no breach of those laws?) Well, if the me of drink tends to evil as truly as those things do, and more, is the great feeder of them, and the public sale one of the greatest temptations to excess, is not that sufficient reason for declaring the public sale illegal ? The use of intoxicants is not a more luxury. ho far as they act at all, even in small quantities, they are injurious. Otherwise, they could not be poisonous, as all the great toxicologists and physiologists in ad civilized countries declare them to be. They class alcohol with nightshade, hemlock and loxgiove as a narcotic and an acrid poison. Experience proves it to he so, and scientific experiments explain its action, which is always accoiding to the quantity taken and the power of the organs and tissues to resist its effects. Its tendency is to create a craving for it by loweringvitality, which, in millions of cases, ends in confirmed drunkenness. It excites the animal faculties to lust, revenge, dishonesty, and murder. It tarns the money which should feed, clothe, heme, and employ millions, into non-productive channels, and lessens the earnings of sober men. It also renders their dependence on regular employ ment less secure. It him era the work of the philanthropist and the minister of religion to an untold degree. All this most observant and thoughtful people will see. And as fast as one let of drxxnkr.rls die off, another lot are so near that state that they take their plac . And by the Fine they are gone, as many more have aniv. d at that state. And indeed the number increases. And not only so, there is known to be more sickness and premature deaths amongst those who drink mod, rate y oven,, than amongst those who abstain. Then moderate drinkers furnish all the dnmkards. Nobody begins to be a drunkard by a mere art of will. All have become so iy the action of drink on their nerves and brain, which action they could not resist as "ong as they 'swallowed the drink. And tho children of people who indulge in excessive drinking, whether regular drunkards cr xu.t t iv move liable to become addicted to drink that the children of abstainers. The sensibility to th» craving is transmitted. And judg'i s on the bench in the Home Country declare it to be the cause cf crime in nine cases out of ten, whatever New Zealand judges may do ; and the same divine law is at work here as in any other country where nnre Tics are indulged in, whether drink or oth< r tilings. Amongst the few inhabitants of th s country, no more than a second-class town contains at Home, the results may not be so manifest, scattered over so great an extent of country us they are. But they aiv six- c to be there in proportion as the drink is inclidn d in. Its use results in nothing but individual injury and public calamity. As ‘Spectator” says, it is “difficult,” and I will add, “ impossible ” to exaggerate its evils. AN hat, then, becomes oi Pi’ofessor (Toldwin Smith’s talk about tlie injury to national morals c used by making laws against actions in themselves innocent ? Is indulgence in drink an innocent action ? Docs it cause no injury to national morals? I submit that while no one proposes to interfere with the libox-ty of anyone to drink whatever lie likes, it is both the right and duty of the rotate to sec that public inducements ,tu the use of an article fxvnxght with so mxx.dx evil be not alllowed. Of course the liberty to purchase goes with the pi’ohibition to sell. So in the case of ctlur chjeedonable articles. But in case of the sale of things the use of which remits only in public ealaxnity, private convenience cannot be consider, d. If drinking were a mere luxury, we should have no right to interfere with tho sale of the drink But it cannot be xiscd without resulting in evils “ difficult ” and impossible to describe. How as to “conscience.” It is evident that in the case of the millions of drxmkax’ds, and those who are oxx the point of becoming sxxch, conscience has become seared, and has no power over them. And as to those who do manage to keep from excess, how much has consciexxce to do with their drinking at all ? What need of the “restraint” if the drink be a good thing? They see the evil resulting from its xxse. AATxy d'oxx’t their consciences lead thexn to forego its xxse altogether, anti thus have nothing to do with leading their brothers and sisters into crime, misery, and death? They would thus do a more conscientious thing than tryhxg how much they caxx use without following them. They drink because they like it, and their consciences arc dead to the welfare of others—at least in this respect. In proportion as they acquire the craving their consciences go to the wall. I am afraid of taking up too much of your space, so I suppose I must content myself with asking “ Spectator ” how the breaking of a bad law can generate contempt for good

ones ? And can lie point to a case in which axxy individual has a cor tempt for all law—- “ human or divine ?” I should like, too, to have backed up wlxat I have said with indisputable authority. Hut if anyone disputes what I have said I am ready with the proof any time—proof in the shape of explanation as well as authority, showing the impossibility of alcohol being anything but a poison to the body—that it docs not even warm it, as experience axxd the test of the thermometer Show. riEBSIAXX.