CHEERIO OH THE PHONE.

Taranaki Daily News, 19 August 1922, Page 6

CHEERIO OH THE PHONE.

our e;:d of the line. The liquor party has published the first issue of a new journal called “Cheerio.” The following is an imaginary telephone conversation with the editor—that is to say our end of the talk. “Hello! That Air. Editor? Yes. Ah. well, about that new paper of yours, is the title quite right? Looks as if a ‘B” were wanted in place of the 'Ch.’ ‘Beerio’ instead of ‘Cheerio.’ Now, now, don’t get cross. Say, about Liberty. Do you think the 10,000 or so folks arrested for drunkinness during the three years between the polls hold ‘Liberty precious?’ Pardon? Oh, you think they ought to have liberty to get drunk if they want to. But isnt that rather a dangerous doctrine from a social welfare point of view? Tut! tut! You don’t care a what about social welfare? Yes, I thought that was the word: but if you go on like this, you know, they’ll cut us off. Of course, I agree that the only thing the liquor traffic cares aboift is profit, and it does not care a tig about real Liberty. It’s nice to agree about something, isn’t it?

Now, about the Navy. Are we voting on the question bf the British Navy? Of course not. Right. What? You want to know what’s wrong, with the Naw? Not a thing, old top. The Navy’s all right till you start to pour rum down its throat, and then the shooting goes down 30 per cent. How’s that? Rot, you z say. Oh! no: that’s not my statement. Lord Jellicoe says the shooting goes down like that after the rum ration. I fancy he knows where he is when it comes to talking Navy. Eh! Change the subject? Oh, certainly, anything to oblige. Wliat ? I can’t get you on the “Fair Thing” talk. Well, now, ther£ isn’t a Prohibitionist in the country, I think, who would not. be willing that the people should vote on the Jiquor question after three years, if the liquor traffic will undertake to give Prohibitio’h a fair trial during that time. Yes; I mean if the liquor traffic will undertake to be law-abiding and respect the wishes of the fajority if they vote Prohibition! You what? Oh, you think that on a popular straight vote the liquor traffic wouldn’t have a hope of coming back after three years of doing without it? Agreed, my son.

By the way, when a liquor-seller gets a license for £4O a year, and can sell the goodwill in it for £5OOO, do you- think that a “Square Deal’ as between him and’ the community? Don’t want to talk about that! No, all right. Am glad you are frank, —“Cheerio” is frankly published .. . . in the interests of Continuance.” So- you think it will be a good thing for New Zealand to knock up another 26,000 convictions for drunkenness, and spend over £22,500,000 on drink it can do without? What! My figures are wrong: it should be £10,000,000 per annum .making £30,000,000 spent in three 'years on drink. Thank you, I’ll accept the correction. Pardon—Oh, I see, the liquor traffic doesn't care a hang about convictions, or the annual drink bill, so long as it can get its profit. That settles it, you mink. To be sure it does. Eh, Canada?

Well, tell us when Canada went back on Prohibition ? We know that only two Provinces are wet. When did the other seven gq back on Prohibition? Bone-dry doesn’t mean License, does it? The seven have voted bone-dry. One word more. Hold the line just a minute. Tell me, who pays for the liquor traffic’s defence? Who puts the money into the Campaign Fund ? You take it out of the drinker’s pocket first —just so. The Campaign Fund, plus the big profits, is paid over the bars by the drinkers, do you say? Exactly! Well what has the trade got. to bleat about? It does its fighting at the public expense —and then doesn’t want to pay . Income Tax, isn’t that it? Krrrrrrklick! Hello! Hello! Hello!! What’s that, Exchange? No reply. All right, thank you! INTERNATIONAL DRUG RI&GS. The Drug Act Administrator for the Dominion of Canada was reported in tht “Vancouver World’ of Alay 16 last as saying:—“‘Drug Rings are not on] j- local, but national and international; the ring will stop at nothing to gain its ends,” France is experiencing a crime wave attributed by the press to cocaine and opium. Drug taking in the Old Country has reached alarming proportions, and the police are said by the “Daily Mail” to be powerless to stamp out the traffic. In Toronto, under prohibition, the Chief of Police reports:—“Opium joints and

I other offences against the Drug Act • show a marked decrease for the year 1920.” The enforcing of stringent legislation resulted in benefits all over Canada The importation of cocaine fell from 12,3320z5, to 6,9690z5.; opium fell fr0m34,3631b5. to 13,6261b5., and morphine fell from 30.0870z5. to 28,998 ozs. The dope traffic centre is not in any of the prohibition provinces of Canada. Ninety per cent, of the habit forming drugs go to Montreal in the “wet” province of Quebec. British Columbia, under a system of Government Control of Sale, is the only other “wet’ province of Canada —all the rest are now ‘“bone-dry.” In the year 1920, Captain E. Gaston Page, F.R.G.S,, reported that at the special clinic for drug addicts opened in New York in 1919, about 1,750 persons were .applying daily for the decreasing doles allowed to addicts. That special clinic has since closed for lack of patients, and other hospitals that used to treat drug addicts report a substantial recrease in patients.—N.Z. Alliance Publicity (12). times (Published by arrangement.)