Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Court explained this concept as follows: It is true, when the defendants ... purchased or erected their breweries, the laws of the state did not forbid the manufacture of intoxicating liquors. But the state did not thereby give any assurance, or come under an obligation, that its legislation upon that subject would remain unchanged. Indeed, ... the supervision of the public health and the public morals is a governmental power, continuing in its nature, and to be dealt with as the special exigencies of the moment may require; and that, for this purpose, the largest legislative discretion is allowed, and the discretion cannot be parted with any more than the power itself. Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623, 669, 8 S.Ct. 278, 31 L.Ed. 205 (1887) (internal citations and quotations omitted) . While the owner of land might once have been
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that local ordinance prohibiting the sale of beer or wine to persons less than 21 years of age was not preempted by state statute prohibiting the furnishing of any alcoholic beverages to persons under 21
B. holding that the statute qualifies as an exemption 3 statute
C. holding that the title of the statute did not limit the reach of the statute
D. holding that a state statute that prohibited manufacture of alcoholic beverages was not a taking even though such manufacture was legal before the statute
E. holding that the state must prove criminal negligence for its homicide by vehicle statute even though the statute specifically states that any traffic violation is sufficient
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.