|
Dear
AGL,
There are a couple of important issues
involved here. One is the belief by too many
of the general public that, while it seems to
be OK for TV stations to carry beer ads, hard
liquor ads will exacerbate an already severe
problem, caused by early use of alcohol by our
nation's kids. The other issue is the question
of how to quantify or prove the extent that
advertising encourages underage use of any so-called"legal"
substances (to which I include tobacco). The
relative harm of the beer TV commercials versus
that for liquor is based on the belief held
by many parents that if their kids get caught
drinking "only beer" then, somehow,
that's not as bad as if they had used the hard
stuff. Therefore, objections to TV beer commercials
are relatively mild. However, parents should
be aware that saying it's "only beer"
is the same as saying it's "only"
vodka, or wine, or bourbon. One beer, or one
Tom Collins, or a glass of wine, or an average
highball, or a shot, have the equivalent amounts
of alcohol....the effects of beer or wine may
be just a bit slower but you can get just as
drunk on all of them. Thus, the basic argument
by the liquor industry: Beer, wine and spirits
are each alcoholic beverages, so why allow one
such product to advertise on TV and not the
other? ....Perhaps a valid argument, but I might
also ask, why allow either industry to advertise
their products on TV? Most beer commercials,
particularly those shown during sports events,
are youth oriented, full of fun stuff, often
featuring well known athletes. Can anybody claim
that this doesn't attract kids? NBC says its
liquor ads will be low key...No athletes.. No
attempt to attract the young...Wanna bet?Maybe
in the beginning, but just wait awhile..Then
watch the liquor industry pull out the stops.
As
for the extent that advertising effects usage
of the aforementioned products...Back in 1989,
the then Surgeon General C.Everett Koop wrote
that "a perfectly designed study to PROVE
that...advertising increases...consumption will
probably never be performed.. because of the
complexity of this issue....absolute scientific
proof is rarely available when studying human
behavior. Humans do not behave like the laws
of physics. In medicine and public health, we
rarely await, and we would be foolish to await,
such proof before taking definitive action.
"In
the 1850s, John Snow ended an epidemic of cholera
in London by removing the handle of the Broad
Street pump, 30 years before the bacterium that
causes cholera was first identified. Fortunately,
there was no Cholera Institute that lobbied
against removal of the pump handle until it
could be PROVED that the water from that pump
was causing cholera.
"In
my opinion, the burden of proof should be on
the industries to show that advertising does
NOT increase...consumption......" (JAMA,
November 24,1989 - Vol 262,No.20, Pg.2894)
In
the New York Times' obituary of the Dutch brewer,
Alfred Heinekin (Sat, Jan 5, 2002, Pg.B7), it
was noted that "the company was started
in 1863 by his grandfather Gerard Heinekin,
who persuaded his mother to back him financially
by arguments that there would be fewer displays
of drunken behavior on the streets if the Dutch
were able to drink good beer instead of gin!"
If you ever go to Amsterdam, you will learn
that grandson Freddy was a bit of a con artist,
gifted in the art of persuasion but quite inaccurate
about any change in behavior on the streets.
The
liquor industry (mimicking the tobacco industry)
knows that alcohol is the most popular drug
with teens. So, get'em to start early, when
they're real young....advertise, advertise.
|
