[gnerd]

Very much the opposite. In Sweden, even alcohol is a controlled substance and you may recall pressure being put on NL for allowing foreign people to consume cannabis in coffee shops (mainly in Amsterdam), well that pressure was from Sweden who saw the practise as a way for Swedes to get around their laws by flying to Amsterdam for a weekend (although just across the border in Copenhagen, a Swede can buy cannabis at Christiana, it isn't legalized or officially decriminalized, but the police only enforce a few arrests every few years as long as there is no violence or other drugs, no such pressure was placed on Denmark).

It is a throwback to notions from the 19th century, puritanical christian Sweden where the notion was that Swedes have an 'addict gene'.

You can legally have sex with animals though, it isn't even seen as cruel, the thinking back in 1945 when bestiality was legalized with sodomy was why should an otherwise good man be plagued because he has sex with animals (or homosexual sex). Obviously this thinking wouldn't fly in other western nations as the concept of cruelty and consent are very different. I think they are in the process of changing this now, so maybe in a few years they will fall in line with other aspects of international policy as well.

[jeltz]

> It is a throwback to notions from the 19th century, puritanical christian Sweden where the notion was that Swedes have an 'addict gene'.

19th century Sweden was not "puritanical Christian". The ideas of absolute temperance entered through influences from the Anglo-Saxon world, local temperance organizations mostly advocated alcohol use in moderation.

I believe that the idea of Swedes being especially prone to addition also is something recent, but here I am out of my depth. I have not heard it used often by temperance activists and Christians either.

[dalke]

I agree that "puritanical" isn't appropriate for Swedish Lutheranism, but I suspect the previous poster was using "puritanical" more loosely, as a rough antonym to "hedonistic" and not as a specific religious movement or influence.

I'm not sure though about your statement "mostly advocated alcohol use in moderation."

There was the Swedish prohibition referendum in 1922. Just under 50% of the voters wanted an absolute prohibition on "rusdrycker". That includes spirits, wine, and strong beer. The referendum was "För eller mot införande av fullständigt rusdrycksförbud" - "for or against the introduction of the complete prohibition of intoxicating drinks."

(I'm uncertain how to translate 'rusdryck.' I think 'intoxicating drinks' is best, vs. "drinks with alcohol." A rusdryck is currently defined in Sweden (since 1944) as drinks with at least 2.25% alcohol by volume. I don't know what it meant in 1922. IOGT put it at 2% back in the late 1880.

For comparison, in the US the 1919 Volstead Act set the limit as 0.5%, while the 1933 Cullen-Harrison Act raised it to 3.2% by weight (=4% by volume), just a few months before the amendment overturning Prohibition. For that short time, US prohibition laws were less strict than what Sweden would have had.)

In any case, I don't think it's the same as saying that the temperance movements advocated for "alcohol use in moderation." Most of the temperance movements seem to have been for the ban, and relatively fewer temperance organizations (like the "Landsföreningen för folknykterhet utan förbud" - "National Association of Public Temperance Without Prohibition") against it.

As for the Christian influence, from what I can tell, while there were Christian organization in the early 1800s which advocated less alcohol use, it wasn't until the the "new" temperance movements of the late 1800s, with strong US influences, that people advocated for a complete ban. Some, like NGTO, were more specifically Christian than others. I think the modern IOGT-NTO is not Christian, though there are still Christian-based temperance movements in Sweden. As I recall, most people in the more religious area of Sweden voted for the ban, but that could also be an agriculture/small-town vs. industrial/big-city divide.

The modern temperance movement is, as you say, not the same as 100 years ago. IOGT-NTO advocates for reduced use of alcohol, and for the existence of alcohol-free places (like meeting halls). It does not advocate for the ban of alcohol.

[gnerd]

As the other poster mentioned, I was using puritanical to mean strict religious ideas and not the Puritan movement. You will notice I capitalised Sweden but not the word puritanical as it was not a proper noun.

[dalke]

"puritanical" is an adjective, not a noun. :)

I also noticed that you referred to an "addict gene" as a 19th century notion, but the term "gene" wasn't coined until the 20th century.

In any case, no I wasn't aware of a 19th century Sweden based on strict religious ideas. Could you tell me more? My understanding is that the state was working to suppress Pietism in the Lutheran church, and persist with rationalism.

Pietism and Puritanism are similar, and Pietism is a forerunner to the modern evangelical movement in the US, which is why I didn't think that 1800s Sweden had those same sorts of strict religious ideas about one's daily life.

Rather, there were strict religious laws, yes, but they were strict in asserting how Lutheranism was the official church and that there is no other church. Quoting Wikipedia:

In order to curb Pietism several Royal Decrees and Acts of Parliament were proclaimed in the 18th century, which forbid Swedish citizens to practice any religion besides mandatory Lutheran Sunday Mass attendance and daily family devotions. Without the presence of a Lutheran clergyman public religious gatherings were forbidden. It remained illegal until 1860 for Lutheran Swedes to convert to another confession or religion. From then, and unto 1951, it was legal to leave the Church of Sweden for the purpose of becoming a member of another officially recognised religious denomination.

I'm interested in Swedish history, though I don't know all that much about it, so I look forward to your explanation.

[gnerd]

Yes, puritanical is an adjective but the Puritan movement is a proper noun as it is the name of a movement. That is the point I was making. In English the phrase 'proper noun' does not mean I was implying the word puritanical was a noun, it means I was saying it is not a name (which we capitalize and call proper nouns), and therefore I was using it as an adjective. I hope that clears up your confusion.

As for the "addict gene", again, this was supposed to be a synonym phrase for a notion of hereditary weakness, I was not implying it has a genetic basis or that genetics was known before Crick. The phrase "addict gene" was quoted because I have heard it in Sweden (in modern times) when discussing these issues.

I'm hardly an expert on Swedish history, just a person who asks questions when I travel. What I know of Swedish history could be written on the back of a postage stamp. I'm afraid I wasted more time on Roman history in school (as you can imagine, Swedish history doesn't come up very often).

[dalke]

Genetics was most certainly known before Crick. Indeed, the terms "genetics" and "gene" were coined over a decade before Crick was born, and the first research was by Mendel about 50 years before Crick's birth.

I have not heard of a specifically Swedish addict gene, and I've lived in Sweden for over 6 years. Searching now, I found no mention of that concept, including searching for "missbrukare gen". Surely some may have said it, but it's not a widely held belief that's part of the debate on substance abuse.

And of course this part of the thread started because you made a statement about puritanical Swedish religious beliefs of the 1800s, when it appears that religious beliefs in Sweden during that time were decidedly anti-pietism/anti-puritanical.

What I conclude from all this is that you feel that your generalizations are correct, even though your details are not, and you make statements without worrying about checking those facts, or feeling that you need to explain the reasoning behind your generalizations.

Perfectly fine for you do to that, but it's not the conversation I wanted, or want, to have.

[gnerd]

What I conclude from this is you don't know what a proper noun is in English and you are offended at conclusions drawn from my experience in Sweden, which are of course anecdotal and therefor not applicable to everyone in Sweden, why would you assume I was asserting the opposite?

I guess you didn't do much searching if you couldn't find this study[1] from Lund University or this study[2] from Gothenburg University.

From your sophmoric questioning and pedantic ramblings it seems your mind was made up before you even heard the answer.

> Perfectly fine for you do to that, but it's not the conversation I wanted, or want, to have.

Well to be fair I wasn't trying to have a conversation with you, and again, to be fair, you didn't do anything to add something to the general conversation besides your mild nationalism. Classy.

[1] http://www.research.med.lu.se/en_projektdetaljer.php?Proj=65...

[2] http://www.psy.gu.se/english/current/news/newsdetail//gene-i...