The Redwood gazette. [volume] (Redwood Falls, Minn.) 1873-1940, 1931-04-30
TO CONTROL, OR
NOT TO CONTROL

Prohibition!
It's a thorn in the flesh Of John
Raskob and his Democratic collea-
CUES who hail from the soaking East,
the damp West and the arid South.
1t has been a bone of contention in
former Democratic national conven-
lions and doubtless will harass them
when they assemble again for the
1892 battle.
Even the Republicans, who have
been troubled little by the question
in previous campaigns, when they
were able to present a united dry
front, are giving the subject serious
consideration this year. That it is a
major issue is not to be denied.
The point at issue seems to be
whether conditions are worse under
prohibition than they were before it
became a law and, if so, what is the
remedy. To say that conditions are
bad or to waste time and effort in
proving they are bad, is beside the
point. The most enthusiastic water
wagon rider will concede that. That
they are worse is point over which
much argument is taking place. The
writer, looking back fifteen years,
when one didn't have to search the
alleys or hunt the streets at mid
night to find intoxicated individuals
and groups, believes conditions, bad
as they are, are better than before
the war. We will concede to those
of opposite belief, however, full right
to their opinion and the right to ex-
press it.
Regardless Of whether conditions
are better or worse than before the
amendment went into effect, both
sides of the controversy will well
come improvement in whatever garb
it may come. That again is ques-
ton over which much argument is
being waged. Scores of proposals for
a change in the law have been made.
State determination has been sug-
gested, government control is another
panacea offered, etc., down the line
to those who frankly say that they
want booze regardless Of how it is
dispensed.
In the light of the last twelve
years experience, during which time
we were supposed to have had gov
eminent prohibition, both federal
and state, it would seem that the
term government control" is phan-
tom remedy. The term is misnom-
er and means nothing. If the govern
ment can not prohibit it can not
control. In fact it never did control
the distribution of intoxicants. We
remember the days when licenses were
granted and regulations were made,
but the memory of man does not run
back far enough to recall the day
when they were generally observed
by those who cared to violate them.
Government control was in the past,
and would prove to be again bigger
myth than prohibition. Either the
government can prohibit and control
or it can not prohibit and control. To
ADMIT us failure OH the one manu- Is
to predict it's incompetence on the
other.
If intoxicants are to come back,
legally, there is only one way to re-
call them and this is whole-hearted-
ly. Forget the TENS control and
regulations. Let the drinks be sold
in saloons, drug stores, grocery
stores, filling stations, ten cent stor-
es or in any spot where thirst may
ovcTtake one. Let them be as COM
mon as sugar and as free as water, or
as near that free as possible. Let
there be no misunderstanding or half
way measures. AS an individual we
would regret to see the governments
stamp of approval put upon intoxica-
ting drinks, but if that approval is to
be given, let it be complete. Let
there be no legal verbiage to becloud
the status of the act, to bewilder us,
to mislead us into the belief that we
will have government control.
Sleepy Eye Herald-Dispatch.