According to statistics on alcohol consumption in Europe between the
years 1906 and 1910, Finland was in a class of its own — at the
bottom of the list. Finns were consuming only 1.5 litres of pure alcohol
per person annually, as opposed to the 2.4 litres consumed in Norway and
4.3 litres in Sweden — and the 5.0 to 22.9 litres per person in
other European countries. Alcohol-related problems were practically
nonexistent in Finland (Peltonen 11).
Still, a total prohibition of alcohol was enforced in 1919. What kind
of development led to a situation where such extreme measures were
considered necessary? What were the consequences?
The Use And Production of Alcohol in the 18th Century
In the 18th century and before, strong liquor was the beverage of
festivities and gatherings among the peasants. It was also used to pay
wages to the peasants' servants, and as the only form of medication. The draff 1 was used as
cattle fodder (Mäntylä, Kasvu 239). Liquor was also a way to show
friendship and hospitality, as well as being an important means of barter
(Peltonen 28).
The distillation of alcohol in towns had been taxed since 1638, and
that taxation was extended to the rural areas in 1731. This was when
alcohol became a central political issue as well as an important source
of income for the state (Peltonen 17). Two systems of alcohol production
alternated throughout the century. One was that alcohol was distilled by
the peasants; the distillation was then taxed by the state. The other
was that the production of alcohol was monopolized by the crown
distilleries, who then sold their products to the public. There were repeated national and local prohibitions of
distillation due to a shortage of corn.2
In general, attitudes toward alcohol were positive, although excessive
usage to the extent of perceptible drunkenness was considered a sin and,
due to the demands of the clergy, prohibited by law in 1733 (Peltonen
22-23, 28).
National Identity And Concern about Alcohol in the 19th Century
Having been severed in 1809 from the Kingdom of Sweden and connected to
the Russian Empire as the autonomous Grand Duchy of Finland, the country
was struggling to form its national identity. The elite, which in the
absence of a powerful aristocracy was comprised of officials and
intellectuals, had to determine its linguistic and national identity. It
also had to establish its relationship with the new entity of
administration, economy, culture, and population, which mainly consisted
of an independent and strong peasantry. This was the setting for the
rise of nationalism, as well as the modern question of alcohol
consumption. The leaders of the economic and cultural life and officials
at all levels were all concerned about problems linked with the
production and use of alcohol (Sulkunen 1-2).
The Abolition of Home Distillation
According to alcohol legislation dating back to the year 1800, under
Swedish rule, estate owners had the right to manufacture, sell, and
transport liquor. The size of the still and the fee to be paid for
distilling rights depended on the size of the estate. All farm owners had
to pay the fee whether or not they used their right to distil. This
legislation was in force until the ban of home distillation in 1866.
However, in the countryside, beer was still considered household produce,
and its production was not restricted (Mäntylä, Kasvu 249, Peltonen
29).
At the beginning of the 19th century, a specialized private alcohol
manufacturing industry was beginning to take shape. Agriculture as an
industry was becoming more and more important to the landed gentry: good
crops and high prices of corn and liquor made it a lucrative business.
Development in technology made distilling equipment less consuming of corn
and fuel and more suitable for industrial production, and the quality of
the liquor produced was much higher than that of the traditional,
inefficiently home-distilled liquor. Manors invested considerable funds
in these new stills (Peltonen 29-30).
Politically powerful, the landed gentry were well able to look after
their own interests. Having persuaded the Czar to ban the import of
liquor for the Russian soldiers deployed in the country during the Finnish
War — while the top politicians of the country kept emphasizing the
importance to agriculture of domestic distillation — they next turned on
their next-worst competitor: the small-scale home distillation of the
peasants. This began to be regarded as the sole source of all problems in
society. The arguments against imported liquor were soon turned upside
down and used against the peasants' rights to produce alcohol. Home
distilling suddenly became harmful to agriculture, and the draff formerly
used as fodder was now declared unfit for the cattle to eat (Peltonen
30-31).
The societal discourse on alcohol increased, and there was a new tone
to it. In writing contests and in newspapers, there were articles about
the threat alcohol posed to the harmonious and happy family lives of the
common people. Due to home distillation rights, liquor was available to
everyone and at all times, and those who spoke against home distilling
rights would have been in danger of losing their credibility had they
proposed that the peasants should switch from home-made liquor to
factory-made products. So, the attitudes towards the peasants' use of
alcohol grew stricter: they should stop drinking altogether (Peltonen
31-33).
The religious revivalist movements were among the supporters of total
abstinence. Their idealism was based on personal conviction:
individualistic civic morality comprising temperance, enterprise, and
responsibility. Total abstinence formed the basis of Christian morality
(Sulkunen 2). In intellectual writings, a connection was made between
drinking, idleness, and inefficiency, all forming a vicious circle where
each constituent nourished the other, resulting in poverty (Sulkunen 3).
Others were not as strict: the first Finnish temperance society,
organized by Elias Lönnrot in Kajaani in 1834 (Sulkunen 2), which was
later called the Friends of Moderation, allowed controlled and moderate
drinking, but was opposed to strong liquor and especially the home
distillation rights of the peasantry (Peltonen 35). The Finnish Household
Society decided in the 1840s to support the abolition of home distilling
(Sulkunen 2).
All in all, the use of alcohol — especially home-distilled
— among the common people was considered an impediment to the
development of the nation at all levels: the modernization of
agriculture, the building of an independent economy, and the creating of a
national consciousness (Sulkunen 2-3). Whereas in the 18th century
drunkenness was considered a sin and a criminal act, it was now regarded
as an offence against the ideal of normality (Peltonen 43). It was also
estimated that a change to factory production would raise the strong
liquor tax income of the state. Thus home distillation was abolished by
the Diet in 1863, and the abolition came into force in 1866 (Peltonen
35-37).
The Alcohol Question
In the decades following the abolition of home distillation, the social
question of alcohol began to reach its true dimensions. Both industry
and agriculture were developing rapidly, and many economic and social
measures were being taken to modernize society and develop a capitalist
system (Sulkunen 3-4). The Diet had started convening after a long
break, the press grew and diversified, and voluntary civic activity
increased, all of which made possible a modern discourse on alcohol
policy (Peltonen 45). The publication of writings against alcohol in the
Fennomanian press and the spreading of temperance booklets increased
greatly in the 1870s (Sulkunen 3).
The rapid growth of a landless population throughout the 19th century
had created a large number of people who had to either keep moving from
one place to another and receive work wherever it was available, or resort
to poor relief. In the last decades of the century, these people began to
form a new class of mobile, independent workers who were no longer tied to
and controlled by their masters (Sulkunen 4-5).
The severance of these ties did not end the customary drinking of
alcohol, but it did remove the old system of communal responsibility. The
worker was now alone with his decision to drink as well as with the
consequences of his drinking. Furthermore, the mechanized and
rationalized production methods of an industrializing society did not
allow for drinking with meals during the workday; the worker had to wait
until the evening and then go to a public house where the only activity
available was drinking. This might incline him to drink more than would
be appropriate.
It was these new drinking habits rather than any increase in total
consumption that, according to anti-alcohol writings of the period, led to
an increased neglect of work and produced poverty. In these writings, the
worker was instructed to use his own reason and willpower to choose to be
sober, industrious, and disciplined, so that he could be called a decent
citizen instead of a drunkard (Sulkunen 6-8).
In rural areas, where the poverty problem was worst, poor relief
— and thus the poor themselves — became a burden to taxpayers.
A large part of the working population had to resort to poor relief even
if they were sober. If they drank, the situation was even worse. The
social question of poverty and the alcohol question ran hand in hand.
Legislative measures were taken in the rural communes worst affected by
the problems: total prohibitions of alcohol production and distribution
were enforced in many regions. These decisions were among the first
attempts to alleviate social problems by political means, and were an
essential part in the forming of modern social policy (Sulkunen 8-10).
According to Peltonen, these regional prohibitions were advocated by
the peasants, who wanted to retain their control over their paid help.
The peasants were no longer allowed to distil, but they were powerful in
communal decision-making and well able to ban the selling of factory-made
alcohol, which had become available in shops throughout the countryside
after the home distillation ban. These developments gave birth to a very
strict and restrictive outlook on the availability of alcohol. It may
even be stated that the line of thought which eventually led to demands
for a nationwide prohibition first appeared in the rural areas decades
before the rise of the temperance movement (58-59).
The Battle Against Alcohol Begins in the 1870s
The most fervent outcry in the alcohol-related writings of the 1870s was
against the effects of alcohol on the working man's ability to provide for
his family. According to these writings, moderate drinking was not
possible: anyone who took even one drink immediately turned into a
monster who first drank his whole week's wages and then all his and his
family's other possessions, finally driving his wife and children out into
the cold, with himself ending up in prison. There was no variation to
this; every drinker was a criminal and outcast.
Furthermore, with the changing structures of society and the emergence
of a huge and heterogeneous working class, there was no established model
according to which the working man might have taken responsibility for his
family. The fear and confusion caused by this instability, which was made
even worse by the man's drinking, caused the social question of alcohol
and the family to be brought into public attention by a group of Finnish
female intellectuals, who in 1876 sent an appeal signed by 1,452 women to
Governor-General Nikolai Adlerberg, demanding stricter alcohol
legislation. This was the first attempt by women, who had no voting
rights, to affect social legislation by mass action (Sulkunen 11-15).
Civilizing the working class and raising it to a state of independent
initiative was an important issue for both the pro-Finnish Fennomans, who
were considered conservative, and the more liberal Swedish-speaking
intelligentsia. However, whereas the Liberals emphasized the workers' own
responsibility in this matter, the Fennomans considered it the duty of
those of higher rank to take protective and instructive measures to help
alleviate the economic and social predicament of the lower orders. In the
Fennomanian press, detailed instructions were published on how to organize
modern temperance societies and other beneficial activities to keep the
worker away from the public house and strong liquor. The use of
legislation to protect the working class against alcohol became a central
demand in the Fennomans' programme. The Society of Popular Education was
formed in 1874 to pursue this programme (Sulkunen 15-21).
There was anti-alcohol activity among the workers, too: in 1873, some
twenty alcohol boycott societies were set up in factories, workshops, and
among manual workers in the most industrialized cities in southern and
western Finland. The total number of members, at a cautious estimate,
exceeded one thousand, which is considerably high. These boycotts
represented a totally new form of working class organization: they
together formed the first workers' mass movement, which was united by a
common programme of temperance ideology. It was also distinguished from
earlier workers' activity by its radical character. In this way the
workers demonstrated their willingness to take the responsibility for
their image and identity into their own hands (Sulkunen 22-24).
Another instance of temperance activity was the Free Church temperance
movement. At the beginning of the 1880s, many temperance societies had
been founded in the cities of Swedish-speaking Ostrobothnia as well as
Turku and Helsinki and their surrounding areas. Separatist trends, total
abstinence as a prerequisite of membership, a liberalist view of the free
individual in charge of his own fate without the intervention of the
state, and voluntary welfare work all characterized this movement. In
fact, the programme of the Free Church temperance movement closely
followed that of the Liberals (Sulkunen 24-26).
The Friends of Temperance
A nationwide temperance organization began to form in 1878, when Aksel
August Granfelt became secretary of the Society of Popular Education. He
began to rearrange its organization according to a model which he had
acquired from foreign temperance organizations. Temperance work provided
a suitable ground on which to cultivate the Fennomanian programme of
integrating the lower orders into the nationalist state structure. By
creating an umbrella organization to connect all the independent
temperance societies that were springing up throughout the country, it
would be possible to form a patriarchal alliance between the common folk
and the intelligentsia.
In 1883, this plan took a big leap forward when August Schauman, the
manager of the Friends of Moderation, offered to hand over the control of
his society to Granfelt. This way, Granfelt acquired the organization
that he needed, ready to be used for his purpose. In 1884, the name of
the organization was changed into Friends of Temperance (Sulkunen 27-41).
A three-level programme was established for the Friends of Temperance.
Firstly, membership in a local temperance society meant being bound to the
collective aim of changing society as a whole by uprooting the unwanted
custom of drinking. Most of the members came from among the common
people. Secondly, education, which included elementary school, religious
instruction, and voluntary adult education, provided the means with which
to persuade the common people to accept the moral values of a new society.
The elementary teachers and the Lutheran clergy came from the lower
educated class. Thirdly, legislation, which was in the hands of the
official bodies of the state and the municipalities, would be used to
protect society — rather than the individual — against the
harm caused by drunkenness.
The temperance movement thus formed a hierarchic structure of action in
which functions were divided according to social status. The lower orders
were in the position of receivers, with no possibility to affect activity
on the higher levels. By 1888, the Friends of Temperance had concentrated
practically all national temperance activity into their own hands. They
had infiltrated temperance ideology into the whole social mechanism and
created the first countrywide organization to be present throughout the
whole machinery of the state, as well as in all ranks of society (Sulkunen
63-70).
Toward the end of the 19th century, the working class began actively
and radically to demand their equal rights. In mass meetings and
demonstrations, demands were made for the right to vote and for a complete
revision of alcohol legislation. A general law of prohibition became a
central issue of the labour movement. This went against the programme of
the intelligentsia, according to which it was not the common people's
business to decide for themselves. A. A. Granfelt, who in the early years
of the Friends of Temperance had considered prohibition a natural aim of
the temperance movement, now tried to cool the overheating enthusiasm by
recommending the extension of municipal prohibitions instead of a general,
nationwide prohibition. This led to a dispute between the younger and
older leaders of the organization, resulting in Granfelt's withdrawal from
the leadership of the temperance movement. He was replaced by Väinö
Wallin (later Voionmaa). Matti Helenius was elected secretary of the
Friends of Temperance in 1902 (Sulkunen 189-202).
The Alcohol Boycott Movement
Perhaps the most unique demonstration of mass mobilization was the
alcohol boycott movement in the spring of 1898. This workers' temperance
league was apparently formed in Kotka by two workmen, Kalle Heikkilä and
Emil Andersson. It grew explosively, concentrating in the urban
districts of southern and western Finland. By the end of 1898, some
70,000 had joined the movement by giving a written promise not to drink
alcohol for a year. Mass meetings, demonstration marches, and popular
addresses were among the methods used. 170,000 Finnish citizens of full
age signed the prohibition address which was organized by the movement,
and expressions of support from 325 rural communes were added to it
(Sulkunen 205-07, 211).
However, there are certain facts that suggest the alcohol boycott
movement was not just a spontaneous outburst of workers' activity. In
fact, an outline of such a venture had been published in the workers'
newspaper Työmies two years earlier. Furthermore, as soon as the
agitation started, the Finnish labour movement leaders readily took up the
cause and became its main organizers, although they themselves were not
supporters of total abstinence. Also, the idealism behind the alcohol
boycott was radically different from that of the official line of the
temperance movement, in which the bourgeois community were supportive
legislators and educators of the working class. Instead, the boycotters
saw the whole trade in strong liquor as a form of capitalist exploitation.
In addition to this, the demands for prohibition and the right to vote
were inseparable. In fact, the main goal of the boycott was to gain
general and equal suffrage: with that enforced, the will of the majority
would automatically bring about a law of prohibition (Sulkunen 212-15).
Although it is impossible to say to what extent it was the work of the
Finnish labour movement leaders, the alcohol boycott movement was
certainly used by them to solve some of the problems of mass mobilization,
including the one that arose from the fact that many of the workers who
belonged to temperance societies adhered to the official line of the
temperance movement, which was considered harmful to the labour cause.
The alcohol boycott served as a means of political pressure. Its tasks
were to mobilize the (until then) fairly passive working class masses, to
bring the Finnish working class closer to the international social
democratic workers' movement and a socialist outlook, and to draw the
temperance-minded workers away from the temperance movement by giving them
a non-bourgeois alternative. It also demonstrated the necessity of a
political party for the working class: the Finnish Workers' Party,
founded in Turku in 1899, included a demand for prohibition in its
programme. A year later, having served its purpose and almost died out
completely, the alcohol boycott movement was officially brought to an end
by the alcohol boycott committee (Sulkunen 217-21, 211).
Prohibition Is Enforced
At the turn of the 20th century, the radical actions of the leaders of
the alcohol boycott movement had broken the stagnant harmony of the
temperance movement and forced it into a reformation of its activities.
At first, it was divided between the bourgeois and socialist outlooks,
but in the first years of the century the division got more complicated
as the political and social system of the country was reorganized. In
fact, the temperance attitude infiltrated the whole field of religious,
social and political organizations, giving the temperance movement a
steady growth of support until 1905, the year of the General Strike
(Sulkunen 221-24).
When the first unicameral Parliament convened in 1907, a prohibition
act was passed unanimously. However, it did not come into force then, as
it was regarded by the Senate as an ill-prepared resolution whose
enforcement in practice had not been thoroughly considered. In 1909, the
Parliament passed it a second time, with the same result. Finally, in
1917, it was passed by the Tokoi Senate, and ratified by the Provisional
Government of Russia. It came into force in June, 1919 (Simpura 16-18).
Between 1907 and 1917, however, with the parliamentary reform
completed, the demand for prohibition was no longer useful as a means of
struggle for democracy. The labour movement no longer needed it, and many
workers were detaching themselves from the temperance movement.
Furthermore, the total alcohol consumption in Finland was already one of
the lowest in Europe. Therefore, the temperance movement had to find a
way to justify the idea of prohibition, as well as its own existence.
This is when the idea came about that there was something special about
the way in which Finns, compared to people of other nationalities, used,
and reacted to, alcohol (Peltonen 71).
According to this idea, it was customary for Finns to drink large
amounts in one go in order to get drunk and then behave in an
exceptionally uncivilized, violent manner. The temperance movement also
used 'scientific' studies to establish a solid link between alcohol and
crime. The harm caused by alcohol was considered to be completely out of
proportion to the total amount consumed. Thus alcohol had to be banned.
This line of reasoning was easily explained by the intelligentsia, who
had been frightened by the way in which the common people had freed
themselves from ideological patronage and organized themselves into a
politically powerful unity. The intelligentsia regarded the lower class
as a race of its own, distinguished by brutality, a lower level of
civilization, and overall cultural inferiority. These qualities —
together with a lack of tolerance for alcohol — were considered
hereditary, which was in accordance with the racial thinking typical of
the time. This kind of argumentation was then used to further promote the
passing of the prohibition act by the Senate and the Russian Government
(Peltonen 72-81).
When the First World War broke out in 1914, the Senate banned all
distribution of alcohol, except sale at first-class restaurants (Simpura
18). Almost all the rural areas had been dried up by regional
prohibitions by the turn of the century (Peltonen 96). Therefore, by the
time prohibition came into force in 1919, the total consumption of alcohol
in Finland had dropped to 0.07 litres of pure alcohol per person per year,
which meant practically speaking that all Finns were total abstainers
(Simpura 18). During the war, prohibition had firm support among the
elite and the common people alike. Prohibition was considered a miracle
cure, something that would change the world for the better once and for
all (Peltonen 96).
The Effects of Prohibition
Prohibition banned all manufacture, import, sale, transport, and storage
of all beverages containing more than 2 percent by volume of ethyl
alcohol, with the exception of alcohol used for scientific, technical, or
medicinal purposes. Communion wine was also allowed. Alcohol
manufacture, sale, and import for these purposes was monopolized by
Valtion Alkoholiliike, a state-run company. Private citizens
could only buy alcohol at a pharmacy with a prescription written by a
doctor separately each time, and not even then if there was reason to
suspect that the alcohol would be used with the intent of becoming
intoxicated (Simpura 19).
However, things had changed since the law was first passed by the
Parliament in 1907. The First World War, the struggle for independence,
and the Civil War had left their mark. A shortage of goods, inflation,
fluctuation of the economy caused by reckless speculation, and changes in
moral values characterized the times. Temperance was not among the ideas
people were inspired by, although its support would last long in party and
parliamentary politics. Furthermore, society had no machinery ready to
supervise the enforcement of prohibition (Simpura 19-20). In addition,
the higher ranks of society, who under wartime law had been able to buy
alcohol at first class restaurants, were no longer in such a privileged
position, which may have caused some disappointment in the new law on
their part (Peltonen 97-98).
As a result, the law was utterly disrespected by people at all levels
of society. The amount of alcohol prescribed by doctors rose
phenomenally, and surely not all of it was used for medicinal purposes.
Far larger amounts were smuggled from ships anchored outside the
territorial waters by organized smuggling leagues. The obsolete
sea-faring equipment and ground vehicles of the Finnish Customs and Police
were no match for the fast, new boats and cars of the smugglers, who had
no shortage of money. The amount of alcohol confiscated may serve as an
indicator of the total amount smuggled: in 1924, 511,000 litres of
spirits were confiscated, and in 1930, over a million litres, despite the
officials' inefficiency in enforcing the law. At a conservative estimate,
the annual consumption of pure alcohol per person rose to about 2 litres,
an amount not reached again until as late as 1961, according to official
statistics (Simpura 20-23).
The distribution of alcohol was efficient and well-organized from
wholesale to street vending; spirits were available at any time of the
day, even home-delivered. Restaurants served "hard tea" (half tea, half
spirit) with crackers or biscuits. Some even had real cognac and whisky
available. Drinking at home became popular, and alcohol usage spread
among women and youth, which is considered one of the most serious damages
caused by prohibition. Alcohol-related crime and disease grew (Simpura
24-27). Confiscated spirits of finer quality were transported —
sometimes on a wheelbarrow — to festivities of the finer folk
(Peltonen 105). Officials treated the law with indifference. Restaurants
were raided by the police, but they were not always conscientious about
their job. Policemen themselves were charged with offences against
prohibition. The sentences passed for the crime were usually rather light
(Simpura 26-28).
According to the strictest views of the temperance folk, however,
prohibition was a prerequisite for the existence of humanity. The
Prohibition Union was founded as a pressure organ to see to it that the
party leaders, the Parliament, and the high officials all acted in concert
to enforce prohibition. The parliamentary groups of the Social Democrats
and the Agrarian Union joined in from the start. The Swedish People's
Party was against prohibition (Simpura 29-33). However, hard economic
facts disrupted the temperance ideology. The economic depression of the
late 1920s forced the political parties, as well as the common folk, to
consider the idea of prohibition from a new point of view. The state
needed tax money. It would have been economic suicide to continue
enforcing prohibition (Simpura 36-37).
A referendum was held on the 29th and the 30th of December in 1931, and
the results were surprising: 70.6 percent of the voters were in favour of
freeing all alcoholic beverages. A new alcoholic beverage law was passed
by the Parliament on the 30th of January 1932. It was ratified on the 9th
of February, and came into force on the 5th of April of the same year,
thus rescinding prohibition (Simpura 46-50).
Conclusion
The question of how to organize the masses was difficult for Finnish
leaders in the years of industrialization and early independence. What
would be a better answer than a unifying ideology which already existed
among the masses? The issue of alcohol usage and the problems it caused
among the landless people, whose ties to their agrarian masters had been
severed, provided just the right kind of breeding ground for such an
ideology. The temperance idea would offer safety, respect, and possible
prosperity to workers who missed the old communality of the agrarian
society. The opportunity was first seized by the Fennomanian leaders, who
wanted to educate the working class according to their own patriarchal
programme. Later it was also adopted by labour movement leaders, who
strove for equal rights, including suffrage, for the working class.
At the turn of the 20th century, when the political system was being
reorganized, the temperance ideology and temperance movement —
together with a demand for total prohibition — infiltrated the whole
of society. There was no stopping the mass hysteria.
The results, however, were not what the temperance people expected.
Forced abstinence — despite an existing and almost total voluntary
sobriety of the people — seems to have gone against the Finnish
people's sense of justice. Together with the aftereffects of war,
economic depression, and a degraded moral atmosphere, the enactment of
such a law could not but result in disaster. Alcohol consumption
increased dramatically, despite its illegality. Alcohol-related crime and
disease also increased, as did smuggling and a general disrespect for law
and social order. This would continue until the repeal of Prohibition in
1932.
Notes
- Draff is the refuse left from the distillation process after all
the alcohol has been vapourized. (Back to draff)
- Corn here and later in the paper means rye, wheat, barley, or
oats. In 18th-century Finland, liquor was most often made from rye.
Berries, potatoes (although not until the 19th century), the annual shoots
of pine trees, and ants' eggs have all been used during Finnish history as
substitute ingredients during corn shortages (Mäntylä, Juuret
37-38). (Back to corn)
Works Cited
-
Mäntylä, Ilkka. Suomalaisen juoppouden juuret: Viinanpoltto
vapaudenaikana. Pieksämäki: Suomalaisen kirjallisuuden seura, 1985.
33-39.
-
- - - . Suomalaisen juoppouden kasvu: Kustavilaisen kauden
alkoholipolitiikka. Jyväskylä: Gummerus, 1995. 239-250.
-
Peltonen, Matti. Kerta kiellon päälle: Suomalainen
kieltolakimentaliteetti. Hämeenlinna: Tammi, 1997.
-
Simpura, Jorma. Vapaan viinan aika: 50 vuotta suomalaista
alkoholipolitiikkaa. Helsinki: Kirjayhtymä, 1982. 11-50.
-
Sulkunen, Irma. History of the Finnish Temperance Movement:
Temperance as a Civic Religion. Trans. Martin Hall.
Lewiston/Queenston/Lampeter: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1990.
