In a consultative referendum, Dec. 29 and 30, 1931, 546,332 (226,82o women) voters favoured outright repeal; 217,208 (115, 684 women) continuation of Prohibition; 10,947 (4,914 women) modification. Over 7o% for repeal, although only 44% of the electorate participated in the referendum, was a result that led to an extra session of Parliament on January 19, 1932, and on January 3oth Prohibition was repealed by a vote of 120 to 45 after thirteen years' unsuccessful effort to enforce it. The new law became effective April 5th and set up a State owned and State directed Alcohol Company to supervise the manufacture, sale and import of intoxicants and to maintain strict governmental regula tion. The Government holds 98% of the stock of the Company which pays local and national taxes and customs dues on impor tations on the same basis as other concerns. Municipal and com munal councils by a two-thirds vote may prohibit sale, manufac ture and importation within their jurisdiction. The Company may declare a dividend not to exceed 7%. Profits beyond that are distributed : 15% to old age and unemployment funds; 15% for temperance work; 2o% to be divided among cultural, benevolent and temperance activities in all communities and so% for the sup pression of the illegal liquor traffic. The Company reported a net profit the second year of operation, 1932-33, of over one and a half million dollars and a 7% dividend was paid. Home manufac ture of malt drinks and wines is permitted ( J. H. Wuorinen, Fin land's Prohibition Experiment, Annals, Am. Acad. Pol. and Soc. Science, v. 163, p. 216-226, Sept. 1932, World Almanac, 1935).
In Norway a special licensing system (1845) gave the local au thorities power to fix the number of licences and the Gothenburg or company system, with some modifications, was adopted in 1871. The profits accruing from the disinterested management by the companies from the sale both for "on" and "off" consumption originally went in Sweden mainly to the municipality in relief of rates, in Norway to objects of public utility.
Thus the company system applied only to spirits and succeeded in greatly reducing the number of spirit bars, stopping drinking on credit and by persons under eighteen years of age, shortening the hours of sale, raising the price and lowering the strength of spirits; but retail bottle trade and the sale of beer and wine increased.
In Sweden in 1909 a great strike caused the Government to in augurate temporary prohibition. A popular unofficial referendum that year showed a large majority in favour of its continuance. But a plebiscite in 1922, and again in 1933, showed a majority of 37,000 votes against prohibition in both cases in a total vote of 1,800,000.
Dr. Ivan Bratt, a practising physician in Stockholm, developed a system of control of individual consumption through adaptation of the company system. In 1913 he became director of the com pany at Stockholm which he reorganized under the name of Stock holm System. In 1917 the Bratt System was established by law and the Liquor Control Act (1919) was made compulsory through out Sweden. It vested a monopoly of manufacture and sale in the Wine and Spirits Central, a limited dividend Company in which the Government chooses a majority of the directors. Retail sell ing is likewise a monopoly of local limited dividend companies, regulated by local governments, in 122 "wet" districts (1935) with 200 retail stores supplying hotels and restaurants which may sell at retail for consumption with food, and supplying individ uals whose buying is regulated by permits or "motboks." 2200 out of 2500 districts are "dry" but individuals may import spirits or wine for personal consumption in dry districts under the regu lations of the uniform permit system. Beer with alcoholic content of less than 1.8 per cent by weight is not regulated from 1.8 to 3.2 only by taxation, but over 3.2 manufacture is prohibited.
Thus the Bratt System seeks to reduce the general ration of dis tilled and spirituous liquors through a central control, to deny liquor to all alcoholics and persons who abuse it and to eliminate all private interest in the liquor trade. The general results are difficult to estimate. (See for excellent summary: The Swedish Alcohol System by M. Marcus, Stockholm, 1925.) In Norway the "Samlags" control, similar to the or company system in Sweden but with more limited powers, was based on the Act of 1871 and strengthened by the Act of which gave local option to prohibit retail sale of spirits. In 1913 15 towns out of 26 voted down existing Samlags. Outside the Samlags the sale of spirits prior to the World War was con ducted by "privileged" (life interest) licences, wholesale rights and special "off" and "on" licences issued by the magistrates and town councils. During the World War further restrictions amounting finally to total prohibition of the sale of spirits were enacted. In 1917 Norway prohibited the importation, transporta tion and sale of spirits and of wine containing more than 14% of alcohol and by the Act of 1919 the permanent prohibition of spirits was enacted having been approved in a referendum vote. An effort to repeal prohibition was unsuccessful in 1924, but was accomplished on April 5, 1927 as a result of a referendum (Oct. 1926) vote of 531,084 for repeal to 423,031 against. Norway since then has returned to its previous company system of control with a certain amount of local option. Economic pressure under trade treaties with France, Spain and Portugal compelled Norway to buy annually from these countries, despite its prohibition law, about 1,800,000 litres of spirits and strong wines, so in 1923 the government yielded and raised the prohibition limit to liquors above 21% alcoholic strength. With liquors of this strength permitted, obviously prohibition existed only in name.