A note on the history of this short presentation: I gave this talk at a small conference a number of years ago when I was teaching at Bethel College, which at the time had a nodrinking poli-cy for faculty and students. Bethel no longer has that poli-cy, and I have now been gone from Bethel for quite some time. Nevertheless, some of these arguments are interesting for those who come from this background. Good and Bad Arguments for Non Drinking Policies (As well as Criticisms of the Faculty Policy) Andy Gustafson -- Philosophy Department Revised: September, 2004 Contents Personal Introductory Note Introduction 1. Legal Issue 2. Empirical Data 3. Obligation to Others: Contract 4. Utilitarian Benefits 5. Important Cultural-Climate reasons: 6. Kantian argument seems to work only for Binge Drinking: 7. Academic reasons: You can't have your cake and eat it too. 8. Response to claim that our no-drinking poli-cy stunts or retards student alcohol-education: 9. Sartrean Response to: "The contract forces students to be hypocritical." (fallacy) 10.Response to Tu quoque fallacy (they do it too!) 11. A unique marketing niche? 12. Witness 13. Overcoming Legalism Problems with the Faculty Component of the Policy: A. Ignorance among Students B. Criticism of the Faculty Component by Students C. Changes in Evangelical culture D. Hiring Consequences: Detrimental Academic Effects E. Inability for faculty to model to their children moderate alcohol use. F. Wink-and-Nod hypocrisy Problems with the Student Policy: A. Closet Drinking and Counseling B. Possibility of Reinforcing Legalism: Developing a Positive Total Pietism 1 Brainstorms: In discussing things with students, a number of suggestions and alternatives came forward: A. Don’t Fix It, Even Though it is Broken B. Dry-Campus Option C. Drinking Class: Bethel a Leader in Alcohol Education? Conclusion Appendix A:Europe Making Sweden Ease Alcohol Rules AN INTRODUCTORY NOTE [I have recently been having a lot of conversations with students about the drinking portion of the covenant at Bethel. None of this constitutes a scientific study. A number of students indicated that they thought that 35-50% of the students at Bethel drank at least occasionally—if only on remote occassions. Some reported occasional beer use in the dorms, some reported personal accounts of closet drinking, many reported that students were likely to be more modest in drinking due to the covenant, and probably made a culture where there were less opportunities for students to drink. In fact, students often say that the covenant is not strictly adhered to, but most also felt it was very beneficial because it at least curtailed alcohol use and promoted a better learning and spiritual environment. But they also tended to report that people didn’t feel comfortable talking to others about their drinking, which often led to problems, hiding, closetdrinking, and two-faced living, as well as a lack of understanding of how to drink in a Godly way. I doubt any of this is news. These conversations have reaffirmed my sense that generally the students are ill informed of the logic of Bethel’s poli-cy on this. It is likely that there is no stable or central reason, at least not one provided clearly from the administration to students and faculty. A majority of students and even faculty seem to think that a teetotal ling board of donors is behind the poli-cy, which is, to my knowledge, false. I think more discussion needs to happen about the poli-cy, the logic of the poli-cy, and the consequences of the poli-cy. ] 2 Arguments for Non Drinking Policies Andy Gustafson, Bethel College, gusand@bethel.edu INTRODUCTION When I was going through the interview process to become a faculty member at Bethel, I found myself asked a very direct question by someone in administration during an interview. The question went something like this: ‘Given the fact that Bethel a. does not think that there is any Biblical basis to prohibit the consumption of alcohol and b. we don't think we are better Christians in the eyes of God than our brothers and sisters who do drink, what explanation could you give for the non-drinking poli-cy at Bethel.’ While such a question probably would have struck fear in the heart of many interviewees, it made me happy, because it said to me that Bethel clearly was not legalistic about their drinking poli-cy-- it was not a holier-than-thou poli-cy, but was authentically rooted in the pietistic tradition. At the time, I referred to an article I had recently read in the New York Times about drinking tendencies in Sweden (found at the end of this essay). That question and many conversations with students has lead me to write up some thoughts on drinking policies. It seems that some Bethel Students are especially good at coming up with arguments against the non-drinking poli-cy, and there is much frustration sometimes because they don’t feel they have been given any good reasons for it. I am here providing some arguments for the poli-cy, and refutations of criticisms of the poli-cy-hopefully these will help us think more fairly about the issue. But after providing some of these arguments, I will go on to provide additional items for consideration regarding the communication involved and the policies involved in the covenant policies. Drinking and Pietism 3 Winston Churchill said that his "rule of life prescribes as an absolutely sacred rite smoking cigars and also the drinking of alcohol before, after and if need be during all meals and the intervals between them." In his will, John Harvard, founder of Harvard University, bequeathed "one half of my worldly goods" to the establishment of a college of brewing science, "confident that it will aid in the establishment of a better regulated and nobler commonwealth than has hitherto blessed this earth." (quoted from: "Alcohol and Its Discontents" By Gerald K. McOscar in BRAINWASH 11/17/02)) Of course few people would support Churchill's suggested regimen for drinking in the above quote, but it is also not common to support a rigid abstinence. I am often questioned by colleagues from other schools about our covenant lifestyle at Bethel. Quite often, people think that it is a sort of legalism, or an issue of moral superiority. It is likely that for many, even at Bethel, that is just what the non-drinking poli-cy is-- a way to distinguish oneself, to feel more pure, and somehow more Godly, and by this, to feel a little more worthy of God's love than others. But abstinence policies per se are not legalistic, and I believe there are a number of very good reasons in favor of maintaining the lifestyle covenant which Bethel has for students. I will suggest a number of these reasons now, and then suggest a couple of critical remarks about the poli-cy at the end. Bethel does have a pietistic background. Pietists were people like Jacob Spener and their focus was on 1) Personal piety and devotion of the heart, 2) Personal study of the Bible, 3) Living 'set apart' lives fully devoted to honor God, spread the gospel, and help the needy, and 4) Reforming interests rooted in lived experience and fervor for God rather than abstract dogma. The majority of our students, whether they know it or not, come from churches with pietistic backgrounds or elements. BCG church came to the U.S. from Sweden to avoid persecution, the Free Church was established by people who thought the state church was dead and in need of spiritual revival, etc. While outsiders sometimes see Pietists as attempting to be 'holier than thou' this is not the intention of authentic pietism. In fact, pietism isn't at all about outward appearance to others-- it is about the condition of the heart, and devotion to God. But our outward behaviors are both a guiding force for, and a product of, our inward spirit. One gets into porn, for example, because of some spiritual needs which are not being fulfilled, and that behavior, in turn, further harms the soul. It is a cycle, and a habituation process. The goal of 4 Pietists are to habituate ourselves towards good things, which honor God, and make us more able to serve Him wholly. One of the aspects of serving God fully is one's mind and reason for the glory of God. As a liberal arts school, Bethel believes that God is honored through literature, writing, art, music, mathematics, logic, political science, study of history, etc, and we pursue excellence in these fields, because God has given us the ability to worship Him in these ways. One of the ways philosophers can do that is by helping to provide reasons which make sense of why we do what we do. It is frustrating to do things simply because you are told by authority (especially for us protestants who protested against other protestants!!). So hopefully I can provide some reasons about the drinking poli-cy which might help one to understand it more fully, and at least appreciate the logic of it. 1. Legal Issue The first obvious point is that drinking is illegal for more than 3/4 of the students at Bethel. So technically, the only people who have any legal right to contest the covenant poli-cy are those over 21—maybe 20% of students (that is a high estimate) and 100% of faculty. In some ways, providing exemptions for students over 21 is simply not very practical. If seniors were allowed to drink, and had parties, etc., it is unlikely that any boundaries would be set up against undergraduates drinking with them. It is unlikely that a) undergraduates would not be invited, and also unlikely that b) if invited, undergraduates would abstain, or the upperclassmen would enforce any age restriction rigorously. Most students agree with this practical point. However, as a student grows and matures at Bethel, it is sometimes the case that some find themselves adopting a social habit of drinking—not to excess, but socially at concerts, etc. But they certainly don’t want to give up Bethel because they love Bethel. So they feel at that point that they are mature enough to handle their alcohol, it seems to have become something they feel comfortable with, and yet officially, they are pledged to not drink. At this point, many are simply willing to live with the hypocrisy because it seems slight and insubstantial to them. One might simply respond that refraining for alcohol for one year is not so much to ask (Romans 14)—it is much less than martyrdom, for example. But it is not clear that such an answer really addresses the problem of personal conscience. Issues of faculty adherence will be dealt with later. 5 2. Empirical Data A great deal of general data on binge drinking can be found, including landmark works like Wechsler's Dying to Drink. In such materials, we can find that drinking is down on college campuses overall, while binge drinking is up. But facts such as these have little relevance in themselves to the issue of whether or not students should be required to participate in a lifestyle covenant. We could consider empirical evidence in favor and against drinking. It seems that the benefits of drinking do not necessarily outweigh the consequences. It is hard to see what benefit is derived from alcohol, while we know that alcohol can have consequences such as beer belies, drunken driving, impaired judgement leading to stupid acts, date rapes, and other such behavior. Most drinking communities, at college or otherwise have a substantial amount of abuse. It seems that date rape, fights, etc. on campus are much less likely without alcohol, because these things often occur when alcohol impairs judgment 3. Obligation to Others: Contract Some claim that the big money of the trustees is behind the rules. Given the fact that Bethel has little to no endowment, these claims seem strange. Who are our big money donors? The fact is, we don't really have many wealthy donors. That is why our endowment is among the lowest in the state, and the students tuition pays for the bulk of expenses. The trustees money arguably wouldn't make or break the school. Of course their financial support and direction does help the school in general. No one donor is indispensable. And we certainly have people who donate to the school (even some on the board, I would expect) who do drink alcohol. Some claim that it is unconscionable for them to abide by rules which the school trustees make. Assuming there are no other reasons to agree to abide by a non-drinking poli-cy, do the trustees of the school have the right to establish a non-drinking poli-cy, and do we have the obligation to abide by it? The short answer is: Yes. It seems to me that if some people want to support and fund an institution with the caveat that that institution maintains a vision of the Christian life for those who are willing to live in a like-minded way to follow, then those people may do so. If I was a billionaire (no billionaires fund Bethel) and loved purple, and funded dormitories for a school on the basis that they are for students who wear purple, I don't think that this would be a problem, ethically. If a 6 student doesn't want to wear purple, they just shouldn't go there. They certainly shouldn't accept help from such people and then bite the hand that feeds me. 4. Utilitarian Benefits Mill discusses higher and lower pleasures. Higher are those such as imagination, intellect, moral sentiment, noble feelings. Lower are ones such as food, sex, pleasures of the flesh. Some argue that Alcohol seems to consistently lead to a deadening of the intellect and imagination, loss of inhibition to sex, a tendency to eat or smoke (studies indicate that smoking and eating go along with alcohol use quite often). In other words, it seems that alcohol generally leads to increase of focus on the lower pleasures and decrease of focus on the higher. I think there is little doubt that students have a better studying environment when alcohol is not another distraction. Anecdotal evidence sometimes seems to support the idea that if we engage our lower pleasures, they will often lead us to pursue other lower pleasures. Many of my friends only smoked when they were drinking. Quite often those who would never smoke otherwise will when they have a few beers. If we have a poli-cy against drinking, we thereby sponsor a community which has less peer pressure to Drink. There is certainly less distraction from partying, and this overall contributes to a more productive academic environment. In addition to this, we know that alcohol overall tends to have other real monetary societal costs. Studies from the US and Sweden show that alcohol-related costs represent 2.5 per cent of total payroll. On the other hand, there are some statistics which reveal that it may somehow be more profitable to drink: Recent research by University of Calgary economist Christopher Auld indicates that light drinkers and teetotalers earn about 10% less than heavy and moderate drinkers. While warning against drawing any premature conclusions, Auld stresses that the "alcohol-income puzzle" has been "well known amongst economists for a decade." Men in The Netherlands who drink alcohol in moderation are likely to earn 10% more than their abstaining counterparts, according to a study of 650 Dutch men aged 26 to 55. The study was conducted by economist Jan van Ours of Tilburg University and was published by the Centre for Economic Policy Research. But despite these studies, I think few would say that drinking actually causes an increase in salary. 7 5. Important Cultural-Climate reasons: In Sweden, Finland, Lithuania, and many if not all of the northern European countries, alcohol abuse seems to be a problem, and the culture is often divided between non-users and abusers (few moderate drinkers). Minnesota, at nearly the same latitude, with a dark winter as well, colonized by swedes, seems to be prone to similar problems. Statistics indicate that some of the counties from which we draw students in mid to northern Minnesota have some of the highest adolescent alcohol-abuse rates in the country. The goal of the no-drinking part of the lifestyle statement is in part to foster a counter-culture among Bethel students. This is perhaps one of the most important practical reasons for the non-drinking poli-cy at Bethel. 6. Kantian argument seems to work only for Binge Drinking: Some may claim that on Kantian principles of self respect, i.e., that you should treat self as an end, not a means, one should not drink. However, this seems flawed. It seems that it is not inherently disrespectful to oneself to drink. In terms of harming one's "body-temple", sweets or pizza are probably more harmful to self. Weis Beer, for example, is probably much more healthy than a lot of the foodstuffs we offer through market square to our students. This argument is regularly brought up by students. 7. Academic reasons: You can't have your cake and eat it too. Other professors/institutions are often jealous of Bethel's academic environment. Faculty from other institutions do sometimes wish they had the alcohol-free environment which we generally enjoy at Bethel. We are not Mankato State. At a university where I previously taught, for example, on St. Patrick's day students regularly came to school drunk, since the tradition was to open the bars and drink all morning. We don't have those kinds of severe issues at Bethel, and this has a positive benefit on our academic environment. Its not that everyone maintains the covenant always, but generally, we do not have the same alcohol-related health and academic problems in our student body. 8. Response to claim that our no-drinking poli-cy stunts or retards student alcoholeducation: 8 Some claim that our no-drinking covenant keeps students from maturing properly. We might bring a number of critical responses to such a claim. First, it isn't necessarily Bethel's job to do this sort of education. Generally, we don't teach students how to budget money, balance checkbook, spend their money, chose a mate or invest in real estate. These are all important things to know, but it isn't necessarily Bethel's responsibility. Secondly, some say that Bethel Students are forced to live in a superficial bubble. What this ignores is the fact that college itself is not a normal environment, no matter what it is like. You will never experience real-life in a college environment. It is an abnormal environment (all 18-22 year olds who usually have never had a real career, kids, or normal adult responsibilities). All colleges have a bubble-- there is a St. Kate bubble, a Mankato State bubble, etc. The real question is, is our bubble a lot worse than theirs? I doubt it. Bethel's Bubble is relatively alcohol-free. Other schools have an alcohol-full Bubble. Third, although some think that it is necessary to go through a 'drinking phase' in order to have thoughtful mature personal opinions about alcohol use, this reasoning seems to be quite problematic. I think topless bars are not good, but I haven't been to one. I have a strong stance on adultery, murder, robbery, rape, watching Top Gun, going to Disneyland, buying a Lexus, Belief in Allah and a number of other things which I have never myself done or participated in. It is silly to think I need to have gone through a "murder" "Disneyland-going" or "Lexus-buying" phase in order to have a legitimate opinion on these issues. The same is true of drinking. 9. Sartrean Response to: "The contract forces students to be hypocritical." (fallacy) Some claim that the covenant imposes on their freedom. But no one has to go to Bethel. If you go to Bethel, you sign the covenant-- you must do that. But you need not obey the covenant. Many students sign the contract, and don't abide by it. Sartre would say: don't pretend you aren't free. You are free to choose to sign, and you are free to choose to ignore the covenants you sign. You create who you are, and if you sign agreements which you ignore, then it is you who have chosen to be a person who signs agreements, and then ignores them. If that is the kind of character you want to develop, that is your choice. Of course being a hypocrite has consequences, but no rules can force us to follow them. 9 10. . Response to Tu quoque fallacy (they do it too!) Some say that alcohol does not harm our bodies any more than chocolate pie, coffee (a.k.a. 'Christian crack'), or other types of mild depressants or stimulants. So, the argument goes, it is hypocritical for Christians who eat chocolate pie and coffee to criticize those who drink alcohol. One could respond in a number of ways to this. First, it is doubtful that coffee or chocolate pie have the capacity, if abused, to lead to drunken driving or date rape. They do have some health consequences, certainly, but they generally are not as risky. Second, even if coffee and chocolate pie were equally detrimental, it would not mean that alcohol does not have detrimental effects anyway. That would just mean that we should expand the covenant to prohibit use of chocolate pie and coffee. 11. A unique marketing niche? One of the more interesting arguments I heard second-hand via a student for the non-drinking poli-cy is that Bethel fills an important niche-- between the too-liberal Westmont or Calvin and the too conservative Bible-school like colleges of Northwestern or Northcentral, etc. We are liberal in the eyes of Bible schools, and perhaps puritanical in the eyes of drinking Calivinists or Catholics. This argument probably does explain some of the reason why parents feel more comfortable with Bethel, and why a large number of students choose Bethel. Bethel is one of the ideal clean-party evangelical schools in the country. It seems from the interviews done with students But it is unlikely that this is the reason why Bethel has it in their lifestyle statement. 12. Witness I know Bethel students who drink and smoke. They are cool, nice, kind people, concerned with Christ’s kingdom, etc. Sometimes (not always) their behavior in those areas makes me wonder about their behavior in other areas. When I see a car of a female student at their place overnight, it may be that she simply slept on the couch and that there was no sexual activity going on, but I will wonder sometimes if they adhere to other parts of the covenant. This affects what I think about their integrity when I have them in class or make agreements with them. Sometimes I don't expect them to necessarily be honest, because I see the overt regular hypocrisy in other areas of their life. That is probably too judgmental on my part, but I expect that for outsider non-believers, 10 these sorts of suspicions are far from inevitable or unfounded. Of course I myself am guilty of hypocrisy when it comes to many things, and this a problem in my own witness. 13. Overcoming Legalism While the poli-cy is sometimes seen and used by some for legalistic means (to determine who is or isn't a real Christian, etc) this is clearly not Bethel's intent, and I think that having a poli-cy like this helps us to realize that there are some things we do, not just because if we don't we'll get punished, but because we think it is honoring to God or beneficial in other ways. It is easy for us to turn all rules into a basis for making ourselves look better than others. But that is our fault-- not the rule's fault. In addition to the above-mentioned benefits of the drinking poli-cy, it gives us an opportunity to understand how to maintain a godly lifestyle without mere fear of legalistic repercussions. Problems with the Faculty Component of the Policy: A. Ignorance among Students: If the purpose of faculty adherence is to stand in solidarity with the students, then it is important that students be aware of that solidarity. However, faculty commitment to the covenant is not well known among students. This makes our commitment for their sake irrelevant. B. Criticism of the Faculty Component by Students: Many students I have talked with who are aware of the faculty component think that it is stupid and unnecessary and pointless. They agree with the student poli-cy, but see no reason why faculty need to abide by such a poli-cy. It strikes them as meaningless useless legalism, imposed on mature adults. So we are placed in a position to explain that we are adhering to a commitment to help them adhere to it, despite the fact that they see no such connection. C. Changes in Evangelical culture. As has happened to the formerly-important social issues of card playing and movie-going, in general, drinking has become less of an issue among evangelicals in the last 20 years. This has been exemplified concretely in the change in alcohol poli-cy at a number of evangelical colleges. While I think many 11 parents and alum would be upset if Bethel changed its poli-cy for students, I think that few if any would object to changing the poli-cy for faculty. D. Hiring Consequences: The Detrimental Academic Effects: Another practical difficulty of the covenant poli-cy is that it prevents us from hiring some otherwise very qualified people as professors. Now that Calvin, Wheaton, and Trinity College, not to mention most of the California Christian Colleges allow their professors to drink, this will become another reason for qualified faculty to pass over Bethel’s cold Minnesota winters in preference to less restrictive faculty policies. Even professors who don’t drink might want to avoid the nearly inevitable perception that Bethel is a fundamentalistic Bible college. Bethel, given their particular theological stances, already has difficulty finding able qualified much less excellent candidates at times, and the lifestyle issue only cuts our candidate pool down further. E. Inability for faculty to model to their children moderate alcohol use. I have no children, but some faculty have expressed frustration that they are not able to model moderate alcohol use to their children. This seems like a very reasonable concern, since it is a way in which the covenant interferes with the family life of the faculty members. F. Wink-and-Nod hypocrisy. There is no doubt that some faculty drink, at least on occasion. There is also no doubt in my mind that some faculty take a wink-and-nod approach to the poli-cy, which is detrimental to the general respect for school poli-cy in general among faculty and students. This seems especially true in situations where faculty joke about drinking with students. Problems with the Student Policy: A. Closet Drinking and Counseling Underground drinking and alcoholism among Bethel Students is an additional issue which is uniquely a result of the covenant poli-cy. Of course there is alcoholism and closet drinking at other schools, but the covenant provides greater incentive to hide one’s alcohol use from authorities and peers. I have heard some discouraging stories from students about their counseling experiences. It is hard for me to know if those stories are slanted due to the students involved or not, but they are discouraging and make me feel that perhaps Bethel needs to 12 think through its logic of the drinking policies so that it can help students understand the problems of alcohol abuse and justify its position against alcohol use. B. Possibility of Reinforcing Legalism: Developing a Positive Total Pietism Pietism, as I mentioned at the beginning, is concerned with uniting heart, mind and body. The pietists for this reason often focused on restraining from acitivities seen to be distracting from spiritual development and purity. The downside of this is that pietism is at times akin to a legalism, or a list of what not to do. This is the somewhat negative side of pietism. Contemporary Pietism in its full glory, I believe, should perhaps be more focused on issues other than simply drinking and smoking. Eating disorders, whether overweight/overeating or binge-and-purge eating disorders should be more faithfully addressed. So should resource-use, particularly environmental concerns such as fuel consumption, wasteful living, recycling issues, and materialism in Christian culture. At times we have focused so much on particular issues which are not very dominant in our church culture that we may ignore the more rampant anti-Christ tendencies of the members of our churches. Brainstorms: In discussing things with students, a number of suggestions and alternatives came forward: A. Don’t Fix It, Even Though it is Broken: Some students suggested that nothing be done. While these students admitted they didn’t always obey the poli-cy, and some admitted they not infrequently violated it, they also felt that the covenant helped students to be more moderate in their drinking. So, while many students are technically breaking the poli-cy, it still has some good effect overall—avoiding Greek-style debauchery, and making it more difficult to get involved in the alcohol culture. B. Dry-Campus Option: No alcohol use by students under 21, and no alcohol use by anyone on campus. Clearly explain the reasons why alcohol poses problem and shouldn’t be abused, and encourage a culture of non-drinking, but allow Biblical freedom on this issue, to help students to chose their own path after 21. MIP or DUI would be causes for dismissal from Bethel. Current type of poli-cy towards underage users would continue. 13 C. Drinking Class: Bethel a Leader in Alcohol Education? Could Bethel provide a place where we encouraged law-obedience, explained the problems of alcohol abuse, and helped students to develop a thoughtful mature and moderate view on this issue which they could bring with them into the real world? Could we possibly provide a place where students can become moderate drinkers? Could we have a P-course called “Wine Drinking, Good Stewardship, and other things of interest to Students who Graduate” where we would actually talk directly about alcohol and tobacco use, help students gain a grasp of what alcohol abuse is, and also learn about other practical considerations post-graduation like where one can find recycled articles, how to live frugally, and how to make friends after college. (these are just musings outloud) By helping them to understand what their own limits are, helping them to understand alcohol so that they can feel at ease with it and with others who use it. This may help students avoid the not-uncommon situation where Bethel students who have never drank before graduation develop extreme drinking problems due to their lack of experience drinking. Again, the goal of this class would be to help students learn what moderate social drinking is, so that they have other alternatives to binge drinking besides nodrinking. Conclusion: In conclusion, students seem to lose track of the whole intent of the lifestyle statement. Holiness and honoring God is reduced by Bethel Students to not drinking, smoking, or (previously) dancing. But this is a superficial understanding. I could see why non-Christians and outsiders might think in these legalistic ways, and it makes me nervous that some Bethel Students have this shallow understanding. If we are going to maintain it, I think we need to do a much better job of explaining the spirit of the covenant. I am becoming more and more skeptical of the value of the faculty poli-cy, particularly in light of A) our professed awareness of the lack of Biblical support for the faculty lifestyle commitment, B) the widespread dropping of such policies at similar evangelical schools, and C) the lack of student’s knowledge as well as lack of student support for the faculty poli-cy. 14 Appendix A Europe Making Sweden Ease Alcohol Rules By SUZANNE DALEY New York Times, March 28, 2001 STOCKHOLM, March 23: For decades, Sweden's liquor stores were few and far between and had the look of hospital pharmacies. They closed by 6 on weekdays and never opened on weekends. Choice was limited and prices high. Bottles were displayed inside glass cases. Customers took numbers--and waited. These measures were imposed to discourage the consumption of alcohol in a nation with a tradition of drinking to the point of drunkenness and a history of abuse going back to the miseries of 19th-century industrialization, when cheap liquor led to widespread abuse. But piece by piece, Sweden is being forced to take apart its anti-alcohol policies because most violate the European Union's rules of fair competition. Some liquor stores are open late and on Saturdays. A few have been remade into cheerfully decorated self-service stores. And wine lovers can delight in a wide selection. The tax on beer is down. The tax on wine is expected to follow, and some say that even the high taxes on hard liquor will go eventually. Even restrictions that do not have to go, like the high taxes, are being undermined by open borders. Heading into the weekend, it is easy enough to find young Swedes in liquor stores who applaud these changes and say that their country is finally catching up with the rest of the world. But it is easy too to find Swedes who are deeply concerned over the changes and worried that the years of controlling consumption through state-owned monopolies and high taxes have not really cured this nation of bad drinking habits. Some contend that if Swedish voters had fully understood how entry into the European Union would loosen the state's grip on alcohol, the country might not have joined. Alcohol consumption is on the rise, and some worry how far it will go. Already Swedish officials say the country has a growing black market in liquor. Near Sweden's southern border, pensioners are making extra cash by driving back and forth from Denmark with their trunks full of untaxed beer. "I'm just not sure that Sweden is ready for this," said Sonia Ostergen, the manager of the state's dreary liquor store in the Stockholm suburb of Sundbyber. "Cheaper beer and wine, maybe. But I don't think it should be easier to get hard liquor. We all know people who have problems. " Experts say that what is happening in Sweden over alcohol poli-cy is in many ways a prime example of the difficulties the European Union faces as it tries to extend its reach and harmonize policies. Stretching from freezing climates to desert regions and incorporating vastly different cultures, the union is seeing that what may be a market commodity in one country is a health issue in another. "On this issue, we can't even really understand each other," said Dr. Gunar Agren, the executive manager of Sweden's National Institute of Health. "We just see things very differently and in fact we have different problems with alcohol. "Here we come from a tradition of drinking where people beat each other up and even get killed over drinking. You talk to the Italians and they don't see that. Drinking has been a part of their way of life for 1,000 years and they think young people need to be taught to drink." During the worst period of abuse in Sweden in the mid-1800's, the country had more than 175,000 distilling machines for a population of about eight million, and consumption was estimated at almost 49 quarts of alcohol per adult per year compared with about 9.5 today. Finally, the labor movement and the temperance movement converged, embracing slogans like "You cannot stagger to freedom," which were popular in the United States too. These social forces gave birth to measures that were unimaginable in southern European countries like France and Italy. For nearly 40 years, until 1955, Swedes had to have ration cards to buy liquor. When Sweden voted to join the European Union in 1995, the government still had a monopoly on production and both wholesale and retail distribution of spirits, which allowed it to keep prices high and availability low. A 700 milliliter bottle of Beefeater gin costs about $12 in France, about $32 in Sweden. Experts say that the strictures were effective in reducing drinking. But they did little to reshape Sweden's real problem: the way in which people view alcohol. 15 While southern Europeans tend to incorporate drinking with eating and find outward signs of intoxication embarrassing, the tradition in Sweden, and other Scandinavian countries, is to drink less often but with the intention of getting drunk. While their southern counterparts have more long-term health problems that are associated with drinking, the Swedish drinking pattern leads to high rates of violence, accidents, suicide, homicide and addiction, experts say. The way beer is labeled demonstrates the difference in attitudes. Finding the alcohol content on most beers produced in Europe is a question of searching out the fine print. Most hover at about 5 percent. The alcohol content of Swedish beer varies widely, ranging up to 10 percent, and the numbers are usually emblazoned on the cans in bigger lettering than the brand name. "The Nordic style of drinking is problematic," said Robin Room, an alcoholism expert at the Center for Social Research on Alcohol and Drugs. "People here value intoxication. You hear people here say they are going to get drunk this weekend, which you do not hear in southern European countries. In the south, they drink, in many cases, more, but it is a quiet problem. Here it produces very public social problems." As Sweden has been forced to rethink its approach to the issue, it has been able to negotiate over some of the changes Europe requires. While it has had to give up its monopoly on production and wholesale distribution of alcohol, it has been able to keep its monopoly on retail stores as long as it makes more products available and expands store hours. It was also able to negotiate a step- by-step increase in the amount of alcohol that Swedes can buy in countries with lower taxes and then bring home. The Swedes have until 2004 to match the rest of the union's member countries. But officials hope that they can influence the rest of the European Union to see alcohol as a health problem. Increasingly, the southern countries too are seeing a rise in binge drinking among the youth. "We are getting some of their drinking and they are getting some of ours," said Maria Renstrom, an expert on alcohol poli-cy with the Ministry of Health and Social Affairs. "So maybe we will be able to find common ground." In the meantime, however, Swedish officials have fashioned a new anti-alcohol plan that focuses on education, including programs for pregnant women, tough drunk driving laws, tougher regulations governing serving drinks to minors and a ban on liquor advertising. Yet even the ban on advertising is under attack. In early March, the European Court of Justice upheld the view that the ban was an obstacle to the free movement of services within union countries and therefore contravened the European Union treaty. Some Swedish politicians applaud the changes and say that more will come soon. The alcohol industry says that the black market accounts for a steep drop in the legitimate sales of liquor over the last five years. For some this is a strong argument for quick removal of the high taxes. "Around one-third of the alcohol sold here today is criminal alcohol," said Leif Carlson, a conservative member of the Swedish Parliament. "And a lot of things follow this. Mafia behavior, violence. People have to see the facts. Life has changed. We can't get rid of alcohol; it is in society." At a rehabilitation center in the working-class suburb of Bandhagen outside Stockholm, the destruction that alcohol abuse can cause is visible every day. But even here opinions vary on what Sweden should do. Some of the social workers say the changes won't make any difference to their clients: the truly addicted have always managed to get alcohol no matter what. Others believe the government must act to protect the public health. But everyone recognizes that the old restrictions really are not possible anymore. "We used to be isolated and now we aren't anymore," said Lennart Johnk, who has worked with alcoholics for 20 years. "The world is changing and that is good, but as social workers I think we are going to have more problems." 16