Public opinion in transition: tightening attitudes and the future of Finnish alcohol policy

A survey published by the Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare (THL) in March 2026 challenges this assumption. Public opinion is not moving toward greater permissiveness. Instead, there is a broad-based acceptance of the current system and a slight tilt toward more restrictive rather than more liberal policies. Most respondents do not appear to be calling for major reforms in either direction.

Approximately 58 per cent of respondents support maintaining the retail alcohol monopoly system, in which stronger (>8 vol %) alcoholic beverages are sold through the state-controlled retailer Alko. This indicates not merely passive acceptance, but a degree of institutional legitimacy. The system appears to retain public trust, likely reflecting an understanding of its role in limiting alcohol-related harms.

Home delivery and public opinion: low trust in enforcement

One of the most contested proposals in Finnish alcohol policy concerns the introduction of home delivery and the expansion of online sales. While often framed as a technical or market-oriented reform, it raises a core regulatory issue: the ability to enforce age limits and prevent sales to intoxicated individuals.

When asked whether age limits and the prohibition of sales to intoxicated persons could be effectively enforced in the context of home delivery – such as through food delivery services – a clear majority expressed skepticism.

• 41 % reported no trust in effective enforcement
• 37 % “rather little” trust
• 16 % “rather much” trust
• 4 % full confidence
• 2 % unsure

These figures have remained virtually unchanged since the year 2025, suggesting that skepticism toward enforcement is both widespread and stable. Taken together, nearly four out of five respondents express low or no confidence in the ability to uphold key regulatory safeguards under a home delivery system.

The paradox of policy debates

Against this backdrop, contemporary policy discussions in Finland present a paradox. Political debates and reform proposals have continued to emphasize liberalization – such as expanding sales channels, increasing availability, or introducing new forms of distribution. These initiatives are often framed as responses to consumer demand or as necessary adjustments to modern lifestyles.

Yet the survey data suggests that such demand may be overstated. Public opinion appears, if anything, cautious, with weakening support for deregulation. This raises the possibility that policy debates are being driven by other factors than broad-based public preferences.

Economic interests and ideological commitments to market-oriented reforms likely play a role. In addition, public discourse may create an impression of widespread support that is not fully supported by survey evidence. The result is a potential misalignment between the direction of policy proposals and the preferences of the population.

The observed shift away from liberalization invites further reflection. Several factors may help explain why attitudes have become more restrictive or, at least, less permissive.

First, long-term trends in alcohol consumption in Finland have been declining. As overall consumption falls, the perceived need for increased availability may diminish. Second, public awareness of alcohol-related harm has increased, supported by sustained public health messaging and research dissemination. This may reinforce support for regulatory measures.

Finally, recent policy changes may themselves have influenced attitudes. Incremental liberalizations can sometimes prompt reassessment, particularly if they are associated with concerns about health, as well as social and financial impacts. In this sense, public opinion is not static but evolves in interaction with policy developments.

Rethinking the direction of reform

The current trajectory of Finnish alcohol policy debates suggests a push toward further liberalization. Yet, public opinion is not moving in the same direction.  A majority support the current system, and fewer than before are calling for deregulation. At a minimum, the findings suggest that the legitimacy of further liberalization cannot be taken for granted. Policymakers seeking to justify reforms based on public demand may therefore need to reconsider their assumptions.

More broadly, the findings highlight the importance of aligning policy decisions with both empirical evidence and societal preferences. In the Nordic context, alcohol policy has traditionally been grounded in a public health framework, supported by relatively high levels of public trust. Maintaining this legitimacy requires attentiveness to shifts in public attitudes.

This does not mean policy should simply follow opinion polls. Rather, it calls for a balanced approach in which research evidence, expert judgment, and public values are all considered. Where divergences emerge, they should be explicitly acknowledged and addressed, rather than overlooked. If the goal is to sustain a legitimate and effective alcohol policy, reforms should be grounded not only in economic or ideological considerations but also in a clear understanding of public attitudes and public health evidence.

The Finnish case offers a broader lesson. Even in policy areas where change has been gradual and incremental, shifts in public opinion can alter the foundations on which reforms are built. Recognizing and responding to these shifts is essential for ensuring that policy remains both effective and democratically grounded.

The article is written by

Kirsimarja Raitasalo, chief researcher at the Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare

on the request of PopNAD