Printer Friendly

Moral regulation of public space and drinking in the media and legislation in Finland.

At the beginning of 1995, well-mannered public drinking was permitted in Finland. Contrary to expectations, this liberalization did not result in the civilizing of drinking habits. It brought public boozing, public urination, and street violence. In the article we examine to what extent public drinking has been perceived as a threat to public order in the media and in the parliamentary debate on the Act on Public Order (612/2003). The regulation of public space by the media and Parliament is approached as moral regulation. The analysis reveals that the moral regulation of public space was directed particularly to young people both in the media and in Parliament. The regulation techniques identified include community policing, substance abuse prevention, and the new Act on Public Order. The dominating perspectives of moral regulation were those of publicity, the police, and the protection of the freedom of the middle classes by Rightists.


In the United States and in different parts of Europe, public space is today perceived to be afflicted by problems of public order and safety. Especially increases in asocial or criminal behavior in public or semipublic spaces, such as streets, city centers, commercial centers and parks, have been viewed as a threat (Hope & Parks, 2000; Matthews & Pitts, 2001). Ericson and Haggerty (1997) propose that the crisis of public space and the increasing risks to public safety therein can be explained by the individualization of society. The more people withdraw from the public and collective life into the private sphere and the more they value individual lifestyles, the more they are afraid of other people and see them as strangers and faceless others. According to Bauman (1999: 52), in a society that favors consumption, we readily interpret threatening others as restrictions on our freedom of choice and regard it as necessary to intervene in their behavior. Be it tobacco smoke in a public space, street prostitution, or misbehavior by young people in open areas, these are all dealt with in the same way as criminological issues by resorting to law and order.

Lifting the ban on public drinking in Finland in early 1995 and the resultant crisis of public space offer an interesting case for analyzing the extent to which public space is today viewed as a problem and what attempts are being made to regulate disturbances in public space. The presumption was that permitting public drinking would promote informal social regulation of drinking and have a civilizing influence on Finns so that their drinking habits would become more similar to those elsewhere in Europe. This was not what happened, though. On the contrary, boozing in parks and city centers and on streets became more common. Many cities responded to this by banning public drinking by means of a local ordinance. This, in turn, gave rise to lively discussions in the media as to whether such local ordinances were in conflict with the existing legislation, whether the police could apply them to regulate public space, and whether they subjected citizens to unequal treatment. The media, legal scholars, authorities and politicians started to see local ordinances as a problem, as a result of which preparations for new national-level legislation--that is, a new Act on Public Order--got under way.

We explore in our article how public drinking was defined as a problem of public order and safety by the media and in the Finnish Parliament. As for the media, our data consist of the alcohol-related editorials published in six different newspapers in 1993-2000. For Parliament, in turn, the parliamentary debate on the Act on Public Order with the related committee reports and opinions is analyzed. First, we present an analysis of how in the media public drinking was made a moral concern and a threat to public order and safety. Second, we analyze the ways in which this threat was dealt with during the legislative process of the new Act on Public Order in Finland. The bill was introduced to Parliament in March 2002, passed in February 2003, and took effect in October 2003 (612/2003).

The history of public intoxication and public drinking in the eyes of the legislators and the media

Legislation on drinking in public has a long history in Finland. As early as 1686, an assembly of the representatives of the estates drew attention to the growing problem of binge drinking as a result of an increasing use of alcohol. For the first time, the question of public drinking was inscribed in law in 1733. That year a decree, mainly advocated by the clergy, came into effect that made public intoxication subject to punishment, which varied from fines to several months' imprisonment (Tuominen, 1981: 17-19). During the Russian rule the penal scale in case of repeated public drinking offenses was tightened. Anyone who was caught drinking in public three times was not only fined but also put in the stocks on Sunday. The fourth offense could lead to six months' forced labor, and the fifth time to 12 months' forced labor (Tuominen, 1981: 29). In the late 19th century, provisions on public drinking were updated by the Penal Code (39/1889), which took effect in 1894. The new Penal Code provided that intoxication in public was punishable by a fine (Tuominen, 1981). In this form the decree remained in force until 1921, when it was replaced by a stricter provision in the Penal Code, drafted in the spirit of the Prohibition Act (1919-1932). This stricter provision increased the number of arrests for drunkenness. Moreover, an increasing proportion of those arrested for public intoxication were imprisoned, as they preferred imprisonment to fines (Alkoholikomiteat 1926-1931: 38-39).

In the 1931 referendum the Prohibition Act was abolished, and the Alcohol Act permitting the sale of alcohol came into force on 5 April 1932. Although the Alcohol Act was very comprehensive, it did not contain any explicit provisions on drinking or intoxication in public places. As a consequence,; the earlier provisions on public intoxication contained in the Penal Code remained in force in Finland until the beginning of 1969, when they were abolished by the new Alcohol Act (459/1968). One justification for abolishing the provisions on public intoxication was that the disturbance and nuisance caused by intoxication were seen as a minor disadvantage compared with the costs and tragedies that the enforcement of intoxication punishments entailed to society and citizens (Paihtyneiden kasittelyn ..., 1969). Although public intoxication was no longer considered an offense subject to the Penal Code in Finland after 1969, the ban on public drinking remained in force.

While the 1970s and 1980s were largely an uneventful period from the perspective of the regulation of public drinking, the 1990s marked a turning point in the situation. In 1995 Finland became a member of the European Union (EU), and since then the alcohol policy system has been substantially liberalized, as the following list states:

* In 1995 the monopolies on production, import, export, and wholesaling of alcoholic beverages were abolished.

* In 1995 regulations for alcohol advertisements were liberalized.

* The availability of alcohol through retail sales has been considerably increased as the number of monopoly shops grew and the opening hours were extended in the end of 1990s and at the beginning of 2000. Nowadays beer, cider and "alcopops" are also sold in (almost) all grocery stores, gas stations and kiosks.

* The prices of alcoholic beverages were dramatically decreased due to a tax cut in March 2004 and the import restrictions of alcoholic beverages within the EU were abolished.

* Well-mannered public drinking was decriminalized in 1995 but partly recriminalized in 2003.

* To get a license to run a pub or a restaurant became much easier. From 1995 to 2003 the number of fully licensed establishments rose from 3,500 to 5,300. Their opening hours were extended.

The liberalization of the alcohol policy system and the permittance of public drinking should be seen against the backdrop of the liberal breakthrough in the climate of public opinion. Liberalization of alcohol policy was demanded in the major Finnish newspapers as early as the 1950s, claiming that alcohol problems were caused by the bans imposed by the government. Further, it was argued that with a more liberal alcohol policy, alcohol would no longer been seen as a mythical "forbidden fruit" and would allow scope for everyday informal regulation of alcohol use (Piispa, 1981, 130). Although this type of liberalistic argument represented a strong trend in the press until the 1990s, there was variation in its visibility relative to other forms of alcohol regulation. For example, the press still accepted the need for a restrictive alcohol policy in the 1970s: Freedom was seen to be subordinate to public health. In the late 1980s, however, the situation changed: The press increasingly started to deal with alcohol issues as a liberation struggle by citizens and consumers against the government and the alcohol system that restricted access to alcohol (Piispa, 1991: 46-55). In the 1990s, there was growing criticism against restrictive policy, and in the mid-1990s, when the Alcohol Act was being relaxed, the criticism was very sharp.

Public space and moral regulation

In our article, we see public space as an area toward which people can orient themselves in different ways and which, depending on the context, can form part of different semantic worlds, political struggles, and regulation efforts (cf. Kopomaa, 1997: 38). In the regulation of public space, there is a struggle for meaning going on in all key arenas in society: in the media, in Parliament, among authorities, and in civil society. In this article we focus on the role of the media and legislation in the regulation of public space and public drinking.

The media as such offer the broadest possible public space for different societal actors to convene around issues of common interest (Crossley, 1996: 169). In media publicity, the core values of an ever-changing culture are being constructed, classified, and made visible (McQuail, 1994). On the basis of the daily supply of information by the mass media, citizens, authorities and policy-makers are able to assess the frequency of any problems they encounter and to make choices that they think will contribute to eliminating such problems.

The media are an important arena for the legitimization of social problems (Blumer, 1971). Legislation, in turn, can be seen to represent a stage where an issue has already been firmly established as a problem by the public, and an official program is being drafted to address it (Blumer, 1971; see also Hakkarainen, 2004: 260-263). Looking at this stage will reveal what kinds of interests are involved in the definition of official interventions, what kinds of compromises are made in formulating them, and which groups manage to get their agenda through in the struggle.

We analyze the role of the media and Parliament in the regulation of public space and public drinking as moral regulation. The concept of moral regulation originates with, e.g., Corrigan and Sayer (1985). They see it as an activity where the state or the governing classes make efforts to establish the social order that is favorable to them and the social identities supporting it as natural and normal. As such, the definition is unnecessarily narrow, and it has been criticized by Ruonavaara (1998: 46): First, for confining the exercise of moral regulation to those in power and linking moral regulation to state formation; second, the definition only draws attention to a state of affairs where the governing classes try to persuade the subordinate classes to adopt their own view of a civilized way of life.

We define moral regulation as an activity that can be concerned with several different actors' competing moral-regulation efforts, positionings, alliances and conflicts (Ruonavaara, 1998: 46). Essential in moral regulation is that it is concerned with the regulation of behavior and behavior-related needs, desires, choices, aspirations and beliefs (Dean, 1999). In the analysis of moral regulation it is important to note (1) what matters are identified as the object of regulation and how these matters are categorized as a problem, (2) what kind of goals and techniques (tools) are used in order to regulate the problematic area, and (3) what kind of identities those acting as the subjects of moral regulation and those being the objects of moral regulation are expected to have (Torronen, 2004; cf. Dean, 1999: 18-33).

To begin with, we focus on the press, and then turn to analyzing legislation. More specifically, the questions directing our analysis are as follows: What kind of problem of public space was public drinking defined to constitute in the press and in the legislative process? What group or groups were categorized as the objects of regulation? What were the regulation techniques advocated by different actors for governing public drinking? What rights, capabilities and responsibilities were produced for regulation authorities and the objects of regulation? What were the definitions of target groups, regulation techniques, and actor positionings that gained a dominant position in the press and in the legislative process?

Exacerbation of public drinking into a problem of public order in the press

In the press analysis, the data consisted of all alcohol-related editorials published in the following six newspapers, 1993-2000: Aamulehti, Etela-Saimaa, Helsingin Sanomat, Iltalehti, Ilta-Sanomat, and Kauppalehti (1) (cf. Torronen, 2003). The data thus comprised 280 editorials. The following table contains counts of the objects, subjects, goals and techniques of moral regulation as presented in the editorials. It shows what kind of turns or shifts took place in the objects, goals and techniques of moral regulation in 1993-2000. In addition, the table shows whom the demands were directed at: who were obliged to intervene to eliminate or alleviate problems.

In 1993-1997, the predominant element of moral regulation was the tension between individual freedom and the state (see table). As defined in the newspapers, the object of moral regulation was the state. According to them, the restrictive alcohol policy of the state had a suppressing effect on the free functioning of the market, prevented consumers from exercising their freedom of choice, and infringed on the autonomy of citizens. To remedy the situation, the newspapers required that policymakers and authorities should make the alcohol policy more liberal. They argued that the public sector should be pushed out of the domain of consumption by using techniques such as allowing the sale of wines in shops, liberalizing the Alcohol Act, lifting import bans, and reducing alcohol taxes. (2)

In 1999-2000, however, the dominant position of the discourse in favor of the liberalization of alcohol was broken, and problems of order and safety in public space came to the fore. At the same time, shifts took place in the object and techniques of moral regulation. Criticism against the paternalistic state was replaced by concerns over the irresponsibility of young people and the lack of personal safety in public space. In place of techniques promoting individual freedom, the press started to advocate techniques that tightened control, making demands for the allocation of new resources for the policing of public drinking, and speaking up for new partnership programs.

For the first time, the problems of public drinking were dealt with in the press as early as August 1995. Helsingin Sanomat then defined the problem as follows:

Freedom has its limits (HS 2.8.1995)

In the first flush of freedom a sense of responsibility and good manners tend to be forgotten. This summer we have suffered from the adverse effects of the irresponsible use of alcohol in several different contexts. According to the new Alcohol Act, effective from the beginning of this year, sipping of alcoholic drinks in public places is no longer prohibited. Accordingly, one is allowed to enjoy the contents of one's own bottle of wine, beer or spirits in the streets, market places and parks without any interference from the police. It seems, though, that certain groups of young people, as well as some other people, have failed to realize that it is not appropriate to consume alcohol everywhere and that intoxication is no excuse for bad behavior. The law prohibits boozing if it disturbs public order.

It is offensive and inappropriate to make noise in places where other people go for peace and quiet. Going on a drinking spree in the graveyard and around the church, as in Pori and Kotka, is a disturbance that certainly calls for police intervention. At least this is not prevented by law unless the police authorities interpret the new provisions too broadly. It is a complete failure in the keeping of public order if a gang of drunks is allowed to party freely in the playground or to terrorize other park users.

Fortunately, not all experiences of the new, more liberal alcohol policy have been negative. Many cities have managed to avoid problems, and in some summer events disorderly conduct was clearly less frequent than the summer before. Instead of tightening the alcohol legislation, the National Product Control Agency for Welfare and Health could devise ways of reducing the corollaries of the period of transition, emphasizing, in collaboration with other authorities, that there are always limits to freedom.

Although Helsingin Sanomat recognized that permitting public drinking had caused disturbances in public space, it did not want to start advocating restrictions on individual freedom. The newspaper's interpretation was that these disturbances were due to the first flush of freedom, which would certainly abate and even out as people got used to the freedom. In place of stricter provisions, the newspaper saw the police as the appropriate moral regulator of the problem, although they had recently been too lenient in maintaining order, allowing some youth groups and bunches of drunks to terrorize public space. In addition, Helsingin Sanomat suggested that the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health should devise alcohol policy tools to strengthen citizens' own responsibility for their conduct.

Helsingin Sanomat thus stuck to the liberalistic freedom perspective in the moral regulation of public space and related disturbances. Similarly, Etela-Saimaa looked in 1995 at the problems of public order from the liberalistic perspective, objecting to any tightening of provisions. In the editorial "The new Alcohol Act gave rise to an endless debate" (ES 2.8.1995), the newspaper portrayed the state in a paternalistic role, ready to limit citizens' freedom wherever there was even the slightest possibility to do so: "We could have guessed it. Citizens have hardly been given the right to enjoy alcohol in public places, like drinking wine when having a picnic in the park, when officials at the National Product Control Agency for Welfare and Health are already busy considering the reintroduction of the ban into the new Alcohol Act." According to the editorial writer, drinking in public hasn't got out of hand and is not becoming a problem. If problems should occur, "the most advisable course of action is to agree on rules by updating local ordinances based on local expertise" instead of drawing on the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health's inadequate understanding of local circumstances.

In 1995 and 1996, Aamulehti was the only paper that regarded public drinking as something else than a necessary corollary of freedom. The freedom perspective (see table), though, seemed to dominate the public debate to such an extent that even if Aamulehti advocated forbidding disruptive public drinking by local ordinance, it underlined that it was against all narrow-mindedness (AL 13.1.1996).

After 1996, the heated debate on public drinking wound down for several years, until in the summer of 1999 Helsingin Sanomat, Ilta-Sanomat, Aamulehti, and Iltalehti reassessed the situation. Helsingin Sanomat wrote in the summer of 1999 as follows:

Development of social control against public drinking should be speeded up. After all, liberalization did not bring about civilization. (HS 18.6.1999)

Unfortunately, no major turn toward more civilized drinking habits is noticeable, although by the end of this year, five years will have passed since the lifting of the ban on public drinking. Quite the opposite, the consequences are getting worse. Passers-by need to avoid rowdy beer drinkers not only at suburban railway stations but also in Esplanadi Park in downtown Helsinki. After weekends and folk festivals, pedestrian underpasses and other walkways stink of human urine. The most serious concern is that children more and more often follow the example they get from their environment and drink to a state of life-threatening alcohol poisoning. Although minors are not allowed by law to buy, possess or enjoy alcoholic beverages, the police seem to be impotent in a climate of general liberalism.

This excerpt shows that Helsingin Sanomat is faltering in its belief in the story line of liberalization. Disappointment in the course of events, however, did not result in the paper giving up its liberalism. Rather, it adjusted its liberalistic attitude when reassessing the situation. As the consequences were getting worse rather than better, irrespective of the time given for informal social control to develop, the paper considered that the tightening of legislation could be regarded as falling within moral regulation. Nevertheless, Helsingin Sanomat suggested that the authorities should amend the legislation in such a way that it "allows well-behaved citizens to have a glass at an outdoor concert, but does not prevent those who maintain public order from being able to remove drunk and rowdy individuals who are causing a disturbance" (op. cit.). In other words, the middle classes were to be given the freedom to express themselves, whereas limits needed to be set for those who did not behave well: "Young people in particular need to be given a clear signal that they are cared for, as well as having limits to freedom" (op. cit.).

Ilta-Sanomat also saw that the liberalization of alcohol policy had led to undesired consequences: "Hardly anyone moving around in downtown Helsinki at weekends can avoid meeting boozing children barely over ten" (IS 12.3.1999). In summer 1999, the paper wrote how a number of cities fed up with public drinking had drawn up a variety of local ordinances to prohibit it. According to the paper, "prohibiting the use of alcohol through local ordinances is [however] a mere pandering to conscience by decision-makers rather than an instance of decision-making leading to a change as long as public drinking is permitted by the Alcohol Act. An act is always superior to a local ordinance, and the under-resourced police are so busy chasing after lawbreakers that they won't put much effort into shepherding 'ordinance breakers.' This contradiction will be eliminated if Parliament prohibits drinking in public places by law. It is only then that the police are properly authorized to intervene" (IS 18.6.1999). Iltalehti wrote in a similar vein (e.g., IL 16.6.1999). Aamulehti and Etela-Saimaa also started to speak for a new Act on Public Order, proposing that it should be drafted so as to allow the police to intervene in disruptive drinking in particular, as opposed to civilized drinking at picnics (ES 6.9. 2000; AL 22.1.2000).

On approving stronger interventions by the public sector in public drinking, the press not only demanded that authorities and policy-makers should draft a new Act on Public Order to strengthen the powers of the police. It also motivated the public sector to collaborate with parents, voluntary organizations, and market actors in order to implement substance-abuse prevention activities for reducing drinking among teenagers and young people. In this context, poor parenting was recognized as a problem, and the blame was placed on parents as moral regulators.

Lack of parental responsibility (AL 19.10.1997)

It is strange that parents do not awaken to what is happening to their children. They seem to tolerate young people's drinking almost indefinitely, without intervening. Do such parental attitudes reflect the relaxing of attitudes toward alcohol use in society at large? Beer tents and beer mugs are today a matter of course at both sports events and family-friendly events. Or do they reflect parents' uncertainty about their role, that they are afraid of setting limits for their children? It is not easy for parents to speak about alcohol and to set limits to its use. This, if anything, is likely to lead to head-on clashes with the youngster and door slamming. It is worth trying though. When youngsters know that their parents have a clear opinion of their alcohol use, it gives them a feeling of security and an awareness that the parents care about them.

In many of the editorials, not only parents but also policemen, social workers, youth workers, etc. were given an active role in the positioning of parenting, in the following way:

Fight against crime on multiple fronts (AL 17.9.1998)

Petty crime and brawling are becoming alarmingly common among young people. Increasingly young children are seen totally drunk in public places, drugs are spreading, and vandalism is rampant. Senseless violence has even led to homicides. A vicious circle is easily created, so parents, authorities and other communities should take zero tolerance as their starting point: one should never turn a blind eye. One solution is community policing, of which there are good experiences in the suburb of Hervanta in Tampere. Another is to link social welfare authorities more closely with the prevention of petty crime. Parents need to be informed immediately of petty crime committed by children and young people. Many different alternatives for action are available, but this is also a matter of attitude. The limits of propriety should be made clear to young people.

In defining the social necessity for substance-abuse prevention, the press repeatedly recognized children and young people as the primary objects of moral regulation. This recognition of children and young people as the object also prevailed with regard to the new Act on Public Order, as is apparent from the second excerpt above and the press excerpts concerning the new Act.

Occasionally there were elements of moral panic in the moral regulation directed to children and young people in the press. It appeared that young people were drinking more and more every year and were more eager to get drunk than before: "Young people drink more than ever" (AL 19.10.1997). "Today, if you are young and don't want to be the odd one out, you need to take part in boozing" (IL 10.11.1997). "Changes that have taken place in the lives of 14-year-old girls give rise to a particularly grave concern. There has been a drastic increase in smoking and the use of alcohol and drugs among them" (AL 16.5.1999). "According to a recent health habits survey, drinking to drunkenness has become so common among schoolchildren in Helsinki that it now represents the greatest threat to young people's health" (HS 6.11.2000).

A new Act on Public Order and the struggle for picnic drinking

While the press paid attention to the problems of public drinking pretty soon after well-mannered public drinking had been permitted, the problem did not pass unnoticed in Parliament either. Ten months after the Act had become effective, criticism was voiced during parliamentary question time against the permittance of public drinking. The minister of social affairs and health accepted this criticism, admitting that the risk of public drinking getting out of hand had not been properly taken into consideration during the enactment of the Act. The Ministry of Social Affairs and Health held that an Act on Public Order was an appropriate way of prohibiting the use of intoxicants in public places. The Ministry's position, however, was not endorsed by Parliament, which regarded any disturbances as mere corollaries, in the same way as the press.

As the corollaries of permitting public drinking, such as urinating at street corners, noise problems, broken glasses and bottles, and other disturbances showed no signs of abating, and as legal scholars viewed local ordinances as extremely problematic, the Ministry of the Interior set up, in 1998, a special working group to deal with the Act on Public Order. The working group was assigned the task of drafting a legislative proposal that would promote public order and safety, repeal problematic local ordinances, and introduce a uniform practice throughout the country.

The working group on the Act on Public Order issued its final report in January 2000. The group considered that public drinking should be allowed in general but regulated by prohibiting drinking "in places of special risk." In the first subsection of the legislative proposal, such places of special risk were defined to include intersections, playgrounds and their immediate neighborhoods, covered pedestrian areas, shopping centers, and public transport vehicles. In the second subsection, the ban on public drinking was extended to beaches, parks and squares intended for recreational use by citizens. Furthermore, the third subsection prohibited disruptive use of intoxicants everywhere in public space. In its report, the working group underlined that places of special risk and forbidden areas should be indicated clearly to citizens, with signposts, for example (Esitys jarjestyslaiksi ..., 2000, 68).

However, when the legislative proposal was sent out for comments, it was especially opposed by the police, who almost unanimously maintained that a total ban should be imposed on public drinking. On account of the criticism, the proposal was rewritten, and the government bill was not presented to Parliament until almost two years later, in March 2002. Now the bill no longer mentioned any places of special risk. With the criticism, the working group on the Act on Public Order ended up proposing that public drinking be regulated using a technique based on a total ban. However, the total ban was to be moderated in the second subsection by permitting well-mannered drinking in parks.

The provisions of the first subsection do not apply to serving areas subject to special licensing or notification or to the inner space of a vehicle in private use. They do not either apply to the drinking of alcoholic beverages in parks or other similar public places, provided that the drinking and the related stay and behavior do not prevent or unreasonably hamper others from exercising their right to use the place for its proper purpose (Section 4, Subsection 2).

There was considerable disagreement over the government bill in the preliminary debate in Parliament. The preliminary debate was opened by Juha Karpio, National Coalition Party Member of Parliament. In his plenary speech, he supported the government bill and praised it for permitting picnic-styled drinking in parks. He referred to this type of drinking as "refreshing," compared with disruptive bingeing. He implied that the blame for causing nuisance in public space should not be placed on the middle classes drinking wine esthetically but rather on groups of young people and marginal groups. Accordingly, he viewed the matter from the same liberalistic perspective as the press a few years earlier (see the second excerpt above and the press excerpts concerning the new Act on Public Order). Furthermore, Karpio said with contentment that the bill clarifies "the division of labor between the police and private security companies," providing that "the Police Commissioner is allowed to grant greater powers to security companies in keeping order in shopping centers, traffic stations and public transport vehicles." According to Karpio, though, the privatization of the surveillance sector could have been more extensive than that proposed in the bill, as there had recently been reports of disorder and violence "in health center and hospital facilities, for instance."

After Karpio, Annika Lapintie, Left Alliance Member of Parliament, spoke. She was very critical of the bill, calling into question whether the Act was needed at all, and she suggested that the Act had been drafted so as to maintain the liberalistic freedoms of the middle classes at the expense of young people and marginal groups; it was targeted at regulating innocent groups of people and diverting attention from the real, structural problems of society.

The confrontation between Lapintie and Karpio, representing the Left Alliance and the National Coalition Party, did not inspire the other members who were present. None of the later speakers at the preliminary debate supported Lapintie's views; they regarded the government bill on the new Act on Public Order and Security as essential, and, in the case of Social Democrat Harry Wallin, even as completely necessary. However, they thought that the government bill was still deficient in some respects.

According to Lauri Oinonen from the Centre Party, the biggest problem with the legislative proposal was that it permitted picnic-styled drinking. He suggested that there be a total ban on drinking in parks.

Parks are actually among those risky places where hardly anyone dares to go here in Helsinki and many other cities [if] this drinking in parks is now permitted by law. [Then] old-time gangs of drinkers are legally given permission to drink alcohol in parks. This, if anything, will more and more drive families with small children, mothers and children, older people, ordinary families and people spending free time away from parks.

In this excerpt, Oinonen supports the view that picnic drinking should not be seen as a question of increasing the freedom of the middle classes but as that of protecting the freedom of families with children, older people and ordinary people spending their free time in parks. According to his interpretation, old-time gangs of drinkers represent such a grave threat to the freedom of ordinary citizens that the picnic subsection should be abolished.

In their later addresses, Seppo Lahtela from the Centre Party, Rakel Hiltunen and Harry Wallin from the Social Democrat Party, and Toimi Kankaanniemi from the Christian Democrats shared the view set out by Oinonen, though with more or less serious reservations. Each of them was in favor of the abolition of the picnic subsection, but the justifications were different. Toimi Kankaanniemi, for example, believed that the picnic subsection would give the police too much power to decide what constitutes disturbing behavior in each case, and that a total ban would be a less ambiguous way to regulate the matter. Referring to Rakel Hiltunen's address, Harry Wallin, in turn, argued that Finns were still lacking in civilized culture to such an extent that a total ban was the only alternative.

For some strange reason we Finns can't use intoxicating substances in public places in the same way as people in Central Europe in general. Even from this Parliament, many visits are made, and when you look at the streets in Brussels, for instance, there are no drunken people with a bottle in their hand walking toward you, but these people have developed an inner ability, that they can use alcohol naturally, perhaps as part of their meal, not as a substance that makes them intoxicated but really as part of their meal.

In this excerpt, Wallin uses the word "we," thus addressing Finns as a uniform group, all characterized by their lack of ability to use alcohol. This can be seen in the streets in Finland, for example, but also in that, unlike other European peoples, we have not developed an internal ability to use alcohol as part of our meals.

To justify his position, Wallin told a story from the recent history of Finland, which can be described as an "oedipus story." This story bears a resemblance to the above-described disappointment felt by the press when liberalization did not after all bring about civilization, as illustrated by the second excerpt above. According to Wallin, Finns in the 1970s and 1980s thought that "we are now at such a stage, that when the world is open, Europe is open to us, so we are also in one minute ready to move to a more liberal way of using alcohol and intoxicants." A blind and naive identification with the wrong European identity, however, led to a tragic course of events, street drinking getting out of control. Fortunately enough, the tragedy eventually opened our eyes and we understood that rather than freedom we needed limits. In Seinajoki, Wallin's home city, for example, the use of intoxicating substances in public was banned completely in 1998, "including parks, public places and vehicles, everywhere." In addition, a zero-tolerance project was launched in the city by which authorities and the police tackled public disorder with "jointly planned interventions." According to Wallin, these interventions cleaned the streets "and youth in particular understood that you can't just do anything in society and drink alcohol in public as you please."

By presenting an analysis of the recent history of Finland using this oedipus story, Wallin aimed at undermining his audience's belief in the view that picnic-style drinking in parks would make Finns more European. He underscores that "the harsh truth, though, is of a different kind. I believe more ... in the kind of reality put forward by Rakel Hiltunen than in what the government bill perhaps has been aiming at."

Later in the course of the preliminary debate, this view of Finns as uncivilized, advocated by Rakel Hiltunen and Harry Wallin, was also shared by Lauri Oinonen. By contrast, the other Members of Parliament who spoke toward the end of the debate did not comment on the view but focused on other types of problems with the Act on Public Order.

With these accompanying comments, the government bill was forwarded to the Administration Committee on 19 March 2002. At the same time Parliament obliged the Constitutional Law Committee and the Legal Affairs Committee to back the work of the Administration Committee by submitting their opinions of the Government bill.

The fate of the picnic subsection in the general debate

The handling of the legislative proposal in the Administration Committee was thorough and prolonged to such a degree that it seemed unlikely that the Act on Public Order would become effective during the electoral period 1999-2003. However, the Administration Committee finally issued its report (HaVM 28/2002 vp) in February 2003, during the second to last plenary session week.

In addition to the Constitutional Law Committee and the Legal Affairs Committee, the Administration Committee consulted 62 experts orally and 20 experts in writing. On the one hand, the opinions were unanimous in admitting the necessity for the Act. On the other hand, the total ban introduced in the public drinking section and the picnic subsection relaxing the ban drew both support and criticism: The police were largely positive, and legal scholars were critically disposed to the wording of the public drinking section.

Although the public drinking section was severely criticized during the committee consideration and in the accompanying opinions, the Administration Committee did not inscribe this in its report but proposed in the legislative proposal submitted to Parliament in February 2003 that the public drinking section should be approved as it was.

The general debate of the first reading in Parliament was started in February 2003 with a plenary speech by Matti Vaisto from the Centre Party, bringing the greetings of the Administration Committee to Parliament. Vaisto reported that the Administration Committee had had a lively discussion on alcohol drinking in parks and similar places, ending up with the position that, as used in the Act, "park" referred to small park-like forest stands, whereas streets and sidewalks included "open areas" and "squares." According to Vaisto, the Administration Committee was in favor of relaxing the total ban on public drinking, but it was planning a total ban on obtaining or offering sexual services for payment in public places. Vaisto stressed that "the Administration Committee's report had been unanimous."

The following speaker was Janina Andersson from the Green League. While she approved "that it was now forbidden to drink alcohol in public," she found many problems with the Act that had to do with the police's lack of resources in the control of public space, the privatization of surveillance, the prohibiting of free drinking of medium-strength beer, and the sex trade. In particular, Andersson found it surprising that during the drafting of the legislative proposal, public drinking had been regarded as "a greater evil than the trafficking in women." Generally speaking, she pointed out, it was bizarre to draw a parallel between women and alcohol drinking, defecation and urination, thus giving the Act associations that degrade the human dignity of women (objectification, commercialization, etc.).

Rakel Hiltunen from the Social Democrat Party was against the picnic subsection of the public drinking section. She reminded the audience of the main stages of the public drinking problem by telling them the same kind of tragic story from the recent history of the country as did Wallin above. Hiltunen also continued to speak for the view she had already presented in the preliminary debate. In the same way as Wallin, who had used incidents in his own constituency to illustrate his story, Hiltunen referred to incidents in Helsinki, her constituency. She emphasized that she was speaking against picnic drinking as a representative of the inhabitants of Kallio, one of the old working-class quarters of Helsinki, and more specifically of people living in Aleksis Kiven katu, a street where street prostitution had concentrated. This shows that the members' speeches were directed not only to the audience present in the Session Hall but also to potential voters (cf. Goffman, 1974).

According to Hiltunen, the identification with the wrong European identity implied that, in the mid-1990s, Esplanadi Park turned from a city park into a "seaside resort," and trams and buses became "places for celebration and partying." That the tragic turn of events had been realized and that people's eyes had been opened was reflected in the total ban on public drinking imposed by a local ordinance in the city of Helsinki, and "not a single local resident" had complained to the decision-makers of the ban. Against this backdrop, Hiltunen thought it was problematic that the new Act on Public Order permitted picnic drinking, maintaining that the legalization of drinking in parks would result in surveillance problems. On the other hand, Hiltunen also praised the Act on Public Order as a whole. She also replied to Andersson's criticism of drawing a parallel between public drinking and trafficking in women, stating that this was necessary in order for the public disturbance caused by them to be eliminated from public space "on equal terms."

After this, the general debate centered around the three tensions already mentioned above. First, members kept returning to the issue of public drinking and drinking in parks. Second, they spoke about the trafficking in women. For example, Antero Kekkonen, a Social Democrat, though otherwise regarding Hiltunen's speech as excellent, called into question the fact that she had "pretty automatically drawn a parallel between this trafficking in women and alcohol drinking." Personally, he could not fit them "in the same sentence and not quite in successive sentences either," as trafficking in human beings and trade in alcohol are "not measurable on the same scale." Third, the police's ability to implement the spirit of the Act gave rise to discussion.

Among these three tensions, public drinking in parks proved the most fascinating one. Erkki Pulliainen from the Green League pointed out that when drinking on streets "is banned in this way, just where would we expect to find it if not in the bushes?" Kari Myllyniemi from the Centre Party, in turn, agreed with Hiltunen. He thought that the picnic subsection in the public drinking section would result in "boozing being more and more concentrated in parks." Pekka Kuosmanen from the National Coalition Party was satisfied with the public drinking section as a whole, implying that drinking in parks was no problem.

The political tension generated in the preliminary debate between the National Coalition Party and the center-leftist parties by the issue of drinking in parks seemed to raise its head during the general debate too. While the National Coalition Party advocated permitting park drinking from the perspective of the freedom of autonomous individuals, the Centre Party and Social Democrats spoke against it from the perspective of the protection of citizens. The picnic subsection was objected to by Hiltunen and Myllyniemi above and also by Lauri Oinonen, who spoke after Kuosmanen. In his speech, Oinonen diverted the general debate to the upbringing of children and young people, an issue of concern also frequently raised in the press in 1999-2000 (see excerpts above).

According to Oinonen, public drinking should be regulated by a total ban regardless of the style or place of drinking. He saw that "citizens increasingly experience[d] insecurity [and] threat of violence [today]" in public space, and therefore it was not possible to allow exceptions in the regulation of misbehavior in public space, such as the one in the picnic subsection. In place of allowing "free areas" it was necessary to consistently tighten control by, for example, putting more policemen on the beat.

Contacts should be established between the police and people, and the best way to achieve this would be to have policemen on the beat, community policemen who know people, and people know them. This doesn't concern the countryside only but applies particularly to population centers and suburbs. It is a great advantage in policing if the policemen have an opportunity to know the circumstances and the people among whom they work. In the same way it is extremely important to society and particularly young people that familiar policemen are seen. Policemen or -women can provide the youth with a good example, an adult model, for life, and this also helps increase security.

In this excerpt, Oinonen refers to a technique used in the regulation of public space widely known as community policing. As appears from excerpts above, the press also regarded this technique as efficient. In a community-policing frame, as well as in a zero-tolerance one, public disorder is seen to be associated with the crumbling of the values fostered in village communities. Accordingly, the problem is that citizens, and particularly young people, no longer respect authorities and do not live up to the ideals of polite behavior. To remedy the situation, the best moral regulation technique is seen to be to put policemen on the streets. The underlying belief is that when there is a ready intervention by police for public misbehavior, this contributes to increasing the feeling of security in the community and encourages community members to lead each other down the road of decent living.

To justify his asking for more policemen on the beat, Oinonen used the perspectives of young people, citizens, and the nation. First, he was worried about the lack of positive examples of "what is acceptable behavior and what is not" in the developmental environment of young people. If the police would sort out the winos from the parks, showing the youth what the norms of acceptable behavior are, these negative examples and influences would not serve as models for the behavior of the youth. Second, Oinonen argued that putting more policemen on the beat would increase people's sense of security and make the streets more pleasant. In addition, according to him, increasing street safety would further enhance "the good reputation of the Finnish social order around the world."

Oinonen's speech was criticized by all other speakers except Hiltunen, who went on to elaborate Oinonen's argument, emphasizing how important it would be to assume "comprehensive responsibility for children and young people." In Helsinki, for example, a project had been launched where "the police, property owners, parents and youth workers worked together to intervene" in graffiti offenses by youngsters. According to Hiltunen, this project was a success.

Kuosmanen, by contrast, contradicted Oinonen's arguments for zero tolerance. He emphasized that the primary responsibility for child upbringing should rest with homes and schools, instead of public space and the police. Andersson, in turn, pointed out that examples need not always be positive: "Is there any other more effective way to make children understand why alcohol is no good than that they actually see such real winos?" According to Andersson, the Act was not intended to sort out winos away from public space but to put an end to "excessive partying" in public places.

The above comment by Andersson on winos managed to distract attention from other issues during the last minutes of the general debate. Oinonen agreed with Andersson, maintaining that "the best possible temperance education was, of course, to see a wino," as "[w]ho would like to take a wino as a model?" Hiltunen and Kuosmanen, in turn, pointed out that the word "wino" was stigmatizing. Hiltunen said it was shocking that "we return to the '70s and talk about winos. Isn't it so that children's own parents and close persons provide enough of a warning?" Kuosmanen, in turn, suggested that the word "wino" be replaced with the term "alcohol abuser."

Young people become a target of moral regulation

Regardless of the differing opinions, the new Act on Public Order (with its section on public drinking) was approved in the first reading of Parliament in the form proposed by the Administration Committee. Five days later the Act was passed in Parliament (on 17 February 2003), and it became effective on 1 October 2003.

Our analysis revealed interesting shifts in the moral regulation of the public drinking problem in both the press and the legislation.

In 1995-1997, the press regarded the disorders caused by public drinking as a passing consequence of the liberalization. The object of the moral regulation efforts was "the paternalistic state." The press did not approve any tightening of alcohol policy, as it believed that a liberal alcohol policy would promote the development of spontaneous regulation of public interactions and civilize Finns' drinking habits. However, the spontaneous order of public space did not develop in a desired direction, so the press adjusted its positioning.

The change in the stance taken by the press on alcohol policy was not a sign of the weakening of the freedom perspective. The press was not ready to limit the freedom of active citizens but defined that interventions should be targeted to groups that showed an inability to adapt themselves to the conditions of middle-class freedom or were indifferent to them. In practice, in 1999-2000, the press channeled moral-regulation efforts toward the behavior of young people and marginal groups in public space. This manifested itself first in the press advising authorities and policy-makers to enact a new Act on Public Order for the country. While the Act should intervene in drinking on streets with a total ban, it should allow picnic-style drinking to the middle classes. Second, the press set out to advocate various partnership programs for substance abuse prevention, where the responsibility for the control of drinking among children and young people is to be shouldered by families, voluntary organizations, and market actors acting in collaboration with the public sector.

During the legislative process of the new Act on Public Order, too, a shift in perspective took place, from emphasizing an individual's freedom of choice to disciplining special groups. Initially, it was suggested that public drinking be regulated by the concept of "place of special risk," as legal scholars regarded a total ban as being in conflict with the Constitution. However, the police objected to the regulation of public drinking by defining places of special risk. They considered the concept problematic with regard to both policing and the equal treatment of citizens, suggesting that public drinking be controlled by a total ban. On account of this criticism, the working group on the Act on Public Order made relatively radical changes in the wording of the public drinking section, ending up proposing a wording similar to that advocated by the press in 1999-2000.

Although the reformulation of the public drinking section represented a kind of compromise between competing views, it mainly sought to meet the expectations of the police and publicity at the expense of legislative considerations and issues linked to basic rights. As a consequence, the second subsection of the public drinking section was changed to the opposite during the process. While the first proposal of the working group regarded parks as places of special risk, where "drinking an intoxicating beverage as such poses a threat to public order or safety," the government bill turned parks from places of special risk into areas of freedom, where people are allowed to be sociable in a picnic style.

Accordingly, it can be assumed that drinking in parks was permitted in the belief that parks as the wine-drinking settings of well-off people would contribute to European drinking habits taking root in Finnish culture. Furthermore, it is obvious that the picnic subsection was added to the Act partly to comply with the wishes of the police, as it increased the police's discretionary powers as to whether or not to intervene in public drinking.

The public drinking section then remained unchanged until the Act was finally approved. The fact that the section was not amended during the parliamentary process in spite of the great amount of criticism it received suggests that members at a relatively early stage identified themselves with the perspective of the police, allying themselves with them against legal scholars. They considered that the police played a key role in the supervision of public space and that the Act was to be formulated so that it would address their needs.

On the other hand, the consideration of the new Act on Public Order in Parliament and in parliamentary committees brought up interesting political tensions. The National Coalition Party and the center-leftist parties in particular were engaging in a struggle on the content of the public drinking section at different stages of the legislative process. While the National Coalition Party advocated drinking in parks as a picnic-style mode of drinking exemplifying European drinking habits, the Centre Party and Social Democrats saw that permitting drinking in parks might lead to the concentration of problem drinking in these areas, as a result of which the use of parks for recreational purposes by families with children, older people and people spending free time would be hampered.

Although this struggle was not able to bring about changes in the key content of the public drinking section, it resulted in the definition of park being specified during the committee consideration. Hence park was defined to refer to small park-like forest stands, as distinct from parks in close vicinity to city and town centers and commercial centers, which were to be called open areas and squares. As a consequence, Esplanadi Park in Helsinki, for example, was defined as a square, to which the total ban of alcohol drinking is applicable.

The struggle over picnic drinking cannot be described as purely party political, as there were also regional elements involved. For example, Social Democrat Harry Wallin (from Seinajoki in western Finland) and Rakel Hiltunen (from Helsinki in southern Finland) spoke against drinking in parks on the grounds that the towns and cities in their constituency had already imposed a total ban on public drinking by a local ordinance, with the full support of local citizens. Against this historical backdrop, for them, permitting drinking in parks meant turning back the wheels of history.

The parties of the struggle on picnic drinking, however, had one connecting factor: the youth. Regardless of the members' divergent opinions on drinking in parks, they were all concerned about deficiencies in the upbringing of young people, reflected in drinking on streets. This is why a total ban on drinking on streets and in open areas did not raise objections. It was assumed that it was mainly the youth who celebrated on streets and in open areas, and a total ban was necessary for them. The press thought the same way; it took a total ban on drinking on streets and in open areas for granted.

Youths gathering on streets to celebrate was viewed as completely negative both by the press and in the legislative process. In many cases, the youth were also seen to suffer from a lack of community. The French sociologist Michel Maffesoli (1995) would be surprised at such an interpretation. He would see youth celebrating on streets rather as a sign of the return and strengthening of community spirit. A new sense of community is togetherness here and now, the defining feature being that it is voluntary, light, purposeless and transient. To see partying by young people as a light community does not, however, give the complete picture of them. It is not concerned with their well-being or ill-being, nor does it allow any conclusions to be drawn about their attitudes toward the prevailing values of society. Therefore it can be asked whether the threat images of young people presented by the press, legislators, authorities, and policy-makers reflect intolerance of a different type of community. Did journalists, experts, and policy-makers transfer their own fears of the weakening of community ties onto young people, thus defining young people celebrating on streets as an object of caring deviating from the norm of adulthood?

The concern differentiated the regulation of public space and made adults join "a ring dance." It made the press and Members of Parliament advocate community policing targeted to young people and looking for models for them, either positive ones such as authorities (policemen, close persons, parents) or negative counterimages (winos, alcohol abusers).


Alkoholikomiteat 1926-31 [Alcohol Committees 1926-1931], Helsinki: Valtioneuvoston Kirjapaino, 1931.

Bauman, Zygmunt, In Search of Politics. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1999.

Blumer, Herbert, Social problems as collective behavior. Social Problems 18: 298-306, 1971.

Corrigan, Philip & Derek Sayer, The Great Arch. English State Formation as Cultural Revolution. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1985.

Crossley, Nick, Intersubjectivity. The Fabric of Social Becoming. London: Sage, 1996.

Dean, Mitchell, Governmentality. Power and Rule in Modern Society. London: Sage, 1999.

Ericson, Richard V. & Kevin D. Haggerty, Policing the Risk Society. Toronto & Buffalo: Toronto University Press, 1997.

Esitys jarjestyslaiksi [Proposal for the Act of Public Order], Jarjestyslakitytoryhman mietinto 1/2000. Poliisiosaston julkaisu. Helsinki: Sisaasiainministerio, 2000.

Goffman, Erving, Frame Analysis. An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1974.

Hakkarainen, Pekka, Sosiaalisten ongelmien maarittely--sosiaalisen konstruktionismin nakokulma sosiaalisiin ongelmiin [The Definition of Social Problems--The Viewpoint of Social Constructionism to Social Problems]. In Ismo Kantola, Keijo Koskinen & Pekka Rasanen (eds.): Sosiologisia karttalehtia [Sociological Map Sheets]. Tampere: Vastapaino, 253-266, 2004.

Hope, Tim & Richards Parks (eds.): Crime, Risk and Insecurity. Law and Order in Everyday Life and Political Discourse. London & New York: Routledge, 2000.

Kopomaa, Timo, Tori--marginaali--haastava kaupunki. Tilatapauksia julkisten ulkotilojen kaytosta ja reunimmaisista kaytannoista [Marketplace--Marginal--Challenging City. Space Cases on the Use of the Public Outdoor Locations and on the Outermost Practices]. Helsinki: SKS, 1997.

Maffesoli, Michel, Maailman mieli [The Contemplation of the World]. Helsinki: Gaudeamus, 1995.

Matthews, Roger & John Pitts (eds.): Crime, Disorder and Community Safety. A New Agenda? London & New York: Routledge, 2001.

McQuail, Denis, Mass Communication Theory. An Introduction. London: Sage, 1994.

Piispa, Matti, Alkoholiliberalismin suuri linja. Tutkimus lehdiston alkoholipoliittisista kannanotoista [The Big Trend of Alcohol Liberalism. A Study on the Alcohol Political Opinions of the Press]. Tampere: UKK instituutti, 1991.

Piispa, Matti, Raittiuskasvatuksesta alkoholivalistukseen. Suomen Sanomalehdiston alkoholikirjoittelun linjat vuosina 1951-1978 [From Temperance Teaching to Alcohol Education. The Finnish Press and Alcohol Policy, 1951-1978]. Alkoholipoliittisen tutkimuslaitoksen tutkimusseloste No. 146. Maaliskuu, 1981.

Paihtyneiden kasittelyn selvittelytoimikunnan mietinto [The Report of the Committee on the Handling of Intoxicated Persons], Komiteanmietinto 1969: B 85. Helsinki: Sosiaali- ja terveysministerio, 1969.

Ruonavaara, Hannu, "Vanhat" yhteiskunnalliset liikkeet moraalisaatelyn projekteina ["The Old" Social Movements as Projects of Moral Regulation]. In Kaj Ilmonen and Martti Siisiainen (eds.): Uudet ja vanhat liikkeet [The New and Old Social Movements]. Tampere: Vastapaino, 43-57, 1998.

Torronen, Jukka, Julkinen tila ongelmana, saatelyn alueena ja tutkimuskohteena [Public Space as a Problem, Area of Regulation and Object of Study]. In Jukka Torronen (ed.): Valvontaa ja vastuuta. Paihteet ja julkisen tilan moraalisaately [Control and Responsibility. Substances and Moral Regulation of Public Spaces]. Helsinki: Gaudeamus, 1131, 2004.

Torronen, Jukka, The Finnish press' political position on alcohol between 1993 and 2000, Addiction, 98:281-290, 2003.

Tuominen, Uuno, Suomen alkoholipolitiikka vuosisadasta toiseen [Finnish Alcohol Policy from One Century to Another]. Helsinki: Suomen akateeminen raittiusliitto, 1981.


(1.) The data were collected by using electronic archives. If no such archives were available or they were incomplete, editorials from those years were picked up from microfilms. Newspapers for the study were selected on the following criteria: (1) they should have a wide circulation, (2) both national papers (Helsingin Sanomat, Ilta-Sanomat, Iltalehti) and local papers (Aamulehti, Etela-Saimaa) should be included, (3) both "factual" papers (Aamulehti, Etela-Saimaa, Helsingin Sanomat) and "less serious" papers (Ilta-Sanomat, Iltalehti) should be included, (4) the papers should address different types of audience: policy-makers and citizens (Aamulehti, Etela-Saimaa, Helsingin Sanomat) and consumers (Ilta-Sanomat, Iltalehti), and (5) the papers should cover at least three different regions in Finland (the capital city area/Helsingin Sanomat, Pirkanmaa/ Aamulehti and eastern Finland/Etela-Saimaa). These criteria were applied in order to ensure that the data would contain the most important alcohol policy arguments voiced during the period of change in the 1990s with sufficient variation.

(2.) Kauppalehti criticizes restrictions on access to alcohol most consistently. This theme stirs up considerable passion in the paper. By contrast, the paper does not write at all about other themes such as public boozing.
The objects, subjects, goals and techniques of moral
regulation in the editorials (over five mentions)

                                       Year    1993   1994   1995

Moral regulation's

The state suppressing the markets               16     11     10
Irresponsibility of young people                 2      3      1
Insecurity of public places                      3      1      1
The state hindering the choices of consumers     2      6      1
Total consumption of alcohol                     3      0      0
The state oppressing the rights of citizens      0      3      0
Drunken driving                                  2      1      2
The state opposing European Union                0      2      1
Intoxication-oriented drinking habit             5      1      1
Lack of treatment                                2      0      2
Risky use of alcohol                             0      1      1
Excessive control                                0      0      0

Politicians/parliament/administration           15     14      9
Citizens/Finns                                   7      2      1
Parents/family                                   0      1      0
Markets/entrepreneurs/industry                   0      0      0
Police                                           1      0      1
Adults                                           1      1      1

Liberalizing alcohol policy                     14     19     12
Public order and safety                          4      1      6
Protection of young                              1      3      1
Prevention of health harms                       7      0      2
Free markets                                     4      0      1
Prevention of drunken driving                    2      1      3
Freedom of consumer                              0      1      1
Healthy lifestyles                               1      2      2

Abolishing alcohol monopolies                   13      8      3
Education/information                            4      3      3
Lifting import bans                              0      2      5
Liberalizing the Alcohol Act                     5     10      0
Restricting the availability of alcohol          7      2      2
Reducing alcohol taxes                           1      1      1
Tightening the Alcohol Act                       0      0      0
Upbringing                                       1      1      1
Increasing the freedom of choice                 1      0      1
Making the policing more effective               0      1      3
Moderate use of alcohol                          3      0      1
Local co-operation                               0      0      0
Acting through European Union                    1      0      1

                                       Year    1996   1997   1998

Moral regulation's

The state suppressing the markets               19     20      9
Irresponsibility of young people                 7      5      5
Insecurity of public places                      3      3      3
The state hindering the choices of consumers     6      2      4
Total consumption of alcohol                     4      1      1
The state oppressing the rights of citizens      4      2      1
Drunken driving                                  3      0      1
The state opposing European Union                1      5      0
Intoxication-oriented drinking habit             0      0      1
Lack of treatment                                0      2      0
Risky use of alcohol                             1      1      0
Excessive control                                2      0      0

Politicians/parliament/administration           19     14      4
Citizens/Finns                                   3      1      3
Parents/family                                   1      3      3
Markets/industry/industry                        1      1      4
Police                                           0      0      1
Adults                                           0      0      0

Liberalizing alcohol policy                     23     25      7
Public order and safety                          8      3      4
Protection of young                              7      4      4
Prevention of health harms                       5      1      1
Free markets                                     2      2      4
Prevention of drunken driving                    3      2      1
Freedom of consumer                              3      6      2
Healthy lifestyles                               0      2      0

Abolishing alcohol monopolies                    5     15      6
Education/information                            6      2      1
Lifting import bans                              9      6      2
Liberalizing the Alcohol Act                     1      2      2
Restricting the availability of alcohol          4      2      1
Reducing alcohol taxes                           8      4      2
Tightening the Alcohol Act                       0      0      2
Upbringing                                       1      2      2
Increasing the freedom of choice                 2      3      2
Making the policing more effective               1      0      1
Moderate use of alcohol                          0      1      2
Local co-operation                               4      0      3
Acting through European Union                    4      1      1

                                       Year    1999   2000

Moral regulation's

The state suppressing the markets                7      1     93
Irresponsibility of young people                 7      6     36
Insecurity of public places                     12      9     35
The state hindering the choices of consumers     3      0     24
Total consumption of alcohol                     3      1     13
The state oppressing the rights of citizens      1      2     13
Drunken driving                                  1      2     12
The state opposing European Union                0      0      9
Intoxication-oriented drinking habit             0      0      8
Lack of treatment                                0      0      6
Risky use of alcohol                             0      2      6
Excessive control                                1      2      5

Politicians/parliament/administration            4      2     81
Citizens/Finns                                   5      2     24
Parents/family                                   2      2     12
Markets/industry/industry                        2      0      8
Police                                           2      1      6
Adults                                           2      1      6

Liberalizing alcohol policy                      6      4    110
Public order and safety                         11      7     44
Protection of young                              9      4     33
Prevention of health harms                       3      2     21
Free markets                                     4      0     17
Prevention of drunken driving                    1      4     17
Freedom of consumer                              0      0     13
Healthy lifestyles                               0      4     11

Abolishing alcohol monopolies                    4      0     54
Education/information                            5      7     31
Lifting import bans                              2      0     26
Liberalizing the Alcohol Act                     1      0     21
Restricting the availability of alcohol          2      1     21
Reducing alcohol taxes                           2      1     20
Tightening the Alcohol Act                       8      4     14
Upbringing                                       3      3     14
Increasing the freedom of choice                 1      0     10
Making the policing more effective               3      1     10
Moderate use of alcohol                          2      1     10
Local co-operation                               1      1      9
Acting through European Union                    0      0      8
COPYRIGHT 2005 Sage Publications, Inc.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2005 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Torronen, Jukka; Karlsson, Thomas
Publication:Contemporary Drug Problems
Date:Mar 22, 2005
Previous Article:Drinking and public space in Leningrad/St. Petersburg and Helsinki in the interwar period.
Next Article:Societal response and the moral regulation of public-space drinking.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2018 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters