Alcohol Policy in Finland
Finns are chronic drinkers. No one can argue against this fact. Sibelieus, the iconic composer, is noted for his alcoholism as well as his music. When the Russians bombed Helsinki during WW2 he was drunk in his attic with a riffle taking pot-shots at the planes overhead. Alcoholism has been part of Finland for a long time and it will continue as long as the government continues to do fuck-all about it.
Australians are also bad drinkers but not to this extent. I was walking home from my mates house on Saturday night and it was a free-for-all. Almost everyone was stumbling, vomit was on the pavement, many people had just passed out on the street and others were shouting at each other. Sure, this happens at home but I have never seen it in such proportions and Jyväskylä is a city of just 80 000 people.
In Finland it appears that these drunkard types don’t drink to enhance their sociability, rather they do it to create sociability. These people don’t drink to get drunk or tipsy, they drink as hard as they can because anything else is not acceptable. As one drunken bloke said to me on the weekend “Watch me drink, this is how to do it in Finland, hard all the way, there is no other way!!!” The words were nothing new but the sincerity in his voice and eyes was shocking. It seemed like he was trying to prove something, maybe that Australians are pussy drinkers compared to Finns, but his manner was not an attempt at humour.
Surprisingly, the government has no visible campaigns to stop this. I can recall many ads at home to discourage binge drinking, alcoholism, drink driving, youth drinking etc but over here there is nada. Recently the EU forced Finland to lower its taxes on hard liqueur to improve the Economic Zone’s pricing standardisation plan. Recent stats show that Finns are drinking more than ever.
Fuelling conspiracy theories is the fact that drinks with more than 5% alcohol have to be sold from Alko, the government owned retail monopoly. So wine and above are only available from the state Therefore any increases in alcohol consumption adds to the government’s income. The Finnish alcohol policy is reliant on the role its monopoly because the government uses Alko’s profits in three ways. Firstly to run the chain, second to prevent alcoholism and thirdly on healthcare, although taxes also contribute to these expenditures. Without any visible campaigns to reduce alcohol use what is the government’s real goal?
Evidence strongly suggests that five habitual overindulgences use 80% of many western countries healthcare budgets, drinking was one of them (http://www.fastcompany.com/cgi-bin/finder.cgi?query=change%20or%20die). Considering that Finland is a welfare state and spends massive sums of money on healthcare any anti-drinking campaigns, if run properly, are sure to pay themselves back in a matter of years; not to mention the health benefits for Timmo, Mikko and Kimmo.
Such campaigns will provide a precedent considering there are no government campaigns against anything bad for your health. The only campaign I have seen encourages you to pay the free-to-air TV fee. With healthcare a massive budgetary sink, the country having around 10% unemployment and further loosing jobs to nations with cheaper labour any action is better than the current policy of nothing.
Australians are also bad drinkers but not to this extent. I was walking home from my mates house on Saturday night and it was a free-for-all. Almost everyone was stumbling, vomit was on the pavement, many people had just passed out on the street and others were shouting at each other. Sure, this happens at home but I have never seen it in such proportions and Jyväskylä is a city of just 80 000 people.
In Finland it appears that these drunkard types don’t drink to enhance their sociability, rather they do it to create sociability. These people don’t drink to get drunk or tipsy, they drink as hard as they can because anything else is not acceptable. As one drunken bloke said to me on the weekend “Watch me drink, this is how to do it in Finland, hard all the way, there is no other way!!!” The words were nothing new but the sincerity in his voice and eyes was shocking. It seemed like he was trying to prove something, maybe that Australians are pussy drinkers compared to Finns, but his manner was not an attempt at humour.
Surprisingly, the government has no visible campaigns to stop this. I can recall many ads at home to discourage binge drinking, alcoholism, drink driving, youth drinking etc but over here there is nada. Recently the EU forced Finland to lower its taxes on hard liqueur to improve the Economic Zone’s pricing standardisation plan. Recent stats show that Finns are drinking more than ever.
Fuelling conspiracy theories is the fact that drinks with more than 5% alcohol have to be sold from Alko, the government owned retail monopoly. So wine and above are only available from the state Therefore any increases in alcohol consumption adds to the government’s income. The Finnish alcohol policy is reliant on the role its monopoly because the government uses Alko’s profits in three ways. Firstly to run the chain, second to prevent alcoholism and thirdly on healthcare, although taxes also contribute to these expenditures. Without any visible campaigns to reduce alcohol use what is the government’s real goal?
Evidence strongly suggests that five habitual overindulgences use 80% of many western countries healthcare budgets, drinking was one of them (http://www.fastcompany.com/cgi-bin/finder.cgi?query=change%20or%20die). Considering that Finland is a welfare state and spends massive sums of money on healthcare any anti-drinking campaigns, if run properly, are sure to pay themselves back in a matter of years; not to mention the health benefits for Timmo, Mikko and Kimmo.
Such campaigns will provide a precedent considering there are no government campaigns against anything bad for your health. The only campaign I have seen encourages you to pay the free-to-air TV fee. With healthcare a massive budgetary sink, the country having around 10% unemployment and further loosing jobs to nations with cheaper labour any action is better than the current policy of nothing.
