Poll: Ban Advertising of Alcohol

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/mhqlqlididmh/

Psychiatrists in Ireland are calling for a ban on alcohol advertising. They say that the numbers of young people dying from alcohol abuse are increasing and nothing is being done about it.

I agree. Alcohol advertising works and is visible to children and recovering alcoholics for whom it acts as a trigger. Banning alcohol advertising, restricting licencing laws and reducing tax on water and soft drinks and increasing it on alcohol would all help people stay out of the terrible trap of drink-dependency.

Totally agree. Alcohol abuse is a scourge.

Did I see a report in the Indo the other day saying that a huge amount of people in their thirties are now suffering from liver disorders and the incidence of women reporting in to hospitals is rising too. I can't google anything though.

I'd say that alcohol is a lot worse than smoking and indeed that the levy should be shifted from one to the other, not just ban advertising. Should we hold a poll here on something like that? - Yes or No to Ban Alcohol advertising?

I want to go on a spampage again but don't quote me on that.

What about an end to advertising?

SeathrúnCeitinn wrote:

What about an end to advertising?

Bit rough on someone setting up a new business or selling a new product.

Another I dislike is advertising aimed at children.

Auditor #9 wrote:

Did I see a report in the Indo the other day saying that a huge amount of people in their thirties are now suffering from liver disorders and the incidence of women reporting in to hospitals is rising too. I can't google anything though.

I'd say that alcohol is a lot worse than smoking and indeed that the levy should be shifted from one to the other, not just ban advertising. Should we hold a poll here on something like that? - Yes or No to Ban Alcohol advertising?

I want to go on a spampage again but don't quote me on that.

Yes Auditor#9, I think it would be a good poll to have.

SeathrúnCeitinn wrote:

What about an end to advertising?

Agree 100%. Except in the case of public and social events and issues.

Unless advertising if stopped entirely, I can't see why alcohol should be proscribed. Never an advert yet that made me do anything I did or didn't want to do. Smacks of censorship and nannyism. Are we going to pretend that if we don't advertise something, it will not exists anymore? The only way to deny alcohol to people is to prohibit its manufacure and sale.

rockyracoon wrote:

Unless advertising if stopped entirely, I can't see why alcohol should be proscribed. Never an advert yet that made me do anything I did or didn't want to do. Smacks of censorship and nannyism. Are we going to pretend that if we don't advertise something, it will not exists anymore? The only way to deny alcohol to people is to prohibit its manufacure and sale.

I agree with you - though the price of cigarettes went ball-breakingly high the number of smokers didn't drop and that might be the same with alcohol if prohibition-type measures were introduced.

However, should it be a softly-softly approach to create a culture of awareness of the excess of alcohol and simply quietly ban advertising of it or make it prohibitively expensive to advertise drink or indeed any items of food that we might consider unhealthy. We should probably have a poll on that but then again should the majority be consulted in the likes of this?

Banning advertising won't make it go away and if young children are doing it they are not doing it because of advertising, thet are doing it because their friends are doing it. That's not going to stop with a ban on advertising. Hiking up the price won't stop them either, it won't stop anybody. If I want a pint I'll pay 6.50, 7, 8 or 9 euro for it. If I smoke I'll pay €20 a pack. Raising the price of alcohol won't help combat alcoholism either, it will just drive already desperate people to even greater extermes to fuel their addiction, to suggest otherwise is arrant nonsense.

I don't believe restricting opening hours (which we have seen already) will do anything to combat the issue either, the same problems exist regardless of where or when alcohol is available. It's either there or it's not if you want to cut out alcohol abuse you need to cut out alcohol. If people want do drink lots they will find a way, they will go to the pub earlier, they'll buy more and drink at home.

What we need is education and support not short term half-arsed nannystate semi-prohibition nonsense.

Auditor #9 wrote:

rockyracoon wrote:

Unless advertising if stopped entirely, I can't see why alcohol should be proscribed. Never an advert yet that made me do anything I did or didn't want to do. Smacks of censorship and nannyism. Are we going to pretend that if we don't advertise something, it will not exists anymore? The only way to deny alcohol to people is to prohibit its manufacure and sale.

I agree with you - though the price of cigarettes went ball-breakingly high the number of smokers didn't drop and that might be the same with alcohol if prohibition-type measures were introduced.

However, should it be a softly-softly approach to create a culture of awareness of the excess of alcohol and simply quietly ban advertising of it or make it prohibitively expensive to advertise drink or indeed any items of food that we might consider unhealthy. We should probably have a poll on that but then again should the majority be consulted in the likes of this?

How about a tax (or higher tax) on alcohol advertising, ringfence it to fund alcohol awareness and alcoholism support services and education etc. Might be a smarter idea than fucking around and making like even more miserable and expensive for ordinary folk who just want a quiet pint of an evening.

Perhaps its time for some research findings: this is from a WHO report

"There is substantial evidence showing that an increase in alcohol prices reduces consumption and the level of alcohol-related problems. In most countries and especially in countries with low alcohol tax rates, tax-induced price increases on alcohol beverages lead to increases in state tax revenues and decreases in state expenses related to alcohol-related harms.

In addition, stricter controls on the availability of alcohol, especially via a minimum legal purchasing age, government monopoly of retail sales, restrictions on sales times and regulations of the number of distribution outlets are effective interventions. Given the broad reach of all these measures, and the relatively low expense of implementing them, they all are highly cost-effective.

Furthermore, most measures against drunk-driving, such as sobriety check points, random breath testing, lowered blood alcohol concentration limits, suspension of driver's licenses, graduated licensing for novice drivers, and brief interventions for hazardous drinkers also receive high effectiveness ratings. There is good research support for these drunk-driving interventions. Thus these interventions are applicable in most countries and are relatively inexpensive to implement and sustain.

Server liability and enforcement of on-premise regulations combined with community mobilization seem to be strategies with some impact without being too costly. However, they do not reach off premise drinking. Server training in responsible beverage service is unlikely to have an effect if it is not backed by the threat of suspending the licenses of those who continue to serve underage drinkers or intoxicated patrons.

If youthful drinking is seen as a specific alcohol policy problem, increasing the legal age limit for purchasing or selling alcoholic beverages is the most immediate and effective measure.

Various educational approaches have been developed to reduce alcohol consumption. Although they are growing in popularity, there is little evidence of their effectiveness.

Similarly, current research findings only show limited effects both on advertising and advertising bans."

http://www.euro.who.int/document/E82969.pdf

There was a Swedish ban on alcohol advertising a few years ago struck down by the ECJ as a measure having equivalent effect to a quantitive restriction on the free movement of goods within the community as it made it comparatively more difficult for companies from outside Sweden to establish a market share within the Swedish market.

Not sure if there would be a similar reaction now though as I would imagine the EU has developed a stance more against alcohol advertising than might previously had been the case. That said I am no expert on issues surrounding alcohol and the Community. I merely know about the free movement of goods.

johnfás wrote:

There was a Swedish ban on alcohol advertising a few years ago struck down by the ECJ as a measure having equivalent effect to a quantitive restriction on the free movement of goods within the community as it made it comparatively more difficult for companies from outside Sweden to establish a market share within the Swedish market.

Not sure if there would be a similar reaction now though as I would imagine the EU has developed a stance more against alcohol advertising than might previously had been the case. That said I am no expert on issues surrounding alcohol and the Community. I merely know about the free movement of goods.

Interesting johnfas = reminds me of the Opium Wars.

cactus flower wrote:

Perhaps its time for some research findings: this is from a WHO report

"There is substantial evidence showing that an increase in alcohol prices reduces consumption and the level of alcohol-related problems. In most countries and especially in countries with low alcohol tax rates, tax-induced price increases on alcohol beverages lead to increases in state tax revenues and decreases in state expenses related to alcohol-related harms.

Reduces consumption, but does it reduce abuse? Does the report cover the extra hardship caused on existing alcoholics and the measured they are driven to in order to continue to feed their addiction, or is that covered in alcohol-related harms?
I know of no alcoholic who though "jasus, this lighter fluid is getting fierce expensive, must dry out".

Quote :

In addition, stricter controls on the availability of alcohol, especially via a minimum legal purchasing age, government monopoly of retail sales, restrictions on sales times and regulations of the number of distribution outlets are effective interventions. Given the broad reach of all these measures, and the relatively low expense of implementing them, they all are highly cost-effective.

Have they investigated the effects of lowering or abolishing the drinking age? One can buy wine in Italy, France, Germany in fact in most European countries. None of them have the same general unhealthy relationship with alcohol that the UK and Ireland has.

Quote :

Furthermore, most measures against drunk-driving, such as sobriety check points, random breath testing, lowered blood alcohol concentration limits, suspension of driver's licenses, graduated licensing for novice drivers, and brief interventions for hazardous drinkers also receive high effectiveness ratings. There is good research support for these drunk-driving interventions. Thus these interventions are applicable in most countries and are relatively inexpensive to implement and sustain.

Personally I believe the blood alcohol limit for driving should be as low as resonably possible and those cought should have their licence taken for good. I have dealt with the damage drunk driving can cause and it's never pretty.

Quote :

Server liability and enforcement of on-premise regulations combined with community mobilization seem to be strategies with some impact without being too costly. However, they do not reach off premise drinking. Server training in responsible beverage service is unlikely to have an effect if it is not backed by the threat of suspending the licenses of those who continue to serve underage drinkers or intoxicated patrons.

Makes perfect sense.

Quote :

If youthful drinking is seen as a specific alcohol policy problem, increasing the legal age limit for purchasing or selling alcoholic beverages is the most immediate and effective measure.

See above.

Quote :

Various educational approaches have been developed to reduce alcohol consumption. Although they are growing in popularity, there is little evidence of their effectiveness.

Now that does suprise me.

Quote :

Similarly, current research findings only show limited effects both on advertising and advertising bans."

http://www.euro.who.int/document/E82969.pdf

[/quote]

On the otherhand imagine a world starved of iconic home grown advertising like this:





and where would we be without Dave the Barman???

Love the music from the first ad, never saw it before.
The second we all know.
And my godness isn't West Coast Cooler an awful drink!

There's enough Nanny Statism as there is with the early closure of off licences.

Is there any chance that adults be trusted to make adult choices?

Ronald Binge wrote:

There's enough Nanny Statism as there is with the early closure of off licences.

Is there any chance that adults be trusted to make adult choices?

Must be a kildare thing. Great self control we have here.

and deprive us of the great ads?

guinness white horses
guinness dancing lunatic
bud toads
bud wazzzzzuuuup!
tenants "you're too good to be true" sadist ads (the funniest!)
calsberg ads (esp the current irish/italian football managers" one!)

its time we banned psychiatists from making stupid proposals.

if you create an art piece of say, 1970's marlboro or camel advertising (a la andy warhol's cambells soup) and sell them to pubs/hotels/shops etc, are you caught by the current advertising ban?

What is this puritanical streak that has all of a sudden came to the forefront?
I'm sorry that there are irresponsible drinkers out there but as far as I'm concerned they can feck off if they think they can ruin it for the responsible majority that is rest of us.

The Lighthouse Keeper wrote:

What is this puritanical streak that has all of a sudden came to the forefront?
I'm sorry that there are irresponsible drinkers out there but as far as I'm concerned they can feck off if they think they can ruin it for the responsible majority that is rest of us.

Do you think the wanton, rampant promotion of drink culture on and in all sorts of media - the RTE Guide, Coronation Street, at Amy Winecellars concerts, at mass every sunday - do you think that contributes in any way to the drink culture which at present is causing all sorts of societal and health issues through consumption which has double in a decade?

You're welcome to this Hall of Greatness as well by the way.

Thank you! It's good to try a new forum to p.ie
I just wonder how many other countries with high consumption per capita obsess at drink being the source of all ills, or is it a uniquely Irish phenenomenon.

The Lighthouse Keeper wrote:

Thank you! It's good to try a new forum to p.ie
I just wonder how many other countries with high consumption per capita obsess at drink being the source of all ills, or is it a uniquely Irish phenenomenon.

Just the other day I heard a woman on the street saying to her husband "Jesus that was some night - I need a good fry up to settle myself and I swear to God I won't be drinking for another six months again" . She forgot that Christmas is just over three months away and now lots of people drink for Halloween too. It's the slippery slope isn't it? So at one time you're getting tanked up for the Christening and then your husband/girlfriend/sibling wants you to go to the pub of a Saturday to watch some first division match and before you know it you're drinking in the cinema without batting an eyelid (you've moved from the "bbq" in the park at that stage) or it's a handy way of passing time on the bus ...

Is it as casual as that where you are? That kind of casualness could lead to plenty of problems I think .