Should Alcohol companies not be allowed to advertise?

[BCR]

Tobacco companies have very strict regulations for advertising but why is it so relaxed when it comes to Alcohol companies. I can't watch a TV show or getting on the internet without seeing some kind of Alcoholic beverage commercial.

This commercials do a great job of portraying consumption of "Alcohol" as cool and fun. I got nothing against Alcohol but I really don't think we need to have these advertisements, it should be regulated like Tobacco companies when it comes to advertising.

 

[BCR]

Wow I butchered the question in the poll, me feel so stupid :3oops:

 

[digsbe]

It's ok, I think we understand what you are trying to say.

I voted no. First of all, it would infringe upon free speech (advertising alcohol) and private business (preventing them from advertising). Cigarettes may be unhealthy, but I think it was wrong for the government to prevent them from advertising it.

 

[Ikari]

So are you asking if they should be allowed or not allowed in your poll as the thread title and poll question seem different. I think both tobacco and alcohol should be allowed to freely advertise on TV. There's nothing wrong with companies selling legal products buying commercial time on TV to hock their products.

 

[rivrrat]

Individual consumption should be up to the individual. Advertising should be allowed by any company operating under the law and selling legal products.

As an aside, alcohol IS cool (and so are cigs... goddamn I want a cig)

The government has no right to restrict advertising of legal products. No reason to either.

 

[jamesrage]

I did accidentally vote yes. Alcohol and Tobacco companies should not be banned from advertising. There is this thing called the first amendment. The government has no business regulating who does and does not have free speech.(unless that person is prison, the military or highly classified job)

 

[winston53660]

I did accidentally vote yes. Alcohol and Tobacco companies should not be banned from advertising. There is this thing called the first amendment. The government has no business regulating who does and does not have free speech.(unless that person is prison, the military or highly classified job)

So I could claim cigs cure cancer?:mrgreen:

 

[jamesrage]

So I could claim cigs cure cancer?:mrgreen:

They can claim whatever the they want. Of course they will be sued for making bogus claims.

 

[ricksfolly]

It's ok, I think we understand what you are trying to say.

I voted no. First of all, it would infringe upon free speech (advertising alcohol) and private business (preventing them from advertising). Cigarettes may be unhealthy, but I think it was wrong for the government to prevent them from advertising it.

What is the most important to you , not brain washing susceptible kids or a watered down version of free speech.

I still don't go along with the dumb ruling that political contributions are free speech.
"Money talks" is just an expression, not a political justification.

ricksfolly

 

[Ikari]

What is the most important to you , not brain washing susceptible kids or a watered down version of free speech.

Please, like TV has more influence over children than their parents. Maybe parents should watch what their "susceptible kids" are watching and make better judgments off of that. Tobacco and alcohol are legal substances. Companies which sell these legal products should not be barred from advertising.

 

[digsbe]

What is the most important to you , not brain washing susceptible kids or a watered down version of free speech.

I still don't go along with the dumb ruling that political contributions are free speech.
"Money talks" is just an expression, not a political justification.

ricksfolly

How is a commercial brain washing? Companies shouldn't have their rights taken away because kids are going to be ignorant and stupid. Regardless, the parents should be the ones educating their children's on the harms of cigarettes and alcohol. Brainwashing isn't 30 second commercials.

 

[Kal'Stang]

I've noticed that since cigarette companies were banned from advertising there have been a lot more laws put into effect regarding cigarettes. Mainly because they are not allowed to advertise I would bet. I like how alcohol companies advertise. "Be Responsible" has become thier mantra really. Why couldn't cigarette companies do the same? Basically since they can't defend themselves through advertising and all we are seeing are the advertisements designed to tear them down...well smoking cigarettes is being phased out.

 

[Orion]

There are actual health benefits to moderate alcohol consumption, unlike cigarettes where any minuscule health benefits claimed by proponents are vastly overshadowed by the dangers to health. You can smoke one pack of cigarettes and the tar lodged in your lungs could trigger mutation even 10 years later. There is no "safe dose" for cigarette smoking. There aren't thousands of known poisons in beer that are deliberately added to increase addiction. I fully support regulating tobacco as well as bans on public smoking. Cigarettes are a danger to society even more so than 100 years ago because of how they are formulated. Even if people were just smoking plain tobacco leaves like they used to, I would have much less of a problem with that than I do manufactured cigarettes.

Alcohol in small doses (like one beer or a glass of wine with supper) has some benefits to the body. One reason is that you are introducing a small amount of a foreign toxin into the body. Your liver reacts by purging it, but in doing so it also purges other stored toxins through urination and bile. Alcohol in small doses basically kicks your body's detoxing process into high gear. So the net effect is that your body is less toxic. If you get hammered, then you are doing more damage to your body and the net risk is much higher, such as to your liver and brain.

My main problem with alcohol advertising is that it focuses a lot on the partying aspect of drinking, which involves excess that hurts your body. We don't often see commercials that show couples sitting down to dinner and having a beer or glass or wine (which is actually quite romantic!), or drinking in a more casual way. We only see the party aspect because it encourages people to consume more which means they buy more, and as a side effect, party culture and drinking have become synonymous.

I disagree that advertising only boils down to private ventures and personal choices. Even if you don't drink, advertising affects society and culture. In the 1950's doctors were prescribing cigarettes for sore throats and for women that tended to give birth to large babies (nicotine stunts fetal growth). It was considered the norm for men to smoke and it was very pervasive. Once the tobacco industry was debunked and the proof became widespread, smoking declined sharply, and part of that is that advertising cigarettes was illegalized. Thanks to that, my generation is free of the notion that "real men smoke", and I don't have to risk cancer to gain social acceptance.

I agree with this illegalization for the health of society, but alcohol is less certain.

 

[earthworm]

Tobacco companies have very strict regulations for advertising but why is it so relaxed when it comes to Alcohol companies. I can't watch a TV show or getting on the internet without seeing some kind of Alcoholic beverage commercial.

This commercials do a great job of portraying consumption of "Alcohol" as cool and fun. I got nothing against Alcohol but I really don't think we need to have these advertisements, it should be regulated like Tobacco companies when it comes to advertising.

I ignore all the obnoxious TV and radio advertisements, as best I can.
Mute is one of man's greatest inventions.
Those who do watch the commercials...I have no sympathy; do need to "get a life"..
Marajuana will end up being promoted on TV.....But I detest all advertising anyway; I'd like to see more PBS and PCN and C-Span and less commercial TV.

 

[ricksfolly]

Please, like TV has more influence over children than their parents. Maybe parents should watch what their "susceptible kids" are watching and make better judgments off of that. Tobacco and alcohol are legal substances. Companies which sell these legal products should not be barred from advertising.

If you tell kids what not to watch, they'll still find ways do it when you're not around. Not seeing them is better because it won't put pressure on the parents. Out of sight, out of mind. Child Psychology 101

ricksfolly

 

[Ikari]

If you tell kids what not to watch, they'll still find ways do it when you're not around. Not seeing them is better because it won't put pressure on the parents. Out of sight, out of mind. Child Psychology 101

ricksfolly

People are responsible for there own decisions and the consequences there of

Freedom 101

 

[Psychoclown]

If you tell kids what not to watch, they'll still find ways do it when you're not around. Not seeing them is better because it won't put pressure on the parents. Out of sight, out of mind. Child Psychology 101

ricksfolly

I'm so sick of people crying "what about the children!" on this or that. If you want your children to avoid bad things like booze, cigerettes, and soccer guess who's responsible for making that happen? You, the parent. Don't restrict other people's freedom because you don't want little Johnny or little Suzy exposed to this or that.

If you don't want your kid exposed to sex on TV, they have this wonderful invention called the remote control. It allows you to change the channel or even turned the stinking box off. If you don't want your kid to hear naughty words on the radio, it also comes equipped with this marvelous thing called the on/off switch. If you don't want your children to get involved in booze and smokes at a young age ... here's a radical thought. Talk to your kids about the dangers of alcohol and tobacco use! I know its amazing to think that you can actually take an active role in your child's life and don't have to rely on the government to be an overprotective parent for your kids and the rest of the population.

"What about the children" has got to be one of the most brain dead, knee jerk justifications for policy ever invented. If these people were around during the Reniassance, Michealangelo would've never been allowed to scuplt David, because little Suzy would've seen a ding dong and we can't have that!

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

The abuse of alcohol is one of the most pervasive social problems affecting our society. Alcohol advertising glamorizes and encourages that abuse.

 

[Captain America]

Please, like TV has more influence over children than their parents. Maybe parents should watch what their "susceptible kids" are watching and make better judgments off of that. Tobacco and alcohol are legal substances. Companies which sell these legal products should not be barred from advertising.

I agree that parents should have more influence over their children but my observations in this day and age make me wonder, generally speaking, how many actually do.

My nephew comes to mind. He has good parents. He's in his teens now and thinks he's black. All his friends think they're black. In fact, they give blacks a bad name they are so bad at it.

I KNOW he didn't get it from his parents.

All that being said, keep in mind that I am an old fart and I probably just don't understand.

 

[Laila]

Ofc it should be banned or at the very least restricted.
If I don't get to see my smoking adverts anymore and fast food ads are restricted till after watershed. So should alcohol. I would support a ban on alcohol if it was proposed by Parliament. It is a drug, no more or less harmful than the illegal drugs

 

[Psychoclown]

Ofc it should be banned or at the very least restricted.
If I don't get to see my smoking adverts anymore and fast food ads are restricted till after watershed. So should alcohol. It is a drug, no more or less harmful than the illegal drugs
I would support a ban on alcohol if it was proposed by Parliament. It is a drug, no more or less harmful than the illegal drugs

That worked real well last time we tried it here in the states. You might want to read up on what a raging success Prohibition was.

Though I would agree with you that alcohol is no more or less harmful than at least some illegal drugs. But that fact leads me to a far different conclusion than expanding the so called war on drugs.

 

[Laila]

That worked real well last time we tried it here in the states. You might want to read up on what a raging success Prohibition was.

Though I would agree with you that alcohol is no more or less harmful than at least some illegal drugs. But that fact leads me to a far different conclusion than expanding the so called war on drugs.

I don't see the difference between illegal drugs and alcohol. Both has devastating impacts on body and health apart from the fact that one is "socially acceptable" and the other one isn't.

And yeah ban may not work the other option is ofc, legalising all drugs and taxing it. I wouldn't mind Parliament taxing alcohol to the hilt either and restricting supermarkets "own brand" alcohol which exacerbates the binge drinking.

 

[WingsOfDesire]

It's called freedom of speech. Could you impose certain limitations on the advertising? Sure. I mean, Joe Cool ain't around anymore, so it's not hard to imagine the commercials being targeted. But your original question is an outright ban, so I have to say no, even though I understand the intent.

 

[Psychoclown]

Various studies have shown that legalizing or decriminalizing drugs has little to no affect on user rates. Similarly, when Prohibition was in affect here, the booze was still flowing freely. Speakeasies where illegal, but still commonly accepted. So I disagree that a ban would "limit it a lot". Prohibition was a complete disaster. People still drank. We flushed millions of dollars enforcing a law that nobody wanted. And created a blackmarket that funded violent criminal cartels. Perhaps you've heard of the Mafia? They rose to unheard of power and prominence thanks to Prohibition.

As for taxing it into oblivion, I hate so called sin taxes. First off, often it isn't a sin tax, but "other people's sin tax". No one ever supports taxing their own little vice, be it booze, drugs, tobbacco, or fast food. Secondly, tax policy should be based on finding a fair and efficient way to fund necessary government functions. It shouldn't be used for social engineering.

 

[Laila]

As for taxing it into oblivion, I hate so called sin taxes. First off, often it isn't a sin tax, but "other people's sin tax". No one ever supports taxing their own little vice, be it booze, drugs, tobbacco, or fast food. Secondly, tax policy should be based on finding a fair and efficient way to fund necessary government functions. It shouldn't be used for social engineering.

That is all well and good but if the Government has fooled itself into thinking making drugs illegal will somehow "stop them" then I'm sure they can expand that delusion to include alcohol.

And as for taxes, why not?
I didn't like the increase of tax on my fags, the watershed mark, the change of law for smokers but I still understood why the Government did it. Parliament cannot please everyone.