NAD
Research report
NAD
Does Norwegian alcohol policy favour lower
alcohol content beverages? A historical
overview
ØYVIND HORVERAK
ABSTRACT
AIMS – A historical overview of the relation between Norwegian alcohol policy and problems caused by
different alcoholic beverages during the last two centuries. RESULTS & CONCLUSIONS – The main thesis
is that the concrete shaping of Norwegian alcohol policy changes according to the beverage which is
supposed to cause most harm. Traditionally, this beverage has been liquor, and the Norwegian alcohol
policy has mainly been occupied with the evils of spirits. Problems following from the consumption
of beer and wine have been seen as relatively modest. At times, these weaker beverages have been
viewed as a temperate alternative to the stronger spirits. After WWII, the government chose a policy
which tended to favour wine over liquor and beer. Wine consumption was related to a somewhat more
sophisticated and cultural sphere than the rude consumption of beer and spirits.
KEYWORDS – Norway, alcohol policy, historical overview, different alcoholic beverages
Submitted 05.09.2011
Final version accepted 11.01.2012
Alcohol consumption in Norway
in the nineteenth century
when spirits consumption culminated in
Back in 1845 Kjeld Andresen, a campaign-
mid-1830s. The amount of spirits domesti-
ing reformer, founded the Norwegian As-
cally produced and drunk at that time has
sociation Against Liquor. An anti-drink
been estimated to around 15 litres of pure
sentiment had built up following the
alcohol per head of population aged 15
colossal increase in the consumption of
and over. As half of the population – the
liquor after Norway’s liberation from Den-
women – drank very little, the average con-
mark in 1814. Residents of towns and cit-
sumption of spirits per adult male has been
ies were already entitled to distil their own
in the range of 25–30 litres pure alcohol.
Norway, but it was most likely around the
spirits when a new law, adopted in 1816,
Much of the spirits was distilled in
expanded this freedom to practically the
small vats in the countryside; its taste was
whole country. This led to a sharp increase
probably not much to write home about.
in consumption. Low prices had the same
The slang term for the liquor flask – the
effect, as did the growing population of
finkel1flask – was an indication of the dif-
inns, guest houses, taverns and – not least
ferent chemical compounds which were
– markets, where indulgence and excess
a by-product of the fermentation process
were the order of the day.
and which added their own unmistakable
It is difficult to pinpoint an exact year
10.2478/v10199-012-0002-2
tang to the product.
Unauthenticated
V O L . 29. 2012 . 1
Download Date | 6/17/17 4:45 AM
NORDIC STUDIES ON ALCOHOL AND DRUGS
7
In the 1830s some liquor was also im-
beer. On top of this came a similar quan-
ported, mainly cognac, rum and arak.
tity of homemade beer. Altogether then,
There was also some import of wine; forti-
20 million litres of beer wetted Norwegian
fied wines such as port and Madeira, and
throats in 1850 (Alkoholstatistik I). There
table wines; mostly hock and Bordeaux.
was less beer available in the 1830s since
There was also some domestically manu-
industrial beer production had only just
factured fruit wine, though the quantities
started. On the other hand, more beer may
were relatively insignificant. Imported
have been brewed by people in their own
liquor and wine were drunk almost solely
homes. An estimated 20 million litres of
by the affluent classes (Kristiansen 1934).
beer with an alcoholic content of 4 per
According to estimates, in 1836–1840, im-
cent does not, however, seem unreason-
ported liquor and wine amounted to only
able as an estimate of the amount of beer
0.7 litres and 0.1 litres, respectively, in
consumed in the mid-1830s; consumption
pure alcohol per adult (Alkoholstatistik I).
would have been about a litre of pure alco-
But there is also a centuries-long tradi-
hol per adult person, with the male half of
tion in Norway of beer drinking, especial-
the population accounting for the greatest
ly in connection with high days and holi-
part.
days. Farm-brewed beer was supposed to
Around 1830, then, Norwegians con-
be strong and full of body, strong enough
sumed 15.7 litres of liquor, 1 litre of beer,
indeed that ”when a third person drank
and 0.1 litres of wine. In light of the num-
from the bowl, the first person should start
bers and from a temperance point of view,
to sing rimes” (Øystå 2001, 14). Beer drink-
it’s understandable that the battle against
ing had had a ritualistic character since
liquor was the main issue. Beer and wine
olden times, accompanying the main reli-
consumption was clearly much less sig-
gious festivals, weddings and funerals, at
nificant.
which people drank in quantity. However,
weak with little flavour, and therefore
The first temperance movement
and the fight against spirits
not a very popular drink. ”Unfortunately,
That beer and wine were relatively insig-
good and tasty beer has gone out of fashion
nificant in that time does not mean that
in Norway”, the newspaper Morgenbladet
people did not get drunk on them. There
wrote in 1819 (Kristiansen 1934, 61–62). It
are countless stories of excess drinking in
was not until the 1830s and the industrial
events hosted and enjoyed by the well-off
brewing of beer by the Bavarian method
where wine was the staple tipple (Schwach
that beer consumption began to rise. Shed-
2008). There are also many stories about
ding its ritualistic character and associa-
people getting drunk on beer in the coun-
tion with special occasions, beer turned
tryside. In both cases, the same rule ap-
into an ordinary alcoholic beverage.
plied: one drank until one was drunk.
by 1800 home-brewed beer had become
It is hard to find reliable estimates for
Beer and wine were almost seen as an
beer consumption before the year 1850,
abstemious alternative to liquor. In the
when the breweries were estimated to
wake of the appalling scenes of excess
have a total output of 10 million litres of
that unfolded at the end of the 1820s at
8
NORDIC STUDIES ON ALCOHOL AND DRUGS
V O L . 2 9. 2 0 1 2 . 1
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/17/17 4:45 AM
guest houses selling liquor in the counties
total movement. The differences between
of Troms and Finnmark, the guest houses
Andresen’s secular movement and the
were required to keep a ”good and healthy
Christian camp made any organisational
beer” as an alternative to spirits (Kristians-
partnership impossible. By 1844, West
en 1934). However, this sometimes proved
Country folk had set up their organisation,
difficult when the visitor turnover was
the Norwegian Temperance Association
low, as fresh beer was likely to turn sour.
(Det norske avholdsselskap).
When the production of Bavarian bottom
In the course of a few years, the temper-
fermentation2 beer began in the 1830s, this
ance movement grew into Norway’s biggest
issue was more or less solved. In 1834, the
organised popular movement. But even by
regulation of also selling beer was extend-
the time of the emergence of the move-
ed to include the whole country. ”The new
ment, liquor consumption was retreating
beer appears to have been given a hearty
in Norway. This was because of different
welcome by temperance campaigners as
pieces of legislation, which aimed at ac-
an effective antidote to liquor”, wrote Os-
complishing two things: to limit access to
kar Kristiansen (p. 168) in his account of
liquor and to make liquor more expensive.
drinking and temperance in Norway be-
The mechanism was the same as today: to
tween 1814 and 1848.
limit access and raise prices. We should
Association
not, however, discount the influence of in-
Against Liquor was founded in the mid-
creased government revenue on the deci-
1800s, the Norwegian way of drinking had
sion to raise duties and taxes. Liquor was
two conspicuous features: the custom to
one of the easiest commodities to advocate
drink until drunk whenever alcoholic bev-
when it came to raising prices.
When
the
Norwegian
erages were served at get-togethers, and
The effects of the new political approach
liquor as the beverage related to most of
were soon evident: between 1835 and
the episodes of drunkenness in the lower
1851, liquor consumption fell by 74 per
classes. The consumption of liquor was
cent per head of population aged 15 and
not limited to festive gatherings and spe-
over, from 15.7 to 5.7 litres per year. The
cial occasions but was part of normal, eve-
whole of this decline cannot be attributed
ryday life – as was poverty.
to poorer availability and higher prices.
The policy of the first temperance move-
The work of Kjeld Andresen as a peripatet-
ment, which looked to British, American
ic abstinence agitator on the government
and Swedish examples for models, was
payroll was undoubtedly significant, too.
therefore to get people to abstain from
Andresen, however, was less concerned
liquor. Kjeld Andresen saw temperance
about reforming the law than with educat-
work in terms of secular reform, with no
ing the people and setting an example. He
particular links to Christianity. This dis-
did not want liquor banned, for instance.
tinguished Andresen’s movement from
The many temperance societies Andresen
the
movement,
managed to establish around the country
which was firmly entrenched in popular
were important precisely for educating the
lay communities, and would later play a
people and demonstrating the power of
major role in the total abstinence or tee-
a good example. Many from the more af-
‘south-west
Norway’
Unauthenticated
V O L . 29. 2012 . 1
Download Date | 6/17/17 4:45 AM
NORDIC STUDIES ON ALCOHOL AND DRUGS
9
fluent classes lined up in the fight against
liquor.
The Gothenburg system comes to
Norway
The temperance movement stagnated in
In 1871, things had come to such a pass
the 1860s, and the Norwegian Association
in the city Kristiansand that none of the
Against Liquor disbanded in 1869. There
old licensees no longer wanted to sell or
were several reasons for this. It was diffi-
serve liquor. The town council was still
cult to fund the work of travelling agents
not inclined to stop the retail of liquor,
once the parliament stopped financing the
so parliament compromised by adopting
temperance organisations in 1869. The
a law in 1871 entitling local authorities
movement failed to attract new members
to sell and serve liquor, provided that the
from the affluent classes, who had be-
proceeds went for the common good. The
trayed the ideal of abstinence. And the old
model elaborated in Kristiansand was the
temperance idea lost out to the new total
so-called Gothenburg system. In Norway,
abstinence campaign, which had been
the new system for retailing and serving
launched in 1859 by the founding of a tee-
liquor came to be known as the ”samlag”,
totaller society in Stavanger by Asbjørn
which was a sort of combined gross and
Kloster, a Quaker. This movement was a
retail cooperative where most of the profit
particular challenge for the Norwegian
went to benefit the municipality. It spread
Temperance Association, which had its
rapidly to other towns and cities. Only
roots in Christian lay communities in the
a tiny fraction of these samlag followed
south-west of the country. And in 1889, it
Kristiansand in keeping retail and serving
too was disbanded. The Norwegian Teeto-
establishments separate in the first years.
taller Association (Det norske totalavhold-
As a rule, liquor was both served and sold
sselskap – DNT) battled its way to hegem-
by the samlag.
ony in the fight against alcohol in Norway.
Regulations were also enacted on how
This fight against liquor continued un-
serving should take place. At the sam-
diminished through the 1860s and 1870s.
lag in Oslo, ”until 6 pm, no more than 3
During the ‘60s a law was passed allow-
measures of 3 centilitres or 4 measures of
ing the retail sale of liquor only by persons
2 centilitres or 2 mixed drinks (toddies)
who did not operate another commercial
may be served. After 6 pm no more than
undertaking at the same time. This was
2 measures of 3 centilitres or 3 measures
because many storekeepers used liquor
of 2 centilitres or 1 mixed drink (toddy)
to attract customers to buy other goods.
may be served.” In the town of Vadsø the
In compensation for tightening the retail
rules stated that ”when the ordered item
rights, everyone selling liquor over the
is consumed, the person in question shall
counter was allowed also to serve liquor.
leave the premises and may only purchase
In cities and towns, establishments were
an additional item after a certain period of
set up purely for the sale and serving of
time has elapsed, and the manager and ser-
liquor, focal points for loutish behaviour,
vice personnel believe he can take it” (Al-
commotion and aggression.
koholkommissionens indstilling, Bilag 2,
Vedlegg 1 1915, 16–17). In the first years,
served liquor represented a major share of
10
NORDIC STUDIES ON ALCOHOL AND DRUGS
V O L . 2 9. 2 0 1 2 . 1
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/17/17 4:45 AM
the sales of the samlag, but retailed liquor
tion was enjoying the healthy economic
gained ground steadily, accounting for
years of the late 1850s and when Bavar-
more than 90 per cent of liquor sales in
ian beer became popular and the brewery
Oslo by 1914 (Alkoholkommisionens fler-
trade expanded exponentially. Rising beer
tallsinstilling 1915, 196–197).
sales led to a rapid increase in the num-
The samlag model spread quickly, not
ber of establishments retailing and serving
least because it held the promise of a
beer, and according to stories from the late
nice income to the local authorities. In
1850s, there were beer shops everywhere
practice, the samlag was constituted as a
along the main routes into Oslo and other
monopoly in the retailing and serving of
larger cities. Beer was consumed primarily
liquor in urban areas. In 1880, a law came
by itinerants and the young.
into force under which liquor licenses still
As beer consumption grew, not least
in the hands of private parties could be re-
among the young, associated problems
voked. This put the sale of liquor in the
grew as well. The emerging beer clubs
towns and cities under the control of the
had the same effect. They were particu-
municipal monopoly as the profits were
larly popular among the working class in
supposed to promote the public good. In
eastern Norway. Workers established and
the country, with few exceptions, retailing
managed the beer clubs themselves, enter-
liquor was no longer legal, though a cer-
ing into contracts with specific breweries
tain amount was served.
to deliver beer – usually before the week-
In 1880, when the teetotaller movement
ends – for money they had scraped togeth-
was not yet a potent force in Norway and
er. This partnership between brewery cap-
the early temperance movement had run
ital and the working class continued until
out of steam, the statistics show that 4.3
the end of the nineteenth century. It was
litres of pure alcohol were sold per head of
common practice for the local brewery
population 15 years old and over, of which
to extend a loan to the workers, helping
2.8 litres, or 65 per cent, were liquor. The
them to build a meeting or a community
decline was principally caused by declin-
hall (Folkets Hus) in return for an exclu-
ing accessibility, both in terms of distance
sive contract to supply the beer consumed
and time, and higher duties. Between 1845
in the new building.
and 1880, the duty on liquor increased ten-
As with liquor, beer’s increasing popu-
fold (nominally from 13 to 135 øre per li-
larity as an intoxicant was met with calls
tre pure liquor). As more and more people
to raise the price and limit access. A malt
made the transition to a money economy,
tax was introduced on the breweries in
consumption was increasingly bound up
1857 for the hops from which beer was
with the state of the economy and wider
brewed. This tax was increased repeat-
economic cycles.
edly, and by 1895 it was five times as high
as the original tariff.
Bavarian beer and wines
In the 1860s a tax was imposed also on
Beer was still the second most popular
those who served beer in the towns and
beverage. Sales had risen particularly fast
cities, while retailing remained unregu-
in the period before 1860, when the na-
lated. It was the serving of beer in the beer
Unauthenticated
V O L . 29. 2012 . 1
Download Date | 6/17/17 4:45 AM
NORDIC STUDIES ON ALCOHOL AND DRUGS
11
halls that was the main problem, not the
scribe it as a series of attempts to reduce
sale of beer over the counter. Much of the
consumption of the most popular intoxi-
liquor that was drunk was consumed in
cating drinks. At the centre of the battle
liquor lounges, and it is not accidental that
stood alcohol-related problems of the
the most influential part of the temperance
working class. It did not matter whether
movement in the US called itself the Anti-
people drank beer or liquor: all the regula-
Saloon League. The saloons were associ-
tory offensives were grounded in a belief
ated with other forms of undesirable activ-
of the necessity of fighting alcohol abuse
ity as well, such as gambling and prosti-
among poor people.
tution. The new political strategy worked:
The implemented policy proved suc-
beer consumption rose hardly at all from
cessful in limiting the sale of the targeted
around 1860 to the turn of the century.
drinks. In 1890, total alcohol consumption
As already mentioned, wine was not
had fallen to 4.2 litres of pure alcohol per
drunk extensively in Norway in the 1800s.
head of population aged 15 and over. Liq-
The small quantities were drunk by the
uor accounted for more than 60 per cent of
upper classes. While they enjoyed their
this consumption, while beer represented
wine to the full, there were seldom any
around 40 per cent. Consumption of wine
consequences for others than the wine
was insignificant, and as before, reserved
drinkers themselves, and wine consump-
for the upper classes.
tion was therefore not considered an alcontrary, Kjeld Andresen (1846) spent 48
Wine consumption – not always
sophisticated
pages of his ”Handbook on the Essentials
In the mid-1890s, however, ordinary peo-
of the Temperance Reform” (Haandbog
ple in Norway suddenly started drinking
i Afholds­
reformens Grundsætninger) on
wine. This happened when liquor was
”clarifying the practical and actual differ-
added to cheap imported wine to make the
ence between liquor and other intoxicating
”wine” stronger. The new commodity was
drink” (Wicklund 1925). Marcus Thrane,
called ‘laddevin’, probably after a character
who organised the first workers’ associa-
in a broadside ballad from the west of the
tions in Norway in the mid-nineteenth
country called Fanteladden, who sold wine
century and who himself abstained from
illegally (http://utgard.hsh.no). Rumours
drinking, claimed the only effective solu-
circulated as well that the drink contained
tion to the alcohol problem was a wine-
additives which made people more intoxi-
drinking culture similar to that of the
cated than the alcohol content led one to
Mediterranean countries (Fuglum 1999).
expect. The wine was therefore examined
cohol-related problem for society. On the
by the official government chemist – this
Alcohol policy in the nineteenth
century
was when Norway retained a government
As a summary of the Norwegian alcohol
harmful substances. But the wine was very
policy before the total abstinence move-
sweet and therefore seemed weaker than it
ment entered the political arena as a seri-
was. The government chemist maintained
ous player around 1890, it is safe to de-
– correctly, we assume – that the cause of
12
NORDIC STUDIES ON ALCOHOL AND DRUGS
chemist – who was unable to find directly
V O L . 2 9. 2 0 1 2 . 1
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/17/17 4:45 AM
the problems surrounding the wine’s con-
in Norwegian alcohol policy. I have already
sumption was that people drank too much
mentioned the establishment in 1871 of a
of it.
liquor samlag in Kristiansand, fashioned
Laddevin was assailed with the usual
after the Gothenburg model. Other places
weapons: in February 1904, the duty on
moved quickly to adopt the same system,
imported wine almost quadrupled. At the
as the profits went into the municipal cof-
same time the maximum alcohol content
fers. By 1888, all of the 51 towns and cit-
of wine was lowered from 23 to 21 per
ies in Norway had set up a samlag, which
cent by volume. The effect was immedi-
accounted for half of the nation’s liquor
ate. From 1903 to 1904, wine imports fell
sales. The other half was supplied by pri-
from 4.2 million litres to 1.9 million, that
vate wholesalers, who were allowed to sell
is, to about the same level as before the in-
in bulk above 40 litres, and by the few re-
troduction of laddevin on the market. No
maining private serving establishments.
measures were taken, however, to limit ac-
The opportunity to sell in bulk of 40 li-
cess to wine, and anyone with a trading
tres or more resulted in Norway in what
licence (handelsborgerskap) or rural retail
is known as pooling (spleising): several
licence (landhandlerrett) was allowed to
individuals pooled their resources to buy
sell wine in moderate quantities. In Oslo,
a 40-litre vat of liquor. The system was as-
wine was sold by 400–500 grocery stores
sociated with drunkenness and accidents.
and beer from even more outlets. To serve
Paul Tengesdal (2011) recounts an inci-
wine and beer, however, one needed a li-
dent at Ørsdalsvatnet in the south of the
cence, although retail remained unregu-
West Country in 1872 in which four men
lated. It was only in 1917 that a municipal
drowned. They had been on an outing to
licence was required for both the serving
the town Egersund to buy Christmas pre-
and retailing of wine (Hauge 1986).
sents, sharing the cost of a vat of liquor.
The enemy in the battle against the dif-
Home-bound, while being ferried over
ferent intoxicating drinks was not the al-
the lake, they got cold and tried to keep
cohol they contained in the sense that one
warm by drinking from the vat. A bloody
attempted to tax alcohol equally, irrespec-
fight erupted and all four, along with the
tive of the type of beverage. The enemy was
ferryman, drowned. There are hundreds
the drink that was misused by the poor. In
of stories like this about fights and acci-
1896, the government chemist calculated
dents blamed on a shared liquor vat. In a
that the price of one litre of pure alcohol
step aimed at bringing all this to a halt, the
in laddevin, liquor and beer was 3.30, 4.40
lower wholesale limit was raised to 250
and 7.50 kroner, respectively. It was the
litres in the new liquor act of 1894. The
weakest drink, beer, which contained the
amount purchased had to be handed over
dearest alcohol, and the drink with the
whole and undivided in a single container
cheapest alcohol, laddevin, which caused
and to a single buyer. It put an effective
the greatest problems.
stop to wholesale purchases by groups of
drinkers.
The liquor act of 1894
The new liquor act of 1894 is a watershed
This was, however, not the most important change engineered by the new liquor
Unauthenticated
V O L . 29. 2012 . 1
Download Date | 6/17/17 4:45 AM
NORDIC STUDIES ON ALCOHOL AND DRUGS
13
act of 1894. The most significant change
hol altogether, rather than simply combat
in the alcohol policy arose from the new
alcohol abuse – is therefore a landmark in
policies adopted by the temperance move-
Norwegian alcohol politics. While some
ment towards political reforms in the fight
had limited themselves to working for a
against alcohol. Like the old temperance
temperate nation, those in favour of absti-
movement, the total abstinence movement
nence wanted to ”dry” the country once
had two sides, one which advocated edu-
and for all.
cation and example as the way forward,
The 1880s saw the membership of the
and the other which agitated for political
Norwegian Teetotaller Association rise
reform.
sharply, growing between 1879 and 1887
by a factor of ten, from 7,000 to 70,000.
Teetotaller Association and the
leadership of Sven Aarrestad
Unlike the old temperance movement, the
The change in favour of a political reform
bership from the lower strata, especially
policy came with the election of Sven Aar-
Low Church communities and the work-
restad as chairman of the Norwegian Tee-
ing class. The leaders, on the other hand,
totaller Association in 1887. He held this
usually came from the middle classes.
position for 40 years, until 1927, spanning
Membership continued to expand in the
the movement’s glory days. Aarrestad was
early 1900s. At its peak, around the time of
an adamant supporter of the political re-
the First World War, the entire temperance
form approach. He believed that alcohol
movement counted 250,000 organised
problems would never be overcome until
temperance supporters in Norway, which
alcohol disappeared from society altogeth-
is 10 per cent of the whole population. In
er. He therefore formulated a vision for the
1915, the majority of members of parlia-
temperance movement, ”A temperate na-
ment were organised teetotallers. In such a
tion, a dry land” (Aarrestad 1929). To real-
context, the power of example can be just
ise his vision, Aarrestad’s first goal was to
as effective as reform.
total abstinence movement drew its mem-
stop the sale of liquor.
Growth in the number of organised tem-
Aarrestad’s strategy was to let local com-
perance supporters, combined with the re-
munities have their say in local ballots
sults from the local ballots and experienc-
on whether they wanted to keep the mu-
es of the WWI total ban on alcohol, may
nicipal liquor samlag or not. Only in ur-
have made the temperance people feel
ban municipalities where the people had
”dizzy with success”, to borrow a phrase
voted to retain the liquor samlag would
from Joseph Stalin in connection with the
the sale of liquor be permitted. By these
collectivisation of the Soviet countryside.
local referenda the retail of liquor in the
The temperance movement rallied behind
country would gradually peter out. The
a call for a national referendum on wheth-
new policy and the strength of the teetotal
er to ban liquor and fortified wine. The call
movement brought the number of commu-
was successful although it went against
nities with samlag from 51 to 13 during
the wishes of Aarrestad. He stressed a ban
the years 1894–1912. This new approach
would only be respected if it enjoyed wide
– which sought to rid the country of alco-
support in the local community, and, just
14
NORDIC STUDIES ON ALCOHOL AND DRUGS
V O L . 2 9. 2 0 1 2 . 1
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/17/17 4:45 AM
as important, among the largest bourgeois
restrictions as liquor before prohibition.
newspapers. The country had to be ”dried
Wine had ended up on the shelves of the
out” by popular demand, he believed: tee-
samlag and the new Vinmonopolet com-
totalism could not be forced on the people
pany. And there it stayed, alongside liq-
against their will.
uor, also after prohibition. This change in
Nevertheless, the 1919 referendum re-
the distribution channel for wine did not
sulted in a majority in favour of prohibi-
make it easier to cultivate a wine culture
tion – but it also marked the beginning of
in Norway.
the teetotal movement’s swan song. Aar-
The only alcoholic drink to be bought
restad had history on his side. Opposition
from ordinary shops was beer. The strong
to prohibition was very strong among the
bock beer, lighter Pilsner and Bayer were
middle and upper classes in the larger
all sold by grocers with a beer licence. At
towns and cities and in the largest news-
the same time, the temperance movement
papers. Policing the ban proved well-nigh
lay prone, its backbone shattered and nev-
impossible. By 1926 people were calling
er to recover from the defeat in the 1926
for a new referendum. When they returned
referendum. The dream of a ”dry” Norway
to the polls in 1926, the majority voted to
was also laid to rest. In 1927 it was back to
end prohibition. In 1927, liquor could
square one, in the sense of returning to the
once again be bought legally, together with
alcohol programme of the pre-prohibition
fortified wine, table wine and beer.
era. Once again, one had to be satisfied
with the desire to see an abstemious na-
Consequences of the prohibition
period
tion, because the promise of a ”dry” one
had vanished.
One vital thing had changed during the
Relatively little happened on the pre-
prohibition years. Without anyone de-
ventive front of Norwegian alcohol policy
manding it, the import of wine had been
in the 1930s, with the exception of the ab-
monopolised and handed over to a new
sorption of the municipal samlag by the
company, Vinmonopolet, to stop the
new Vinmonopolet company. The rules on
country being inundated by cheap Span-
setting up or closing down Vinmonopolet
ish wine. Something like this had in fact
stores were the same as for the samlag:
occurred in 1918/1919 when the sale of
a local referendum was required. Aar-
liquor was banned, but the private import
restad’s programme for a ”dry” Norway re-
and sale of wine remained legal. Coinci-
mained in place, even if its realisation was
dentally with the establishment of the
impossible. Vinmonopolet stores had the
import monopoly, the sale of wine was
same significance as the samlag had had
transferred to the municipal samlag. Vin-
originally. They were supposed to ensure
monopolet was also allowed to retail wine
that the sale of liquor – and now wine as
from its own outlets. The monopoly also
well – was conducted in such a way as to
enjoyed exclusive rights to sell liquor for
present as little obstruction to the advance
technical, scientific and medical use.
of temperance as possible, as the new Al-
When prohibition ended, wine was in
practice subject to the same commercial
cohol Act of 1927 puts it.
An important weapon in this work was
Unauthenticated
V O L . 29. 2012 . 1
Download Date | 6/17/17 4:45 AM
NORDIC STUDIES ON ALCOHOL AND DRUGS
15
Table 1. Price of 1 litre pure alcohol in the
cheapest brand of beer, wine and liquor.
Liquor = 100.
social control and the associated blacklists
of a community’s ”incorrigibles”. In 1939,
16,000 names were on these blacklists in
Liquor
the 17 municipalities where Vinmono-
Wine
1896
100
ing 1939). It was a challenge for the staff of
1939
100
133
143
1951
100
113
91
97
these local stores to prevent the blacklisted individuals from buying their favoured
pick-me-up.
Taxes on alcoholic beverages
79*
Beer
polet sold liquor (Vinmonopolet årsmeld-
179
1968
100
84
1973
100
85
92
2003
100
90
92
2011
100
95
71
*Laddevin
Overall sales of alcohol did not rise discernibly from the final year of prohibition
cheapest brands, which is the most inter-
to the first year without. The sales of al-
esting thing in this connection, the price
cohol stabilised at somewhat lower levels
of alcohol was 30 to 40 per cent dearer in
than before WWI, an effect of the economic
wine and beer than in liquor, despite the
downturn of the late 1920s which lasted
widespread view of wine as culture and
until the start of the Second World War.
the most sophisticated way to drink alco-
However, what was sold did change. In the
hol.
final year of prohibition beer accounted for
After the WWII the picture changes
56 per cent of total alcohol sales, wine 31
somewhat as wine and liquor carry a tax
per cent and liquor for medicinal purposes
during and after the war. This extra ‘cri-
13 per cent. Very soon though, liquor re-
sis and war’ tax was 50 and 150 per cent,
claimed its old position as the most preva-
respectively, of the price charged by Vin-
lent intoxicant, again accounting for 50 per
monopolet. Beer taxation rose by 150 per
cent of the turnover in 1939, with beer at
cent as well, not of the price, but of the old
37 per cent and wine at 13 per cent. Con-
tax. It meant that the price of beer came
sumption of wine had grown in the years
through the ravages of the war slightly bet-
leading up to prohibition, but this was
ter than the price of liquor. Table 1 shows
mainly because of a rise in the consump-
the relationship between the price of one
tion of fortified wines. Of the table wines
litre of pure alcohol in beer, wine and liq-
in 1939, 93 per cent came from France
uor over several years, taking the cheapest
and Germany and, as previously, they re-
brand of each type as the basis.
mained the preserve of the affluent classes.
Immediately after the war, the price of
What then about the taxes on the differ-
alcohol in cheap wine was slightly higher
ent alcoholic beverages? Is there evidence
than in the cheapest liquor, while beer was
of differential treatment by alcoholic con-
now the drink with the cheapest alcohol.
tent? It does not seem to be the case. On
From the mid-1950s and up to the present,
the contrary, the more expensive alcohol,
alcohol in the cheapest wine has always
on average, was in beer rather than liquor,
been cheaper than that in the cheapest liq-
just as the government chemist had found
uor. Until the turn of the century, alcohol
in 1896. If we examine the price of the
in (the cheapest) wine was also cheaper
16
NORDIC STUDIES ON ALCOHOL AND DRUGS
V O L . 2 9. 2 0 1 2 . 1
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/17/17 4:45 AM
than in beer. It was not until the brewery price war in the mid-2000s that beer
became the drink offering most value for
Table 2. Duty on 1 litre pure alcohol in the
cheapest brands in stable kroner values.
1951=100.
Liquor
Wine
1939
54
64
85
1951
100
100
100
1968
73
54
78
1973
74
56
75
2003
81
65
82
2011
85
72
67
money, if value is measured by alcohol
content.
The reason for leaving the tax levels untouched after the war had less to do with
alcohol policy per se, and more with a
desire to strengthen the nation’s financial
status and deter imports. For a time after
Beer
the tax hike, the Vinmonopolet price lists
carried two prices to show the public that
de Vie, grape brandy advertised as a good
the government, not the company, was to
and reasonable alternative to cognac and
blame for the higher prices. The protest
a representative of drinking culture. The
was soon dropped, and Vinmonopolet ac-
price tag on the new people’s wine was 6
quiesced to the new pricing regime for liq-
kroner, which in 1950 was a couple of kro-
uor and wine. It was in conjunction with
ner less than that of the cheapest Bordeaux
the situation during and after WWII that
wine.
the prices of alcoholic drinks in Norway
Taking its cue from Vinmonopolet, the
reached the level we have today. This is
government sought to foster a wine cul-
shown in Table 2, where the taxes are giv-
ture by leaving the price of Red Wine un-
en in stable kroner values. As can be seen,
changed for more than 18 years, irrespec-
post-war taxes were considerably higher
tive of the price fluctuations affecting the
than in 1939, and beer came out of the war
company’s other wares. After a while, the
relatively well. The current level of tax on
name of the wine became what it cost, the
the cheapest alcoholic drinks is also lower
Six Kroner, a name it retained until the
than just after the war.
fairy story came to an end in May 1968.
We should not ignore other possible rea-
Nurturing a Norwegian wine
culture
sons than alcohol political ones for the
Although wine duty rose sharply dur-
The Six Kroner was included as a repre-
ing and after WWII, the government still
sentative commodity in the retail price in-
wanted people to drink more wine, pref-
dex, and since the Labour Party wanted to
erably at the expense of liquor and beer.
keep inflation as low as possible to avoid
Vinmonopolet was in the front line in
unnecessary wage hikes, keeping the price
promoting ”the wine culture”, launching,
of the wine unchanged obviously helped.
long-lasting favourable price of this brand.
for example, the brands of Red Wine and
Did this policy have the desired effect
White Wine. ”They were uncomplicated
and encourage wider consumption of table
wines, produced by Vinmonopolet for the
wine? It would seem so from the Monop-
public” (Hamran 2001, 56). These were the
oly’s annual report of 1968. The company
wines that Vinmonopolet wanted to suc-
reported a structural change in the sale of
ceed. Another product promoted was Eau
wine: table wines had taken market shares
Unauthenticated
V O L . 29. 2012 . 1
Download Date | 6/17/17 4:45 AM
NORDIC STUDIES ON ALCOHOL AND DRUGS
17
from the fortified wines and Norwegian
wine and liquor was influenced by the
fruit wines. In 1960, for the first time, more
healthy economic climate in the post-war
table wine was sold than fortified wine in
years. Beer also had another advantage in
Norway. Also, wine sales increased much
being much more widely available than
faster than liquor sales, which also rose
wine and liquor both in municipalities
in the recovering economy in the post-
with and without a Vinmonopolet store.
war decades. In the company’s 1968 an-
The robust growth in the consumption of
nual report, we read that while 22.5 litres
beer continued through the 1970s, causing
of wine were sold per 100 litres of liquor
concern not least about the drinking habits
in 1948, by 1968 the ratio had changed to
of adolescents. Given a choice of the differ-
57.8 litres of wine for every 100 litres of
ent alcoholic beverages, the young opted
liquor. Between 1950 and 1968, wine sales
for beer, and it was shown that young peo-
per adult person in Norway doubled, and
ple’s alcohol consumption rose particular-
in 1968 more than half the red wine that
ly sharply in the 1970s (Brun-Gulbrandsen
was drunk was of the Six Kroner brand –
1976). In 1980, the classic recourse was
which by the end of the year no longer cost
brought into service again: raising the tax-
six kroner, but seven. There is little doubt
es. It led to an immediate price increase,
that the Six Kroner policy boosted the con-
and – moreover – the price of beer grew
sumption of wine by workers and – in par-
more than the price of wine and liquor. As
ticular – by white collar workers, who had
a result of the rising prices, and because
began to develop a taste for it.
of the economic downswing of the 1980s,
consumption stopped increasing. By the
Beer consumption causes
concern
turn of the century, consumption was so to
speak the same as it had been in 1980.
Despite the efforts to promote wine consumption, the alcohol drink that advanced
The rise of wine consumption
the most in terms of sales in the period
Between 1980 and 2001, the sale of liq-
from 1950 to 1970 was not wine, but beer.
uor more than halved. This decline was
As with wine, beer sales doubled during
partly due to the tax increase, partly to the
these years. But unlike wine, where a two-
restructuring of the tax system. The Nor-
fold increase resulted in a 0.2 litre increase
wegian tax system would no longer treat
in pure alcohol consumed per adult head
domestic and imported liquor unequally,
of population, multiplying beer sales by
benefiting the home-grown variety. As a re-
two translated into 1.1 litres more pure
sult, the tax on the cheap, domestic liquor
alcohol per adult, in other words about
rose by 20–25 per cent between 1980 and
six times more than the sale of wine. As
1998, while the duty on imported liquor
of 1968, when beer superseded liquor, and
declined by as much as 35–40 per cent.
up to the present day, the beer breweries
The decline in registered consumption
have every single year supplied the greater
could also have been affected by a rise in
part of registered alcohol to Norwegian
the sale of smuggled liquor in the same pe-
consumers. There is little doubt that the
riod. Most of all, though, declining liquor
strong growth in the consumption of beer,
sales were caused by a rising interest in the
18
NORDIC STUDIES ON ALCOHOL AND DRUGS
V O L . 2 9. 2 0 1 2 . 1
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/17/17 4:45 AM
1980s and 1990s in healthy life styles.
had declined over many years. When it
The only alcoholic beverage to enjoy sig-
was transferred to Vinmonopolet, sales
nificantly higher sales per head of popula-
declined to virtually zero. Vinmonopolet
tion after 1980 was table wine. From 1980
customers would rather buy other bever-
to 2001, the sale of table wine to every
ages than beer. In 2010, the sale of strong
adult person more than tripled. This co-
beer accounted for under half per cent of
lossal growth did not, however, occasion
total beer sales. In 1950, it held a 36 per
a particularly sharp hike in the wine duty.
cent share.
There were several reasons for this. In the
Another important reason for the ab-
1990s, Norway was debarred from taxing
sence of a tax response to increasing wine
beer and wine differentially. In 1994 Nor-
consumption was that the increase had not
way became an associated member of the
resulted in a tangible rise in alcohol abuse
EU through membership of the European
problems (Rossow 2007). Wine consump-
Economic Area treaty (EEA). To prevent
tion had risen unnoticed, as it were, with-
differential treatment of domestic beer
out excessive or problematic behaviour.
and foreign wine, it was decided to tax
Earlier estimates have shown that it is far
the alcohol in wine and beer by the same
less common to get drunk when wine is
formula. The new system finally came into
the main beverage, unlike when beer or liq-
force in 1999. Before the change, alcohol
uor is the preferred drink (Horverak & Bye
in beer was sometimes dearer than alcohol
2007). This should not be taken to mean
in wine; but sometimes the reverse was
that people get drunk less when wine is the
true as well. When the new system began
main drink because they are drinking wine.
working, beer alcohol was taxed at about
It could just as well be that the people who
10 per cent less than table wine alcohol.
prefer wine get drunk less frequently than
Alcohol in liquor was dearest of all, as in-
those who prefer beer or liquor, whatever
deed it had been for most of the years after
they drink, or that wine is drunk more fre-
the changes to the taxes during and after
quently in circumstances in which getting
the Second World War.
drunk is less socially acceptable.
In connection with Norway’s member-
Based on the available data, it appears
ship of the EEA, strong beer disappeared
that people over 50 years, and women in
from the shelves of licensed grocery
particular, are responsible for much of the
stores, only to be sold by the Vinmono-
increase in wine consumption. Studies
polet. It was said that the purpose of the
have found that the proportion of people
new system was to prevent differential
over 50 who drink several times a month
treatment of strong beer and light table
grew from 41 to 66 per cent from 1995 to
wines. However, there is also another ex-
2008. This proportion is now higher than
planation: the new system was an item in
the corresponding proportion both in the
the package of concessions sewn together
age group 30–50 and among people under
by the Labour Party and the Christian Peo-
30 years (58 per cent). This is particularly
ple’s Party to get Norway into the EEA
interesting given how people over 50 used
(Øystå 2001). Strong beer had always been
to drink much less frequently than young-
sold in licensed grocery stores, but sales
er age groups.
Unauthenticated
V O L . 29. 2012 . 1
Download Date | 6/17/17 4:45 AM
NORDIC STUDIES ON ALCOHOL AND DRUGS
19
Wine has traditionally been the drink
in the biggest cities. In consequence, the
of the upper classes in Norway. Today,
number of outlets grew by 150 per cent be-
the consumption of wine has diffused to
tween 1990 and 2010 (from 100 to 250),
all social strata, but mainly to the grow-
and at the same time all outlets were re-
ing middle class (Horverak & Bye 2007),
modelled on the self-service principle.
which is absorbing an increasingly large
One could now buy wine, liquor and
section of the Norwegian population.
strong beer in the same way as any other
Working class culture with its preference
goods in a grocery store. Customers could
for beer and liquor is retreating, and with
walk around the liquor store and pick
the retreat, binge drinking may be shrink-
what they wanted without asking anyone.
ing as well. The dream of seeing a Norwe-
This consumer-friendly tendency was
gian wine culture take root and flourish
strengthened by that almost all monopoly
may well be coming true. In 2009, wine
stores were now in shopping malls and
accounted for just over a third of the reg-
became a natural part of the mall on par
istered consumption, beer for 44 per cent
with any other shop. The introduction of
and liquor for 22.
self-service was estimated to increase the
monopoly’s sales by about 10 per cent in
The modernisation of policy
basis for Vinmonopolet
litres of pure alcohol (Horverak 2008).
The emergence of a Norwegian wine culture must be seen in connection with the
Bag-in-box wines and six packs
of beer
much wider availability of wine in Nor-
Equally important was the change on ac-
way. This has happened at two levels. Na-
cess at the micro level. Norway introduced
tionally, Norwegian alcohol policies were
wine in cartons, or bag-in-box wines, in
realigned around 1990. While policy con-
1988. These wines made it possible for the
siderations used to inform decisions on
consumer to buy larger quantities without
whether to establish new Vinmonopolet
having to struggle with heavy bottles. A
stores, the availability of wine and liquor
three-litre carton of wine could be bought
was nominally at least supposed to be re-
in one go, and its lightweight, convenient
stricted. The philosophy dictated a small
container with its own pull-out tap made it
number of wine outlets, where the goods
easy to carry and store. There are many ad-
were sold only over the counter. By the
vantageous practicalities surrounding this
1990s, alcohol policy gave way to a con-
package type. For example, there is no ob-
sumer policy as the basis for establishing
ligation to drink the whole carton at once,
new stores (Horverak 2001). We should
as the wine keeps its flavour even after
not dismiss the influence of the growth in
the box was opened. Bag-in-box wine in-
wine consumption on this realignment.
troduced a new piece of furniture into the
The objective now was to ensure reason-
Norwegian home: a 3-litre stock of easily
ably convenient access to wine and liquor
available wine with a pull-out tap became
for everyone in the country wherever they
almost a standard fixture of a Norwegian
lived.
middle-class kitchen. Often we find the
There was also a desire to avoid queues
20
NORDIC STUDIES ON ALCOHOL AND DRUGS
carton hidden behind some sort of equip-
V O L . 2 9. 2 0 1 2 . 1
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/17/17 4:45 AM
ment that gives it a prettier look. One could
partly prompted by the increased cross-
pour a glass every now and then without
border shopping and smuggling, although
leaving any traces behind. The consumer
the smuggling market had virtually dried
clearly took to the new product, and the
out after bootleg liquor containing metha-
consumption of carton wine positively ex-
nol killed about 20 people in 2002.
ploded. Bottled wine sales grew as well,
but bag-in-box wine sales grew much fast-
The alcopop case
er. In 2009, carton wine accounted for 55
That said, the taxation weapon is still used
per cent of total wine sales.
when feasible, when new products appear
The brewery trade appeared to learn
which the government thinks could en-
from the wine industry, which resulted
courage alcohol abuse. Norway is particu-
in the introduction by Norwegian brew-
larly cautious about products targeting the
eries of the six pack and lowering the
young, which was evident in the case of
prices of canned beer in the 1990s. Beer
introducing alcopops, a sort of soft drink
was now available in consumer packs of
with added alcohol. Alcopop was particu-
six 33 cl. bottles or – even better – six 0.5
larly popular with young girls (Horverak
litres aluminium cans. Beer became more
& Bye 2007). Fear of what the product was
accessible to the consumer, giving people
doing to the younger generation worried
the opportunity to keep a stock of beer at
more or less the whole of Europe, and sev-
home. The new move was not as success-
eral meetings were convened by the EU to
ful for the beer industry as it had been for
decide how to address the looming men-
the wine trade, even though they man-
ace. In Norway, the government turned to
aged to hold the sale of beer per head of
the classic helpmeet whose effectiveness
population around the 1990 level despite
had been tested over many years, and
the enormous rise in wine consumption.
raised the tax on alcopop by 56 per cent
In 2010, canned beer accounted for 75 per
from 2003 to 2004. The effect was immedi-
cent of total retail sales of beer, compared
ate. Within one year, sales had halved and
to 1.4 per cent in 1990.
have stayed at that level ever since.
This favourable turn in the Norwegian
consumption of alcohol – in the sense that
Summing up
growth almost exclusively resulted from a
In the title of this article I ask whether
higher consumption of wine – may have
Norwegian alcohol policies have favoured
encouraged the government to loosen the
beverages with less alcohol over those
reins on taxes on liquor and fortified wine,
with more. By tracing the historical devel-
the two commodities which traditionally
opment I have sought to show that there
have been accompanied by binge drinking
does not appear to be any evidence that
and antisocial behaviour. In 2000, the tax
this has been the case. What has guided
on fortified wine was halved, and forti-
Norwegian alcohol policy throughout
fied wine was subsequently taxed as table
has been to aim the weapon at the drink
wine. The tax on liquor was also cut, first
most likely to cause abuse and antisocial
by 15 per cent in 2002 and then again in
behaviour. It was liquor in the nineteenth
2003 by 9 per cent. The 9-per cent cut was
century, beer when the Bavarian method
Unauthenticated
V O L . 29. 2012 . 1
Download Date | 6/17/17 4:45 AM
NORDIC STUDIES ON ALCOHOL AND DRUGS
21
of making beer gained prominence in the
and 1960s. This policy was undoubtedly
1850s, Laddevin when cheap wine was
why table wine consumption doubled in
fortified with added alcohol in the 1890s,
this period, penetrating the working class
cheap Spanish wine when it threatened
and white collar workers. The policy also
to inundate the Norwegian market while
sent a very strong message about the use
liquor was banned, beer when the young
of wine as something better than the use
people’s consumption rose so rapidly in
of beer and liquor. The days of this con-
the 1970s, and finally alcopop which was
ception of wine as a sophisticated drink
believed to encourage the youngest of the
may be numbered if carton wine tightens
young to start binge drinking.
its grip on the consumption of alcohol in
But at the same time, there has been
an undercurrent in Norwegian alcohol
the homes of the Norwegian middle class
more than it already has.
policy of preaching on behalf of wine,
as its consumption has been seen as a
cultured activity, in contrast to the more
barbaric drinking of beer and liquor. One
Declaration of Interest None.
expression of this undercurrent was the
Øyvind Horverak, senior researcher
Norwegian Institute for Alcohol and
Drug Research
E-mail: [email protected]
commitment of Vinmonopolet and the
government to the very reasonably priced
people’s red wine throughout the 1950s
NOTES
1 Finkel means moonshine of mediocre quality (hooch)
2 The old ale= top fermentation ale; the new
Bavarian beer = bottom fermentation ale
REFERENSER
Alkoholkommisionen (1915): Alkoholkommisionens flertalls “Indstilling til Lov om
salg og skjenking av brennevin, øl, vin,
fruktvin og mjød” (Report of the majority of the Alcohol commission on a law
on the off-licence and on-licence sales of
alcoholic beverages). Kristiania: Steen’ske
bogtrykkeri
Alkoholkommisionen (1915): Alkoholkommissionens indstilling Bilag 2, Vedlegg 1
(Report of the Alcohol commission. Appendix 2. Enclosure 1). Kristiania: Steen’ske
bogtrykkeri
22
NORDIC STUDIES ON ALCOHOL AND DRUGS
Alkoholstatistik (1910): Alkoholstatistik I (Alcohol statistics I). Kristiania: Det statistiske
centralbyraa
Andresen, K.N. (1846): Haandbog i Afholds­
reformens Grundsætninger (Handbook in
the principles of temperance reform). Christiania: P. T. Mallings Forlags-Boghandel
Brun-Gulbrandsen, S. (1976): Alkoholbruk
blant norsk ungdom (The use of alcohol
among Norwegian youth). Oslo: Universitetsforlaget
Fuglum, P. (1999): Et onde avskaffer man!
Arbeiderbevegelsen og alkoholen fra
V O L . 2 9. 2 0 1 2 . 1
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/17/17 4:45 AM
Marcus Thrane til forbudstiden (One has to
do away with an evil! The labour movement and the alcohol question from Marcus
Thrane to the Prohibition). Trondheim:
Historisk institutt, Norges Teknisk-naturvitenskapelige universitet NTNU
Hamran, O. (2011): Vinlandet. Vin i Norge
1920–2000 (The wine country. Wine in
Norway 1920–2000). Oslo: Samlaget
Hauge, R. (1986): Alkoholpolitikken i Norge
(The alcohol policy in Norway). Oslo: Statens Edruskapsdirektorat
Horverak, Ø. (2001): Vinmonopolet – mellom
avholdsbevegelse og måtehold (Vinmonopolet – between teetotalism and temperance). Nordisk alkohol- & narkotikatidskrift
18 (1): 7– 23
Horverak, Ø. (2008): The transition from overthe-counter to self-service sales of alcoholic
beverages in Norwegian monopoly outlets.
Nordic Studies on Alcohol and Drugs 25
(2): 77– 99
Horverak, Ø. & Bye, E.K. (2007): Det norske
drikkemønsteret (The Norwegian drinking
pattern). Rapport nr.2/2007. Oslo: Statens
institutt for rusmiddelforskning, Oslo
http://utgard.hsh.no/segner/Detalj.
php?ID=1436, accessed 11/11/11
Kristiansen, O. (1934): Edruelighedsforhold i
Norge 1814–1848 (Temperance conditions
in Norway 1814–1848). Oslo: Cammermeyers boghandel
Rossow, I. (2007): Trends in alcohol consumption and alcohol-related harms in Norway
around the turn of the millennium. Nordic
Studies on Alcohol and Drugs 24 (Supplement): 61–72
Schwach, C.N. (2008): Erindringer af mit
liv 1790–1830 (Recollections of my life
1790–1830). KA forlag
Tengesdal, P. (2011): Drukningsulykker i
Ørsdalsvatnet (Drowning accidents in Lake
Ørsdal). Aaland gård
Vinmonopolet (1930–2010): Diverse Årsmeldinger for perioden 1930–2010 (Annual
reports, 1930–2010)
Wicklund, E.T. (1925): Bøndene og brenne­
vinsspørsmålet i Norge 1800–1850 (Farmers and the liquor question in Norway
1800–1850). Oslo: Olaf Norlis forlag
Øystå, Ø. (2001): Brygg, brus og bruduljer.
Bryggeri- og mineralvannforeningen i
Norge 100 år (Brew, soft drinks and fuss.
The Norwegian Association of Brewers and
Soft Drinks Producers 100 years). Oslo:
Bryggeri- og mineralforeningen
Aarrestad, S. (1929): Det er rusdrikk-kapitalen
som står iveien for oss (It is the alcohol
capital that obstructs our way). Oslo: Menneskevennen.
Unauthenticated
V O L . 29. 2012 . 1
Download Date | 6/17/17 4:45 AM
NORDIC STUDIES ON ALCOHOL AND DRUGS
23