DESEMBER_UNIKUM_WEB

18:00 during the week and from 10:00-16:00 on Saturdays and
the day prior to national holidays. No alcohol of any kind can be
purchased on Sundays in either grocery stores or at Vinmonopolet
(Act on the Sale of Alcoholic Beverages, Etc. (Alcohol Act), 1990).
As most other countries, Norway also has a legal drinking age.
Buying alcohol is legal from the age of 18 onwards in regard to
alcohol with a lower alcohol percentage than 22%. In order to
purchase alcohol with a higher alcohol percentage one needs to be
older than 20 (Act on the Sale of Alcoholic Beverages, Etc. (Alcohol
Act), 1990).
Drinking out in public, such as in public squares or in parks is also
prohibited by law, though it is rarely enforced (Act on the Sale of
Alcoholic Beverages, Etc. (Alcohol Act), 1990).
Norway has one of the strictest blood alcohol limits in regard to
driving to prevent accidents and reduce possible harm. In order
for driving under the influence to be considered and punishable,
the blood alcohol threshold is set at 0.02% (Karlsson & Österberg,
2003).
Lastly, education plays a crucial role in showing the harms and
effects of unsafe alcohol consumption. Educational programs
about these issues are implemented in Norwegian public schools
to enlighten young people on the effects of alcohol and discourage
them from engaging in unsafe and risky consumption patterns
(Karlsson & Österberg, 2003). It is important to note, that young
people are among the heaviest drinkers, hence the need for early
interventions (Karlsson & Österberg, 2003).
Despite all of these measures, highly intoxicated people are not a
rare sight at parties or concerts, with many Norwegians stocking up
on alcohol at airport and ferry duty-free shops, and participating in
traditions such as russefeiring or julebord that are known for their
large flow of alcohol. Therefore, the question needs to be asked:
Are these stringent regulations actually effective? Let us look at the
pros and cons.
To prohibit or not to prohibit
To start of with a strong pro argument, it should be noted that
Norway has one of the lowest alcohol consumption rates among
adults in Europe, with an average of 7.4 liters per person (OECD,
n.d.). By comparison, Latvia’s rates are among the highest in
Europe with adults consuming almost double the amount of
alcohol at 12.1 liters per person (OECD, n.d.). Generally, it can be
said that countries with rather strict approaches, such as Sweden
and Iceland, for example, have a lower alcohol consumption than
countries with looser regulations, like Latvia or Germany (OECD,
n.d.). Thus, the statistics seem to suggest that a stricter approach,
such as Norway’s, to regulating alcohol is indeed effective in
reducing alcohol consumption among adults.
Yet, 5-8% of Norwegian citizens are reported to be alcoholics or
consume alcohol in a harmful way (Skjelbred & Thoresen Lønnes,
2023). Moreover, as mentioned above, in the student population,
these numbers are even higher (Karlsson & Österberg, 2003). In
Germany, the number of alcoholics and individuals consuming
alcohol in a harmful manner is around 11% (Federal Ministry
of Health, 2023). While the share of alcoholics is indeed bigger
in Germany than it is in Norway, the difference is not that great.
Nevertheless, is it not worth it to prevent even just a single person
more from getting cancer or to save a single individual from a fatal
drunk driving accident?
Through the state monopoly, the government is able to link the
production and sale of alcohol with health services, rather than
leaving it to corporations that prioritize generating high profits
without regard for the societal and health harms caused by their
products (Karlsson & Österberg, 2003). However, this of course
reduces the necessity for companies to come up with innovative
products since there is no pressure to have an economic edge
over the other competitors. Furthermore, small businesses might
struggle under the limited market access which could potentially
lead to a strengthened economy in particular areas and generate
new jobs.
We know that alcohol is causing both societal harm and health
related harm. Is it then not fitting that selling alcohol is monopolized
by the state to maintain control about how much alcohol is on the
market, and that the revenue from selling alcohol is put back into
healthcare and education to provide better social services and
tackle the societal and health issues that are caused by alcohol
consumption (WHO, 2023)?
The revenue can then be used to offer programs and services
focused on tackling the root causes of harmful alcohol consumption
and alcoholism, such as mental health issues. Furthermore, the
high taxation of alcohol is more likely to be supported by the public
if the generated income is used to fund projects with the intention
of facilitating the welfare of all citizens.
However, the high taxes on alcohol can also lead to unwanted side
effects such as a flourishing black market on which smuggled or
home-produced alcohol is sold. These kinds of alcohol may cause
health implications and can cause harm to consumers beyond the
usual side effects of alcohol. Additionally, high taxation will mostly
affect individuals with lower incomes so that they will be the ones
who are more likely to produce alcohol themselves or buy it on the
black market, thereby endangering themselves to potential harm.
Through the state monopoly the high quality of products can be
ensured which is crucial, but if the high prices and the controlled
availability is leading to a flourishing black market with low quality
products, those efforts might be ultimately jeopardized.
Lastly, some may argue that the regulations go a little too far and
limit the citizens’ freedom of choice. These critics argue that it is
not the government’s responsibility to coddle its citizens and tell
them what to or what to not consume. Instead, it should be left to
the people to decide whether and how much alcohol they want to
drink.
12