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 The ration could be withdrawn or reduced in the event of abuse.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 theact 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.