THE LIQUOR QUESTION.

Taranaki Daily News, 20 June 1916, Page 7

THE LIQUOR QUESTION.

1 To the Editor. ' Sir,—Your leading article of tliis morning made me indignant and disappointed that a paper of so wide a circulation should give expression to such short-sighted views on the question of the liquor traffic. Are we expected to regard the article as a serious attempt to solve the vexed problem ? If so, its sentiments cannot be allowed to pass unchallenged. I fail to see how "the real evil, from an economic point of view," is to be "regarded as that of a monopoly fostered bv legislation." The real evil, economically as. well as socially, is to be found in alcohol itself. We cannot afford to tolerate the manufacture and sale of a commodity that works such havoc in the community as does alcohol. It has yet to be proved that as a beverage it does any good whatsoever, while its evils ave so glaring that anyone who has the interest of humanity' at heart should cry, "Away with it. lock, stock and barrel!" You call this "the extreme view." The light of | experience the world over surely shows jt to be the only sane and'hnmane view. You speak of the liberty of the subject. It is just such liberty that the so-call-ed extreme view alone is able to conserve;- for what more pitiable form of slavery exists than that into which a man falls when'' he comes under the grip of alcohol? You will doubtless point to the large number of moderates who do not become so enslaved; but it is not an abuse of man's liberty to demand for his own gratification what, to say the least, does no good to himself, while it degrades and enslaves hundreds of his fellows? You say, "The question is whether alcohol ot' any other article, such, as. tobacco [why not say lopium?j should be placed under a ban because of its being abused."' This summing up of the question is unfortunate in several respects. It; is not contended thiit.'alcohol should be banished merely .because it is abused, but. because it degrades and destroys and causes untold misery—a fact that is beyond dispute. And on this* account it is ridjculous to plac» alcohol in the same category as tobacco and other articles of daily use that, if taken to excess, are liable to have injurious effects. To assert, further, that "it is unnecessary to discuss whether alcoholic drinks . . . are injurious or not, because such discussion, if carried out with respect to foods, etc., would leave us .with little except water," is, in my opinion, humbug. ; If the evils attendant on its excessive use were no greater than those following, say,, the consumption of indigestible food, vonr argument would have point; but when the nature and extent of the evils it produces are considered, this question is seen to .be 0? the first importance. It is not merely a question of injury to one's system. It is a question of unfitting a man for his duty towards the State as well as his dependents, of bringing suffering and desolation into the Ik,me, of robbing the children of a healthy environment, of squandering money that should pay tradesmen's bills,- of causing crime to abound—indeed,, what else is there that has such a black list against it as has alcohol? It is a 'blighting curse oil our civilisation. Now, Sir, as to the suggested remedy-—the nationalisation of the liquor traffic. The scheme as outlined is admirable, provided the percentage of alcohol is reduced to such an extent as to make the liquor non-intoxicating. Otherwise, though it may sweep away some of the existing evils, the essential evil reuißins. Tint to argue from the success of such State enterprises as the post and telegraph system that State control of the liquor traffic can be exercised to th£ utmost advantage may be diverting—it is scarcely convincing. 1 fenr, too, that Mr. ITolnmn's deep utterances will, in view of recent, hnnpenings in cqnneeticin ; n ith tile New South Wales .rCfWcndu'm, lie somewhat at a discount. One word more: You .-.tiggest that this new departure is one that cannot fail to appeal to all unbiassed people as affording the weans of solving the liquor problem, etc. Who arc "the unbiassed people"? Scarcely those who like the liquor or who make something out of its manufacture or sale; certainly not those who are enslaved by it. I contend that they have the best right, to the appellation who. uninfluenced

either way by motives of personal benefit, look the facta fairly in the face; and. he who does this, whether from an economic or social or national standpoint, must condemn the iniquitous traffic.—l am, etc., C. H. OLDS.

[Mr. Olds may be congratulated on his strenuous exposition of prohibition views. The article referred to did not, Imwever, deal with that question, but will' I lie action of tile British Govern'sini, in nationalising the liquor business ii: order to control the trade and secure fur Hie people such liquor as may be consumed with safety and under conditions that will 'certainly protect the community by eliminating the deplorable evils that have caused the outcry against the liquor traffic. Mr. Olds insists that prohibition is the only course. TTe will, we hope, allow those who differ from him on this point an equal right to their opinions. Under the British scheme conditions will be altogether different from those now existing, so that his arguments do not apply, nor do they affect the soundness of the views expressed in the article which has incurred his displeasure.]