Old enough to die for my country, but not to buy a bottle of wine
In just a couple of weeks, eighteen-year-old Hampus will graduate from school. In front of him lies eleven months of mandatory military training. With the war in Ukraine casting a dark shadow over Europe, his fear of being deployed to the front lines is real. Yet, while the Swedish government considers Hampus mature enough to carry a weapon and potentially die for his country, it does not consider him old enough to buy a bottle of champagne to celebrate his graduation. Welcome to the Swedish reality of every teenager, living in a country that will trust you with its national security at eighteen, but has made it illegal to even so much as enter the state-run alcohol monopoly, Systembolaget, until you hit the age of twenty.
History has already shown us the dangerous consequences of state-enforced sobriety. During American Prohibition (1920–1933), the U.S. government banned the manufacture and sale of alcohol for recreational use. While exceptions were carved out for medical and religious purposes, millions of citizens simply bypassed the law to drink socially. The restriction didn’t eliminate demand; instead, it fueled a massive black market of bootleg liquor and underground speakeasies. Because the trade was pushed into the shadows, organized crime seized control, turning a policy meant to protect public health into an era of violent turf wars. Worse still, prohibition pushed consumers toward unregulated, high-proof and often dangerous moonshine, proving that state bans do not eliminate vice, but merely make it more hazardous and corrupt.
You would think modern governments would learn from history, but Sweden is still making the same mistakes. The Swedish government justifies its strict age limits and total state monopoly under the guise of "public health." But just as it did in 1920s America, forcing a popular commodity behind rigid state walls does not eliminate demand, it simply moves the market into dangerous territory with black markets and fake alcohol poisoning the youth.
Furthermore, the state’s obsession with controlling alcohol exposes a glaring ideological contradiction in how it views personal responsibility. The government happily trusts citizens to manage every other aspect of their well-being; eating junk food, smoking and a complete lack of exercise are completely the responsibility of the individual, even though the consequences of such actions could send people to the hospital. Only 11% of Swedish people meet the daily recommended intake of vegetables (500g-800g) and if the government actually believes that its responsibility is to take care of the “peoples’ health”, should they not enforce mandatory diets or strict food regulations? Yet, the government does not ration sugar or mandate gym attendance. It trusts individuals to make their own lifestyle choices. So why does the government get to decide where an adult's responsibility begins and ends? If the state genuinely trusts the public to navigate all other health risks on their own and even trusts eighteen-year-olds to defend our nation in a time of war, it has absolutely no business micromanaging their choices at a grocery store counter.
The Swedish government only needs to look at its neighbour Finland to see how well the individual can make rational decisions when it comes to alcohol. In June 2024, the Finnish government introduced a new alcohol law allowing regular supermarkets to sell fermented alcoholic beverages up to 8% ABV, breaking Alko’s (the Finnish equivalent of Systembolaget) exclusive monopoly on these products.
Critics of deregulation always predict a public health disaster, but the real-world data tells a very different story about state control. Immediately following the new law, Alko reported a dramatic 7% drop in its total 2024 volume sales, plummeting from 76.9 million to 71.2 million liters, with sales volumes dropping by 10% right after the grocery stores got access to the stronger beverages. This downward trend has only accelerated. By the end of 2025, Alko's total sales volume had decreased further to 66 million liters, causing the monopoly's operating profit to collapse by a staggering 39%.
However, this financial hit to the monopoly did not mean people started drinking more. In fact, Alko's own financial directors admit that general alcohol consumption has actually been steadily declining by a couple of percent every single year since 2007. This proves that a state monopoly is not a necessity for society but rather is a forced dependency. When citizens are given a choice they gladly bypass the state-run stores, proving that normalized access simply integrates alcohol into regular commerce without triggering the catastrophe monopoly-defenders always fear.
Furthermore, this shift is part of a much broader, global reality. Countries with highly liberal alcohol markets, such as the United Kingdom, have experienced dramatic declines in youth drinking without any state-mandated monopolies. According to data from the British Office for National Statistics (ONS), young adults between 16 and 24 are now the age group most likely to be completely teetotal (abstain from alcohol). In the UK, where beer, wine, and spirits are readily available in any local grocery store to anyone over eighteen, a record number of young people are choosing to drink less or abstain entirely. The data is clear: youth culture is evolving toward moderation on its own. Rigid restrictions and state-run monopolies are obsolete tools trying to solve a problem that modern education and shifting social trends are already fixing naturally.
The global and historical data is undeniable. From the violent failures of 1920s America to the modern, successful market liberalizations in Finland and the United Kingdom, history shows that society does not need a state nanny to manage its citizens' social lives. Trusting young adults does not lead to chaos; it leads to maturity and a culture of moderation. It is time for the Swedish government to stop treating its young generation with suspicion and abandon an outdated monopoly system. If Hampus is old enough to wear the Swedish flag on his shoulder, carry a weapon, and potentially defend our nation's freedom, he should also have the freedom to decide what he puts in his own glass.
Author: Ingeborg Gunvén
1=Britannica Editors, "Prohibition: United States history [1920–1933]", 2026. https://www.britannica.com/event/Prohibition-United-States-history-1920-1933
2)Livsmedelsverket, "Grönsaker, frukt och bär – kostråd för vuxna", 2026. https://www.livsmedelsverket.se/matvanor-halsa--miljo/kostrad/kostrad-vuxna/gronsaker-frukt-och-bar/
3) Ibid.
4)Yle Nyheter, "Nya alkohollagen drog ner Alkos försäljning år 2024", 2025. https://yle.fi/a/7-10070281
5)Yle Nyheter, "Tre orsaker till att Alkos försäljning rasar", 2026. https://yle.fi/a/7-10096006
6) Ibid
7)Office for National Statistics (ONS), "Adult drinking habits in Great Britain: 2017", 2018.
This article was produced by a participant from the European Liberal Youth LYMEC with the financial support of the European Youth Foundation of the Council of Europe. The opinions expressed in this article are the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy of the Council of Europe.
Old enough to die for my country, but not to buy a bottle of wine