Prohibition in Norway

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Prohibition in Norway began in 1914 because of the First World War with the ban on the sale and serving of liquor or brandy ( Norwegian : brennevin ) and also forbade the beer brewing and spirits from grain and potatoes. Prohibition was finally introduced as Brennevinsforbudet ( German : Branntweinverbot) in December 1916. While the additionally tightening Hetvinsforbud (" Südwein ban") of 1917 was abolished again in 1923, the Norwegian government did not formally repeal the Brennevinsforbud until 1927 after a referendum on the continuation of prohibition. The bans dominated Norway's parliamentary policy to such an extent that two right-wing governments and one left-wing government had to resign.

prehistory

Already in the 19th century the ban on alcohol was called for on various occasions. Storting s delegates like Anton Martin Schweigaard and Frederik Stang worked eloquently for prohibition during this time. In the early 20th century, alcohol consumption was seen as a major social problem. Many Norwegians were therefore associated with the total abstinence movement, which in 1913 already had 247,000 followers, which corresponded to ten percent of the Norwegian population at the time. Through regional referendums, the movement achieved the nationwide introduction of local alcohol bans and thus approached its goal of a society without alcohol, until in 1913 there were only twelve cities that still allowed sales and serving.

Beginning of prohibition

During the outbreak of the First World War in August 1914, a provisional ban on spirits and strong wine was introduced in Norway, originally justified by the precarious supply situation, but the abstinence efforts later came to the fore after the restrictions were eased in the first year of the war.

By resolution of the Norwegian Parliament, the Storting , the government introduced the Brennevinsforbud in December 1916. This ban on spirits was initially a medium-term ban that was linked to the Christmas and New Year celebrations during the war. Even before the Storting wanted to repeal the Brennevinsforbud in early 1917, the police officers from the three largest Norwegian cities of Oslo , Trondheim and Bergen turned to parliament and asked for the prohibition to continue. The Storting then not only extended the ban on trading in spirits, but followed with a ban on class three (May 25, 1917 to October 1920) and two (June 28, 1917 to June 1919) and a ban on southern wine (from June 28, 1917).

Referendum in 1919

At the end of the First World War, the reasons for the ban ceased to exist. The supply crisis had subsided and Norway experienced a brief upswing. As a result, on Sunday, October 5th and Monday, October 6th, 1919, a referendum was held on the “legal anchoring for the permanent ban on the production, importation and sales of spirits and strong wine” (lovfestet varig forbud mot tilvirkirkning, innførsel og omsetning av Brennevin og sterk vin) held. The 794,000 votes cast corresponded to a turnout of 66.2%. In the vote there was a clear majority in favor of continuing the ban on the trade in spirits and southern wine. Alcohol for medical, scientific and technical use was excluded.

  • 489,017 votes or 61.6 percent were in favor of the ban.
  • 304,673 votes or 38.4 percent were against the ban.

There was great approval in Vestlandet , Sørlandet and Northern Norway . Approval was highest in Møre og Romsdal (88%) and Rogaland , and lowest in central Østlandet (Oslo 21%).

Problems with trading partners

In the meantime, prohibition raised questions of trade policy rather than social policy. There were long and difficult contract negotiations with the wine-producing countries in southern Europe. Wine and spirits producers in France , Spain and Portugal feared not only a loss of income on the Norwegian market, but also the tendencies towards abstinence that were widespread across Europe. These countries, which sold southern wine and spirits to Norway, were also one of the main buyers of Norwegian fish. They reacted to the ban with high tariffs, so that fish exports to these countries almost came to a standstill. This was one of the main reasons why the economic situation in Norway deteriorated significantly after 1920. Nevertheless, in the autumn of 1921, the Storting passed a permanent prohibition law with a narrow majority.

All wine countries demanded that Norway should continue to import roughly the same amount of spirits and southern wine as before the war, despite the ban. France insisted on a quota of 400,000 liters per year, Spain on 500,000 liters and Portugal on 850,000 liters. The negotiations with France made relatively good progress, because the French were more interested in the export of light table wines than spirits, and table wines were outside the ban in Norway. 400,000 liters of alcohol could also be used for medical purposes. But Spain increased tariffs on Norwegian goods by 50% in 1921 and kept the pressure on for most of the year until the Norwegian government relented. From the autumn of 1921, Portugal even waged an even tougher trade war until the southern wine ban was finally lifted in 1923. Practically all Norwegian exports to Portugal had been stopped beforehand and the Portuguese ports were closed to Norwegian ships.

Government crises

Johan Ludwig Mowinckel in a recording from 1924: His government reached the end of the Brennevinsforbud.

It turned out that it was impossible to protect both Norwegian trade interests and the ban. The general distrust in the negotiating abilities of the Norwegian government was the basis for the fall of the right-wing government of Høyre in June 1921. The post of state minister was taken over by a left-wing veteran Otto Albert Blehr . But the negotiations with Spain and France did not go any better and Otto Blehr's government fell in March 1923 when it tried to give in to Portugal's demand for 850,000 liters. A new right-wing government under Otto Bahr Halvorsen followed . The escaped the quota demands, as it led the Storting to lift the southern wine ban and thus open the market for the free import of goods from Spain and Portugal. Otto B. Halvorsen died a few months after taking up his second term as Minister of State, but the government continued under Abraham Berge's leadership . This government proposed that the Brennevinsforbud should also be lifted without a referendum, but failed in the summer of 1924. When Johan Ludwig Mowinckel formed a left-wing government after Berg's fall, he advocated another referendum to abolish the ban. It was not until the latter's first government that the Brennevinsforbud disappeared from Norwegian politics in 1927.

Establishment of the Vinmonopolet

Before the Brennevinsforbud was introduced, alcohol was sold through the so-called samlaget . These were alcohol sales outlets with a municipal concession, the surplus of which was earned for the benefit of general benefit work. When the ban on spirits was introduced, the question quickly arose of how the trade in light wine that was within the legal framework could be controlled. The abstinence movement demanded that the import and sale should be taken to the municipal Samlag, which could then be shut down through regional coordination.

Opponents of the ban, on the other hand, demanded that the future trade in beer and wine throughout the country be secured. The Norwegian trading partners were concerned that sales of wine could be hindered by local regulations. As a kind of compromise, partly based on the model of the Swedish Systembolaget , the establishment of a monopoly sale via a private joint-stock company was decided, albeit under state control. The so-called Vinmonopolet (German: the wine monopoly) was established on November 30, 1922 with sales outlets in all major cities.

Repeal of the Hetvinsforbud

Old beer loader from the Norwegian brewery Macks Ølbryggeri

The establishment of the Vinmonopolets was not enough to prevent the export problems of the fish industry. In addition, the ban on class two and three beer made it difficult for breweries to do business, and Norway's newfound sovereignty of 1905 proved too weak against France, Spain and Portugal's trade pressures. These reasons, along with a number of other problems, finally led to the abandonment of the particularly restrictive Hetvinsforbud in 1923.

Consequences of the ban

In addition to the trade and brewing problems, Prohibition was accompanied by a number of unfavorable side effects:

smuggling

The bans resulted in widespread liquor smuggling. Especially along the coasts in the south, a short distance from Denmark or Sweden, smugglers established themselves in the ports and took over the further distribution of the goods. The value of the contraband is estimated at 50 to 60 million Norwegian kroner annually. In contrast, only 600,000 liters of spirits were confiscated in 1923. The smuggling traffic was associated with dangers, which led to several accidents, including fatal ones.

Illicit distillery and wine stocks

Prohibition led across the country to a strong flourishing of illicit still . In addition, it became increasingly popular to buy wine for personal use in advance. The ban on strong alcoholic beverages increased the consumption of beer and light wine.

Liquor doctors

Alcohol on prescription had a long tradition in medicine, and many doctors made writing prescriptions a profitable business, as the fee per prescription was five crowns. During prohibition, most Norwegian doctors recognized alcohol as having medicinal benefits that research had already disproved. It was allowed to buy spirits and “Südwein” for medical use on prescription from a doctor, dentist or veterinarian, something that was little controlled in the first year of the ban. Some so-called "schnapps doctors" (Brennevinsdoktorer) issued over 10,000 prescriptions every year. A later convicted doctor from Trondheim named Michael Kirchberger held the record with 48,657 in one year. In 1923, for example, 1.8 million such prescriptions were issued in Norway. That corresponded to 0.8 liters of pure alcohol per inhabitant or approx. 12% of the alcohol sales in today's Norway. The terms rumpesprit ( "Popo liquor") or doctor sprit originate in this time and refer to medically prescribed alcohol to disinfect , which is nevertheless also drinkable. When the prescription law was tightened in the fall of 1923, the sale of medical alcohol dropped significantly and smuggling became even more widespread.

Social differences and health problems

Another unforeseen consequence was that the bans led to greater problems for the poor than for the rich, as the poor had to make do with poor quality alcoholic goods, some of which contained ingredients that are harmful to health, such as methanol.

Controls and prison terms

The widespread smuggling and illegal burning led to the state having to intensify customs controls and police investigations. Likewise, drunkenness rose to 18 cases per 1,000 population in 1923, compared with 11 to 12 cases later in the 1930s and only 9 cases after World War II . During the prohibition period, the newly emerging crime caused a sharp increase in prison sentences.

Referendum in 1926 and repeal of the Brennevinsforbud

As more and more disadvantages of prohibition became apparent, a new referendum was held on Monday, October 18, 1926. 954,000 votes were cast, which corresponds to a voter turnout of 64.3%. This time there was a clear majority against the continuation of the ban.

  • 423,031 votes or 44.3 percent were in favor of continuing the Brennevinsforbud.
  • 531,084 votes or 55.7 percent were against a continuation of the ban.

The results of the voting were quite different in different parts of the country. While in Oslo only 13% voted for a continuation of the ban, the approval for prohibition in the province of Møre og Romsdal was 77.2%.

With the referendum in the background, the Brennevinsforbud was abolished by law on April 15, 1927. The regulation of imports and sales via the Vinmonopolet was retained.

References

See also

literature

  • Per Fuglum: Brennevinsforbudet i Norge. Tapir akademisk forlag, Trondheim 1995, ISBN 82-519-1414-0 .
  • Olav Hamran, Christine Myrvang: Fiin gammel. Vinmonopolet 75 år. Tano-Aschehoug, Oslo 1998, ISBN 82-518-3738-3 ( Priority 3).
  • Per Ole Johansen: The illegal spray. Fra forbudstid til police strike. Unipub, Oslo 2004, ISBN 82-7477-174-5 .
  • Knut Mykland (Ed.): Norges Historie. Volume 13: Edvard Bull: Klassekamp og Fellesskap (1920–1945). JW Cappelens Forlag AS, Oslo 1979, ISBN 82-02-03447-7 .
  • Knut Mykland (Ed.): Norges Historie. Volume 12: Per Fuglum: Norge i Støpeskjeen, (1884–1920). JW Cappelens Forlag AS, Oslo 1978, ISBN 82-02-03445-0 .
  • Arthur Omre : Smuglere. Novel. Gyldendal, Oslo 1935 (new edition. Gyldendal, Oslo 1999, ISBN 82-05-26258-6 ).
  • Birger Sivertsen: Storsmuglerne på Frøya. An illegal history of Brennevin, oppfinnsomhet and overlevelse. 2nd Edition. Cappelen Damm, Oslo 2008, ISBN 978-82-04-13785-2 .

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ a b c Knut Are Tvedt in the Norske Leksikon store: brennevinsforbud  ( page no longer available , search in web archives )  Info: The link was automatically marked as defective. Please check the link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. , accessed May 12, 2010@1@ 2Template: Dead Link / lexprod.bokklubbene.no  
  2. ↑ Øystein Sørensen: Anton Martin Schweigaard In Norsk biografisk leksikon
  3. ↑ Paul Thyness: Frederik Stang In Norsk biografisk leksikon
  4. ↑ Fuglum: Brennevinsforbudet i Norge , pages 96 and 451
  5. ↑ Fuglum: Brennevinsforbudet i Norge , pp 97 and 451
  6. ^ Arbeidsdepartementet NOU 1995: 24 Alcohol Politics i endring? Chapter 3.2, first section, accessed on May 12, 2010
  7. ^ Lawson, Ellen: Smugglers, Bootleggers, and Scofflaws, New York 2013, p. 78
  8. ↑ In 2005, 6.37 liters of pure alcohol were consumed per inhabitant in Norway. See Helsedirektoratet: Alcoholforbruk i Norge ( Memento of the original of June 21, 2011 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link has been inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. , accessed May 12, 2010 @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.helsedirektoratet.no
  9. ↑ Fuglum: Brennevinsforbudet i Norge , p 540
  10. ↑ Statistisk sentralbyrå (SSB): Folkeavstemninger , accessed on May 12, 2010