[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.] SIR,—I read with great
interest the article by Lady Astor on " Politics and Drink " in your last issue. I have always supported a Prohibition policy, and I think a prohibitionist country will beat a bibulous country in the long run. I account largely for America's forging ahead at the present moment to the fact that she has turned " dry." But I feel that Lady Astor has omitted one of the biggest points in the " getting through " of Prohibition in this country. She does not seem to understand that nobody could persuade an Englishman that drink was bad for him morally and physically. It simply could not be done.
The only way, in my opinion, to pass Prohibition in this country is to build up large vested interests in non-alcoholic drinks. I suggest enlisting the financial support of Rown- trees, Schweppes, Cadbury, Bovril, in fact, any firm that manufactures cocoa, lemonade, &c., together with large employers of labour. To get Prohibition through in America it cost roughly £300,000,000. To pass it in England it would cost double that amount ; but I believe it could be done. Any large manufacturer will tell you that drink induces bad work and short hours ; surely if a Prohibition policy was seriously suggested, these men would throw in their lot against drink.—I am, Sir, &c.,
Previous page
