If we know anything about the Scots, it is that they like to drink. While Swedes only have one or two beers while watching football on TV, the Scots bulge down a whole local brewery before the game has even started. Yet, while it would be a big mistake to suggest that the solution to Scotland's alcohol problems lies in the "Swedish model," some insist:

Research has shown that, given the opportunity, both Scots and Swedes binge drink. Yet the average Swede consumes 9 litres of pure alcohol per year, compared with 12 for the average Scot.

"Our own research indicates that the 'Systembolaget' monopoly reduces consumption by 25-30%," he tells me. "As a consequence it also reduces alcohol related problems."

"It takes political skill and motivation to control alcohol problems," Sven Andreasson tells me. "But our policies are based on research which shows the most powerful tools to control alcohol problems in a nation involve price and availability."

The message in the article is surprisingly clear: Sweden's heavy taxation on alcohol really works. But hold your horses, because I'm about to explain why the pro-taxation arguments don't hold, and why Sweden is in worse drunken problems today than it has ever been.

Myth 1: Sweden's government monopoly "Systembolaget" helps to lower alcohol consumption

Then why are Swedes drinking more today than they have been for the last 100 years? Alcohol consumption in Sweden has increased by more than 30 % since the mid-1990s. One reason to this is the heavy taxation; instead of paying more at home, Swedes pay less abroad (mainly Denmark and Germany). Critics say this is because of Sweden's entry into EU and its liberal border laws, but that doesn't explain why alcohol consumption has also increased from Systembolaget. Swedes are simply drinking more, despite the government monopoly.

Myth 2: Tax cuts always lead to increased alcohol consumption

Another interesting example, and close neighbor to Scotland, is Ireland:

Despite having the highest tax regime on alcohol in Europe, our [Ireland's] levels of consumption remains amongst the highest.

With easier movement of people and travel a much more common pursuit, it is increasingly easier to buy alcohol from abroad- something that would only be encouraged by higher taxes at home.

Furthermore recent research carried out in Scandinavia and published in the periodical Addiction showed that consumption of alcohol fell or remained flat following cuts in taxes on alcohol in Sweden and Finland.

Apparently there's not necessarily a casual relationship between price and consumption. Even the liberal government institutions admit this. Take a look at this graph for instance:

Looking at this, it's easy to arrive at the conclusion that there's a relationship of causality going on here, when experts themselves merely hint at a relationship of correlation:

There is a clear association between price, availability and consumption. But there is less sound evidence for the impact of introducing specific policies in a particular social and political context:

• our analysis showed that the drivers of consumption are much more complex than merely price and availability;
• evidence suggested that using price as a key lever risked major unintended side effects;
• the majority of those who drink do so sensibly the majority of the time.
Policies need to be publicly acceptable if they are to succeed; and
• measures to control price and availability are already built into the system.

The influence of price on consumption is complex. For one thing, there
can be cross price effects ie if the price of one alcoholic beverage increases relative
to the others, some consumers may switch to a cheaper alternative. There is also
the question of incomes. The effects of increases in prices may be reduced or
cancelled out by increases in disposable income.

Do we really expect brainless and slow bureaucracies to calculate those complex relationships? Obviously price affects consumption, but does lower prices necessarily mean people booze more? Apparently not. We also know that high prices don't necessarily limit boozing--Ireland and Sweden are two examples of this, so something is wrong with this pro-taxation argument.

Myth 3: Tax cuts is the primary factor in limiting alcohol consumption

Since there's no clear causal relationship between price and consumption, we don't know this, because there are several counterexamples. Other factors that may be equal to or even more important than price:

• Greater wealth: if young people began boozing more in the UK after the 1960s, we might as well point to an increasingly richer middle class, which acquires new needs with more cash in the pocket.
• Cultural attitudes: Danes are famous for their drinking culture, as are Englishmen, Scots and Irishmen. How come? Continental cultures have a different attitude to alcohol than, say, genuinely Nordic countries. Put simply, while the Continentals drink a little now and then, Swedes drink it all during two days a week. Danes often have a drink or two after work, and then they go home. In Sweden this is taboo behavior; people would suspect you're an alcoholic. In Sweden you drink nothing during work days, until Friday and Saturday, when you pour down it all at bars and clubs open to till 4 am the next day. In England whole families meet at the pub to socialize. In Sweden people would think the parents were terrible people who need government support. That these cultural differences aren't mentioned when comparing Swedish and Scottish alcohol consumption is proof of cheap journalism.
• The liberal revolution: "The birth of the Celtic Tiger led to dramatically increased disposable income, a more liberal society where values like obedience and abstinence were no longer prevalent and changes in work and commuting routines which added to changing consumption patterns." Not that hard to understand: it would be deeply scandalous if young people in Sweden began boozing and trashing the city during the 1930s or 40s. After the leftist-liberal revolution in '68, youth culture began and young people started having random sex, drinking, doing drugs and voting for more government policies. This is uncomfortable for North European Nanny States to admit, because their whole voting base is centered around the ideals from this liberal-leftist revolution. That it brought reckless drinking no longer rooted in tradition, no one wants to mention. The lack of traditional drinking (= drinking certain spirits at certain occasions under certain conditions only) has of course made people more prone to drink when they feel like it, which was rarely the case back in history.
• Existential crisis: it's not news that Europe's populations don't feel well. Suicide rates are sky-rocketing among young people. When you feel your life is shit, it's easy to start drinking or doing drugs. But governments don't know how to treat social or cultural problems, so it's much easier to point to bureaucratic figures like prices and spend all energy beating down on that instead.
• Globalization: of course EU and the process of globalization in general has led to increased binge drinking across the chart. But this is the development we're seeing today and suddenly enforcing protectionist policies against alcohol trade over borders don't seem like a realistic solution. In fact, it would go against everything else that Sweden and Scotland supposedly stand for.

I can think of more, and so can you, I'm sure, so let's just agree that price obviously not is a lone factor in this equation, and most likely not the primary one, considering what we already know.

Myth 4: If you don't support the Nanny State, you support the evil alcohol industry

Here we go. This same argument always comes up with the tobacco industry as well. OF COURSE, alcohol industries want to sell their products. Why wouldn't they? Interestingly, so does our governments, because the tax increases help bureaucracies expand their interests and services. So we have two "bad boys" playing against each other, rather than some innocent governmental institution against some evil industry complex against public health. This whole argument is ridiculous for two reasons:

1. Reputation: Why would the alcohol industry really want out-of-control binge drinking? The more problems with alcohol and public health/safety, the more the press will stress the dangers of alcohol and thus hurt profits for the industry. Industries don't like to get bad reputation. This is especially true for local breweries who see their mission more as a cultural one than as an economical one.

2. The industry pours in money to health organizations and frequently warns about health dangers associated with binge drinking.

The alcohol industry wants to make money, but it's hardly evil, and we'd be quite mistaken if we assumed the government is any less irresponsible. In fact, our governments are currently making money off of drunk people doing stupid things, yet this way is somehow supposed to be better than if the money landed in the pockets of industries who at least create job opportunities.

Myth 5: If you believe in individual responsibility, you are a careless person

From New Zealand's Drug Foundation page:

Firstly, alcohol is an addictive substance. Addiction and dependency seriously impair the ability to make rational decisions.

This is not an argument against the belief in individual responsibility. No one claims alcohol isn't addictive or doesn't affect you. On the contrary, if this substance really is so bad, people need to think about how they use it.

Secondly,consumers find themselves in an environment in which several millions of dollars are spent on alcohol marketing.

They do, but do they drink because of the ads themselves, or the culture they're in? Ads might trigger behavior, but that behavior is already there if you look at a specific culture. In other words, we need to look at the cultural environment and not just prices. This is still not an argument against individual responsibility, or the belief that the industry should be able to promote its products.

Another important aspect to keep in mind is that harmful alcohol use is rarely an individual problem. Rather, it impacts on family, friends, neighbours, work colleagues and, ultimately,society as a whole.

Individual responsibility and individual problems are two different things. It's still possible, without any contradictions, to hold the belief that promoting individual responsibility will benefit the social whole. The argument also overlooks pure facts like the increase in Swedish alcohol consumption despite price control.

Contrary to the widely held misperception, alcohol harms are not confined to the heaviest drinkers in a population but are much more widespread. For example, recent research from Finland found that the majority of problems occurred in 90 percent of the population consuming moderately, compared to the 10 percent of the population drinking heavily.

Of course they did--do you really think 10 % of a population can top the riot of 90 %? The majority of a population who drink moderately is naturally expected to cause more general trouble, which may be related to alcohol, but probably involve a range of other factors. For instance, if I had a beer one night at a bar and later got into an argument with my girlfriend and began fighting her, I would be a part of these statistics. Yet few people would suggest the alcohol was to blame at all. It'd be like saying the majority of sane drivers get involved in more car accidents than drunk drivers. So?

Myth: Raising prices has no effect on heavy or binge drinkers. This myth is widely disseminated by certain sectors and frequently cited in media reports. Yet the evidence shows the opposite is true. Price increases and a set minimum price have a much greater effect on heavier than on lighter drinkers, with modest or only small extra financial cost to lighter drinkers.

But if the heavy drinkers cause minimal problems compared to moderate drinkers, why should we care? The conclusion remains: we punish a great majority for a minority's drinking problems. But the minimum prices are so "modest" and only mean a "small extra financial cost" to light drinkers, you say? If they're so small no one should care, why do you claim people do care and actually lower their alcohol consumption? There's clearly both confusion and hypocrisy behind the central pro-taxation arguments.

Myth 6: Legislation is effective in changing cultural behavior

Is it? NZ's Drug Foundation continues while drawing parallels to smoking:

While legislation alone won’t change our drinking culture, its role in shaping behaviour should not be dismissed outof hand. Our view is that legislation has a crucial role to play in influencing the drinking environment, which is currently oriented towards ease of access and excess. We also believe there are important parallels that can be drawn from the success of anti-smoking legislation, where a substantial culture change has occurred following the enactment of smokefree legislation. There has been a significant shift in attitudes towards smoking in public places since the smokefree legislation.

No one is dismissing legislation as unimportant, otherwise we wouldn't object to it, but the fact that people smoke less at public places doesn't really mean people smoke less overall. We want to control the consumption of alcohol, not control where people drink, so this parallel is pretty uninteresting. If people smoke less today (if they do, in NZ or in Sweden) is probably more due to a recent interest in health and environmental trends than the silly warnings on smoke packages that say "Cancer can kill you" or "Smoking poses a dangerous health risk." If we put signs on cannabis packages that said "When you're high, you may lose self-control," would that reduce the smoking of drugs? Yeah, it's that silly.

Myth 7: Alcohol is a "special" commodity

The Drug Foundation adds:

Alcohol is no ordinary commodity. It is an addictive substance that can lead to long-term dependence. It isassociated with a range of acute and chronic health harms and has been classified by WHO as a Class 1 carcinogen, alongside asbestos, formaldehyde, mustard gas and plutonium-239.

Why would this make alcohol a "special" commodity? I know a lot of things that are either inherently dangerous, or can be misused to become dangerous. Should we raise prices on knives because some people use them to kill people instead of food? There's no clear argument why alcohol would be a commodity exempt from basic economic market laws. Creating a monopoly on something like alcohol or drugs feeds illegal markets. This is one simple law that's already come true during every prohibition in history, both in America and Europe. Why do you think teenagers buy dope from gang lords in slums? Because if an industry doesn't sell it, crack heads will.

Myth 8: Without government monopoly, the rich selection of alcohol at a place like Systembolaget wouldn't be possible

The last time I was at a bar, I spoke with the owner while sipping a Czech Staropramen Granat (sweeter than the original, recommended). He told me the local city once had a fine brewery, but it closed down a few years ago. "That's how it goes with Big Capitalism eating everything up," he finished off saying. Maybe he was right: there was no market for that product, so it had to go. As Frank has noticed, tracking down finer European beer in the States isn't as easy as it is for a Swede to walk into any Systembolaget store and buy home a rare Belgian ale no one's ever heard of.

But there are a few problems with this argument. First, do we really want that monopoly control and price fixing that goes along with being served a selection of spirits that a majority of people are unlikely to ever explore to its fullest (hilariously, when you walk into a Systembolaget store, most people cram down mediocre beer brewed by Swedish companies)? Secondly, just because you cannot survive on doing something, it doesn't mean you should have the government to back you up. That line of argumentation, if applied to most or all commodities on the market, would be insane (i.e. Communism).

Third, and most importantly, because this is what I told the bar owner: Yeah, I guess too few people bought from that brewery, but how well did they market themselves? What if they'd both sell to Systembolaget (or any bigger liquor store if we didn't have monopoly) and export to Europe? The rest of Europe is fascinated by Swedish beer. It wouldn't be hard to find customers if the product was good. Just look at Stockholm Beer Festival; local Swedish beer is going stronger than ever. It should also be noted that Swedes have lately changed from a beer-nation to being a wine-nation.

Conclusion: Nanny State control is not effective in limiting alcohol abuse

Looking at the pro-taxation and pro-monopoly arguments, we see that a Nanny State controlling people's urges through price control and market intervention is a pretty ineffective and misdirected policy. So what can we do about the alcohol related problems? As a Conservative, I propose:

• A sound (Continental) pub culture.
• Linking alcohol consumption to special occasions through cultural traditions.
• Creating alcohol societies for the public where taste and quality are central, and notions of getting drunk are discarded as immature and misdirected.
• Stronger parental involvement in what their kids do at night.
• No alcohol monopoly, but start out by keeping Systembolaget as private-run companies offering a wide range of products.
• More public health figures on TV who promote a sound lifestyle and link it to physical and mental well-being and success.
• A better social future for younger generations by embracing private-run organizations where youngsters can perform different activities involving friendship, personal responsibility and independent thinking.

I bet these suggestions combined, which don't really need the help of any government program, would do more good for many cultures than all the price fixing and monopoly creation in the world. Cheers to that mate!