This is going to sound like I'm over generalizing and maybe even a bit... racist? and I already apologize for it, it's not my intention. I hope I can pass the actual message I'm trying to pass. So, let's go.
Doesn't Finland, like the other Nordic countries, have a long history of alcohol abuse and pushing against it (like, with draconian prices)? Isn't maybe just that policy "winning"? Also, couldn't this be yet another case where the Nordic are seen as "one step beyond" the rest like it was the case when fully digitalizing schools, only then to backpedal realizing it's not all so good and there are drawbacks that were not considered?
I say this to connect with the second part of your post, to which I fully agree: alcohol is not generally good for health and it can be abused but also small quantities here and there won't probably hurt you in a serious way and will give some social benefits like the ones you mentioned. (and the same applied to other light drugs as well!)
I'd say that here in Finland, the decline in alcohol use has more to do with global trends, especially with the younger generations. The problem though is that there has not been any replacement for the social lubrication required here for people to attempt to be social. Purely based on my own experiences, people are less social, go out less, and therefore use less alcohol.
Feels as if the death of religion is followed by the death of bars, restaurants and other places to go out to in the evening, especially after Covid, leaving even fewer places to meet people.
It's true that people up here tend to get very drunk collectively as the evening drags on, which has always bothered me as somebody who doesn't drink alcohol... First everybody's very dry and awkward, then it's fun for an hour or so, and then things start getting over the top and pretty mental. Compared with central Europe, people don't slow down a few glasses in.
But all that is changing as it seems many people just stopped going out at all. So people might drink less alcohol, but I'm not sure that indicates an improvement of mental health or social coherence. The internet is making people lonelier.
From my anecdotal experience in Sweden, I suspect it might have a lot to do with the lasting economic situation since Covid. People do not seem to be able to afford going out or having people over like they used to.
Prices have increased a lot, making the margins even harder to survive on for the majority.
Is it literally hard to survive? Even with a job and statistically nobody having children and a sparsely populated small country? Perhaps it is better to just not have a job and live on government welfare.
If that is unsustainable for the country then eventually something might change. Until then you have to play the hand you're dealt.
“In short, the great disinvitation is real, and we can’t wish or explain it away by arguing that Americans are just finding new ways to be with friends.”
> Doesn't Finland, like the other Nordic countries, have a long history of alcohol abuse and pushing against it (like, with draconian prices)? Isn't maybe just that policy "winning"?
Yes and no; all the Nordic / Lutheran countries have some mildly prohibitionist policies like the Norwegian wine monopoly, and yes it gets very dark and depressing up there which led to alcohol abuse becoming a social problem in the early 20th century, but that situation was stable for years and the decline in alcohol consumption is a global phenomenon.
While the origins may be religious, I'd say the high taxes on alcohol and most alcoholic beverages only being available in state-run shops (Systembolaget/Vinmonopolet/Alko/Vínbúðin) is by now a 100% Nordic phenomenon.
The most interesting situation is actually in Iceland: full prohibition introduced 1915, wine legalized 1922, all other beverages legalized 1935 except for (of all things) beer with more than 2.25% ABV, which had to wait until 1 March 1989 (since then celebrated as "Beer Day") - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_Iceland
Ah, ok, that's interesting! I have been to the US three times, and was aware that there are still some counties with complete prohibition, but wasn't aware of this particular quirk. But, even from that list, it's hard to tell which states sell alcoholic beverages only in state-operated stores (similar to the Nordic states), and which license private stores to sell them (which is common throughout the world, but of course more restrictive in some places than in others).
Most states still have very strange laws around alcohol due to the aftermath of prohibition.
I grew up in NY where beer cannot be sold in liquor stores, but can be sold in grocery stores. But grocery stores can only sell beer that is less than 6% ABV so any beer that is higher ABV can only be sold directly by breweries or by beer distributors.
Right next store in NJ, beer is only sold in liquor stores and for the longest time breweries could not legally sell you beer for on-site consumption so a bunch of breweries got around this by offering a $5 tour and as a part of the tour you were given a glass of beer.
I live close to a city that only allows city-owned liquor stores, Eden Prairie MN. But it's trivial to drive to the next city over and shop wherever you want.
Alcoholism was a huge problem if you go back several 100 of years where home distillation was rampant, and there is indeed regulation and taxes to control it in Denmark. You can ask an LLM for more details. It's just not done the way say Sweden does it.
Finland's alcoholism-curbing policies date from the early twentieth century and the kind of abuse they were meant to curb was especially the drinking of spirits. Then, nothing changed for decades until, quite recently, beer sales have actually become more liberalized and you can buy higher-strength stuff in supermarkets.
Finland definitely has a history of binge drinking and straight up alcoholism. However, I don't think the state can take credit for consumption going down, since the decline in drinking among younger generations seems pretty much global at this point.
Exactly, the younger generations just stay at home, on the internet. So social drinking has mostly disappeared. Those that really want to get totally drunk probably still do though.
My impression is that decline can mostly be attributed to gen Z. They grew up with social media that made a better point to emphasis how dangerous alcohol is. Previous dominant media, at most, had very sterile disclaimers that alcohol is bad for you.
Romania has seen a similar decline in consumption (though still in top 3 across EU in consumption), such as that nowadays we have articles from media outlets (as a voice for the industry) that complain of the downward trend. While in reality we should be celebrating this change in culture!
Of course we should be, but the line went down, therefore we need 600 think-pieces attempting to shame us for caring for our health.
Wife and I used to be avid drinkers but with the expansion of legal cannabis, it's just not as good of an option. I'll still make myself a negroni or an old fashioned on occasion, just because they're delicious, but I haven't drank-to-get-drunk in YEARS. If I'm actually trying to unwind (and who isn't given the sheer STATE of our world!) I'm spoiled for choices of substances that both don't interact with my depression nearly as badly as alcohol and, as a bonus, don't make me gain weight like an inflation fetish character.
The alcohol industry won spectacularly for decades a game of public policy and image where alcohol, a substance connected to industrial quantities of human death and suffering, was somehow the "accepted and normal" way to get fucked up when you wanted to be, even though again, numerous alternatives existed that were better for you. They're going to go through a similar process to tobacco I think, which is to say: it'll still be around, but it will shrink to an industry sized appropriately for the actual demand of it's product.
In the US Gen Z doesn't drink because of social isolation. Drinking was always a social thing and drinking alone has a stigma associated with it. Also, THC use has become much more socially acceptable and that has replaced a lot of alcohol use.
Gen Z still parties and socializes, but their parties are constantly recorded and posted on social media. There's much higher stakes to getting wasted and making a fool out of yourself in the panopticon.
It is a generational thing, but IMO you've got the wrong root cause. Discussion of the dangers of drinking stems from people choosing not to drink, and people are choosing not to drink because they are attending the kinds of social gatherings that are lubricated by alcohol less.
As such, I'm hesitant to point to the decline in alcohol sales as a public health win. If people were drinking less simply because they were choosing to drink less, that's probably a public health win. If people are drinking less because their social lives have evaporated, that's probably really bad.
Your factors are real, but I think both elements are at play. I admit I could be biased as I see gen Z as more disciplined, locked in, from gyms to lifestyle.
Socialisation, or lack thereof, is a great problem for many people and newer generations raised "online", when you get for free at home endless social media distraction.
But even the 20 year olds I've met in bars were likely to stop drinking way sooner than us milenials, which still get plastered, at least on special occasions.
the article also explicitly called out that boomers aging out of the market is a driving factor.
its easy to forget just how freakishly large that cohort is and how they are all steeped in alcohol as the primary way to an altered state.
As they get too old to drink for various health reasons it makes sense that california wine especially would take the hit because boomers also have all the money so they are the ones buying fancy wine.
the younger gens not backfilling the demand contributes but it was never going to be at boomer levels anyway.
Get ready for a lot more stories like this as boomers stop doing all kinds of things... traveling, buying cars etc.
Their statement was appropriately hedged. They didn't claim small amounts were harmless, just that it wouldn't hurt in a "serious" way. Your rush to "um actually" someone meant you missed what was being said and "um actually"'d a statement that existed only in your mind. Anyway...
Everyone's threshold for "serious" harm is different.
For adult men, if you drink fewer than 15 drinks per week but greater than zero, the expected decrease of average lifespan is measured in months not years. Obviously more than zero. Is that "serious" enough to not partake? Up to each person.
I have an anecdotal situation dealing with dementia ridden parents from chronic drinking. And similar with grandparents. My risk tolerance is zero for alcohol. besides the lifespan being reduced: quality of life tanks off of a fucking cliff, dragging everyone you love and who loves you down there too.
Sorry to hear that, but your experiences aren't universal. Absolutism is a sensible option especially if there's been problems in the family. It's not the only sensible option for everyone.
Doesn't Finland, like the other Nordic countries, have a long history of alcohol abuse and pushing against it (like, with draconian prices)? Isn't maybe just that policy "winning"? Also, couldn't this be yet another case where the Nordic are seen as "one step beyond" the rest like it was the case when fully digitalizing schools, only then to backpedal realizing it's not all so good and there are drawbacks that were not considered?
I say this to connect with the second part of your post, to which I fully agree: alcohol is not generally good for health and it can be abused but also small quantities here and there won't probably hurt you in a serious way and will give some social benefits like the ones you mentioned. (and the same applied to other light drugs as well!)