The nation that hasn’t overcome temperance: brief overview on alcohol in Iceland.

Many times before coming here I had the occasion to read about complaints – especially from UK and US citizens – regarding the prohibitive costs of alcoholic beverages in the Nordic countries area. I honestly didn’t know what to think of it at the time, since stereotypal depiction of Bretons often makes fun of them for spending half of their lives in a pub with a row of empty glasses on a wooden table. So, reading from this kind of human specimen that it was rather tragic a situation couldn’t sound fully convincing.

Sometimes in what you read on touristy sites there is a lot more than simple commonplaces though, and you can’t expect things to be as bad as they actually are until you see how it works with your own eyes. That’s particularly true in the case of the relationship Iceland has with alcohol.

Excursus: Iceland just recently came out of a rather long history of prohibition. In a referendum held in 1908 Icelanders voted in favor of a law enforcing the ban of all alcoholic beverages. The law went into effect only a few years later, in 1915. The ban was slightly revised in 1935, when it went from prohibiting all alcoholic beverages to “only” prohibiting those with an alcohol percentage higher than 2.25%. As the time went by, with the country opening more and more to the outside world and with the increase of exchanges, the teetotalism in Iceland gradually lost support until in 1989,  after years of parliamentary battles, a vote put an end to the ban. Every year on March 1, the date marking the end oh the 74-year prohibition, Bjórdagurinn or Bjórdagur (aka Beer Day in English) is celebrated.

To foreigners, especially coming from more libertine nations, the attitude of Northern countries towards spirits may appear incomprehensible, even crazy. Not only in Iceland, but also in Sweden, Finland and Norway, alcohol is only sold by government-run vendors that have the total monopoly over it. Alcoholic beverages are also heavily taxed, according not to the brand or the quality of the product, but to percentage of alcoholic content. This means that bizarrely enough, in a country like Iceland where alcohol is extremely expensive, you can buy Champagne or some other costly wine at very reasonable price just because its alcoholic content is relatively low. For example a bottle (0.750 ml) of Brunello di Montalcino by Italian manufacturer Banfi will cost 6199 ISK, which is more or less what a lot of sellers back in Italy  – not the worst robbers either – sell it too. In brief, the quality doesn’t really matter that much. My suggestion at this point would be: if you have to ruin yourself finacially, at least do it with something really worth it. Try one of the stores of the local vendor I was talking about – in Iceland it’s called Vínbúðin – and see for yourself!

Let’s have a little arithmetics to clear things up even more – and to let you know how bad the situation for drinkers really is.

Yesterday we went to the Vínbúðin located inside Kringlan’s mall. It was a Saturday, so the store was packed with people ready to celebrate the week-end and the results of the referendum’s vote. Despite the confusion we were able to buy something for ourselves. That’s what we got:

• 2 Lava Stout (0.330  – 9.4%) 1038 ISK
• 2 Faxe Festbock (0.500 – 7.7%) 998 ISK
• 2 Víking Sterkur (0.500 – 7%) 858 ISK
• 2 Strongbow Cider (0.440 – 5.3%) 830 ISK
• 1 Bacardi Breezer Watermelon (0.275 – 4.5%) 439 ISK
• 1 WKD Vodka Blue (0.275 – 4.5%) 398 ISK
• 1 Don Luciano Moscato (0.750 – 7%) 895 ISK

This is how the purchase actually looked. I know, I know. Don’t tell me. Definitely not a serious business for serious drinkers.

The total amount was 5456 ISK (42.7 USD or 31.5 EUR).  Crazy enough, right? A handful of beers and a few fancy bottled drinks costed as much as a dinner at a restaurant. It’s going to be a tough life around here if you drink to get drunk. It’s going to be a little easier if you drink for the convivial part of it. If you don’t have too many guests to satisfy, that is. If you want to go to a bar or a pub, unless you’re used to Rome’s or New York’s not exactly popular prices, be ready for the worst.

On a random note, on the main page of the official Vínbúðin site (take a look if you want a preview on more drinks’ rates) it’s been said that Vínbúðin’s sales manager Einar S. Einarsson has won an award for the best manager of the year. Now I wonder how difficult it must be to manage a business that is state-run and has virtually – and practically also – no competitors. Alright. That’s the Icelandic way of thinking as well. And after all, the fact somebody working for spirits won the award must also be considered somewhat encouraging.

Despite all these talks about Icelanders opening up, prohibition ending and booze festivities, still the country’s disposition towards alcohol seems controversial. According to the Iceland Review, in a survey held back in 2005 more than 60% of Icelanders still expressed their opposition to the notion of selling strong liquor in grocery stores. Alcohol is still regarded with suspicion by the locals because it would cause more depravation and it would increase crime. For these reasons it shouldn’t be distributed and sold anywhere. But are we sure the root of all evil would truly be alcohol and its free circulation? Isn’t it a bit naive and simplistic an explanation? Doesn’t this outlook ignore more complex social and moral questions that should be looked at with a little more bravery and detachment?

It is proved from a very elementary psychological point of view that the more something is regarded as mischievous and forbidden, the more its attractive powers will expand and grow stronger. It’s an old cliché that if you order your son to not smoke and take drugs, the more he will be tempted to do it, only on the basis he knows he cannot. On the other hand, if you tell him to eat spinach everyday because it’s good for the health, he will cross the name spinach out of his vocabulary. Make a fiend of terrible proportions out of the notion of spirits and its derivates and you can be sure people will be lured by their appeal more than they would in normal conditions. Nothing in excess can be good. Isn’t it what a lot of moralists and thinkers like to repeat on every given occasion? Well, they are right, of course. But even with temperance it is the same. Temperance in excess can be as bad as any other vice. And the original meaning of temperance anyway is not that of prohibition or veto, it’s that of moderation and measure. Forcing moderation over somebody is nonsense and it is not the best way to convince this somebody of the benefits of your action. Maybe it is so for wallabies – I can’t tell for sure for I don’t know any wallaby – but it’s definitely not how it works for humans.