“Beaver, ok, alcohol policies in Finland have not worked like planned, but i just cant see how competition in the alcohol market would solve anything. Look at Denmark for example, they have much more liberal laws and the problem drinking has risen to new top levels.

Comment by Lauri ??? 3.2.2005 @ 1:26 pm ”

I know its tempting to find a simple solution like “lets make it illegal” or “let the markets do it all”..but the fact is that it is more complex (people want to be able to drink alcohol AND people know that it must be controlled in some way or another to avoid problems)
.. sorry if this is news to you.

But if Finland really wanted to reduce alcohol consumption, wouldn???t they just make it illegal?

Or better yet – do the people who oppose lower-prices of alcohol and the de-monolopization of Alko believe that the current situation is PERFECT? I mean, they don’t want the prices lowered, but they don’t want them raised either – so I guess everything is just *PERFECT* the way it is now….right?

Comment by Lauri ??? 3.2.2005 @ 11:19 am

But this doesn’t make any sense. I’ve lived here for nearly 5 years and I haven’t seen very many sincere attempts from the government to reduce alcohol consumption. In fact, even responsible Finnish adults with families and careers put a lot of pressure on people to drink during camping trips, sauna, etc., and if you refuse you’re considered rude and wierd. From what I can see, alcoholism here is simply viewed as a reality that can’t be changed.

“Well this one is very simple. As you said Phil, competition would lower the prices. And as the prices fall, the consumption (and mostly the non-wanted consumption) goes up..as we have seen after the alcohol tax cuts last year.

Of course attitudes etc need to change, but still, as long as the state keeps financing all the extra treatment, extra police needs, etc, the state has a very good reason to try to limit the use of alcohol.”

Comment by Lauri ??? 3.2.2005 @ 12:20 pm

But if Finland really wanted to reduce alcohol consumption, wouldn’t they just make it illegal? (haha I know that’s impossible- it is maybe the only thing that would ever cause a revolution here)….but seriously….the logic of your points seems to be that the Finnish state is raising money from the sale of products (booze) that funds welfare state services used to treat problems caused by those products. It’s a vicious circle.

“Even if there is a few percentage points raise in the consumption, big deal. Why should 99% of the population be punished with high prices just because 1% of the population might drink too much??”

This is a good question. I think nobody has the answer because we all have different views about how much we should take other peoples possible problems into consideration when making this kind of decissions.

Well, “wide selection” and “high availability” would definitely happen by de-monopolizing Alko. You’ll see alcohol speciality stores popping up around Finland where you can get finer wines, beers, and spirits. We have a ton of these types of stores in the states, even with beer and wine sold in the normal shops of many states.

…this will have no effect on the consumption of alcohol in Finland. It’s only the “low prices” that could spark a temporary increase in alcohol consumption. But like last year’s tax breaks, the spike in drinking calms down. Even if there is a few percentage points raise in the consumption, big deal. Why should 99% of the population be punished with high prices just because 1% of the population might drink too much??

Why not? They import a nice range of beers now. Unfortunately most of the “good beers” are about this 4.7% limit – they’ll replace some of their crappy >4.7% beers with “better beers” and expand.

Don’t worry about spelling and grammar here. Ususally I need to write down things a second time to make myself clear