4. 1 The state and alcohol
In this section, the consequences of the differences in the main features
of the Swedish and Dutch state for their involvement in the regulation
of alcohol will be examined.
The Swedish state and alcohol
In the second half of the nineteenth century, control of the manufacture
of alcohol became a state matter while local authorities were given
authority over wholesale, retail sale and licenses to serve liquor on the
premises. Furthermore, municipal councils could proclaim a local veto
on alcohol distribution (Blomqvist 1998). This led in practice to a
"drying up" of large parts of rural northern Sweden (Bruun 1985: 27).
In 1911, a Temperance Committee was set up to elaborate local
regulation of the alcohol trade and to investigate statutory prohibition.
In its final report in 1920, the Committee proposed a total prohibition
and in 1922, a referendum was held on the issue. An interesting fact is
that during discussions about tighter regulations, the sale of liquor had
decreased drastically to an all-time low (Olsson 1992: 27; CAN 1988:
table B: 2.1). Then, why a referendum on prohibition? According to the
Swedish historian Lennart Johansson, the main political reason for
carrying out the (advisory) referendum was to bridge internal
controversies that divided the political parties in this issue. By leaving
the decision to the people, internal peace could be restored (Johansson
1995). The outcome of the referendum was a victory for the opponents
of prohibition.
11
Instead, a middle system, the Bratt system, already
nationally enforced in 1919, would control the Swedish people's
purchase of liquor for the coming 35 years.
In the Bratt system every Swedish citizen above the age of 25
(married women excluded) and after a suitability check, was allowed to
buy a certain quantity of liquor a month in a state System Company
shop (Systembolaget). Every sale of liquor and wine was noted in a
little ration book to be carried by the customer. The ration could be
withdrawn or reduced in the event of abuse. Wine and beer could be
purchased freely but could be regulated if abused. The state System
Company was granted a monopoly on all alcohol trade. The
prohibitionist temperance movements never accepted the ration book
system because the mere possession of a ration book would seduce its
owner to purchase and consume liquor (Lenke 1985: 322). On the
proposal of a state committee (in which temperance movements were
firmly represented) the ration book was abolished in 1955 and replaced
by an alcohol policy based on (very) high taxes on alcohol and limited
access to alcohol by the continued state monopoly on sale. The main
instrument for state control of the people's access to alcohol was by
supervising the purchase of liquor to citizens and by a state monopoly
on sale of alcoholic beverages. After 1955, age control and blacklists
replaced the ration book. Furthermore, alcohol consumption was
discouraged by increased taxes on alcohol and information to the
general population.
The Dutch state and alcohol
State regulation of alcohol by a law on the abolition of drinking houses
and pubs and the production of liquor was discussed for the first time in
1855 (van der Stel 1995: 154). However, a parliamentary committee
could not agree on that proposal for two reasons: the interest of the
alcohol industry and the question whether regulating people's drinking
behaviour was a matter for the state. Furthermore, it was assumed that
local government was able to control alcohol-related problems.
Advocates of state interference had to wait until 1881 when the first
Licensing Act came into force (Ibid. 153, 178). The main purpose of the
act was to regulate consumption of alcohol (Gerritsen 1993: 92). Public
drunkenness (previously a municipal matter) was penalised at the
national level. It became an offence, punishable by a fine, but
recidivists (three strikes and you're out) could be sent to a state Work
Camp.12 Furthermore, the sale of liquor
to youngsters under 16 was
prohibited. The act also aimed for a reduction of licences for the sale of
spirits to pubs (van der Stel 1995: 165). The reason for adopting state
regulations was the strong increase of consumption of liquor (primarily
in urbanised areas) between 1870 and 1878. The strong increase as such
was not the only reason for this changed position. The legitimacy of
state interference should also be related to the changing opinions among
the ruling liberals about the rightness of state interference.
In 1904, the Licensing Act was revised and municipalities were
allowed to proclaim a ban on sale of alcoholic beverages in certain
neighbourhoods or on special occasions (Ibid.180). A state Inspectorate
was established to supervise compliance with the Licencing Act.
In 1931, the Licensing Act was revised once more and regulations on
weak alcoholic beverages brought into line with liquor. City councils
could refuse to issue a license in certain areas or put persons on a
blacklist and prohibit them from visiting pubs in the municipality.
Alcoholics on welfare could lose their social security or this was given
to the wife in kind. Unemployed labourers could be referred to an
assistance agency or be prohibited from visiting a pub (Ibid. 185).
The next legislation regarding alcohol came in 1964 and involved a
liberalisation of the Licensing Act, which was replaced by the Horeca
Act.13 Among others things, the
limitation of outlets was abolished,
which meant a break with the previous policy to reduce the number of
outlets.
A salient feature for the Dutch state involvement in control of
alcohol is that it refrained from interfering in the production of alcohol,
and control of individuals was delegated to municipalities and the
judicial system. In addition, no general restrictions were imposed.
11 The result was 51% against and 49% in favour of a prohibition. However, as
the
prohibition movement had stated, a majority of 60% would be needed to enforce a
prohibition. The Social Democratic Party had proclaimed 67% majority as a
condition for a parliamentary procedure (Johansson 1995: 244).
12 There were two work camps for men and one for women. Between 1886 and
1914 about 4000 persons were sentenced to work camps (van der Stel: 156).
13 Horeca means:
hotel, restaurant and café branches.