Alcohol advertised on TV

[BerettaCougar]

So, I was wondering why do we still see advertisements on TV and magazines for alcohol?

Cigarette ads have been off air and out of the magazines for years...what's up? Money?

I don't smoke, and I hardly drink....I was just wondering why the alcohol companies can still advertise in mass media.

What about the kids?

 

[Justme]

Really two different issues. It has been proven that there is no safe level of use for tobacco. It has also been proven that smoking tobacco in the manner for which it was designed will not only kill you but kill those around you. It's bizarre that we even continue to allow tobacco to be grown since it's use in even tiny amounts will eventually kill you, it can not be made safe.

It has been proven that moderate amounts of alcohol are not only safe but contribute to better physical and mental health. In other words if you use alcohol as directed it is not dangerous. People abuse alcohol and it causes problems, but that is not the alcohols fault.

I guess alcohol would be more like firearms than tobacco in that it is a product that is prone to abuse but is not harmful if used correctly.

 

[BerettaCougar]

The advertisements you see about alcohol are party scenes....where people ABUSE it..

I mean, look at our death rates because of people that abuse alcohol.

 

[Epyon]

What if...

Can we advertise responsible firearms use on TV? As for drug consumption, funny how tobacco and alcohol are legal, while cannabis being a far safer alternative is illegal due to racism in the past. (Although that is changing.) Kinda like how gun control's roots are in racism. Now that I've said that this thread is probably going like Cheech and Chong... up in smoke.


Epyon

 

[armoredman]

Go back and look again - you will not see a single person drinking an alcoholic beverage in an ad.
Tobacco kills fewer people than heart disease, caused by our terminal obesity. It's amazing we still allow McDonalds to operate, knowing how many kids eat this stuff, don't you think? Ban fatty foods, it's for the children.
Second hand smoke is still an up in the air thing, as the studies are done by the two warring sides, none of them are un-baised. They either show it does nothing, or kills millions. I think it's a lot less than hyped.
I would have to ask where the marijuana/racism catch is? Gun control in the South IS directly traceable to racism after the Civil War, but weed? I don't think so.

I can't stand the ads for laxatives and "feminine hygeine" products during dinner, which is what caused me to stop watching the babble box, anyway.

 

[Manedwolf]

If you don't want to purchase the alcohol featured in the ads, then don't.

If you don't like seeing the ads, turn the TV off.

If you want Big Government to make more laws to ban things, rather than depend on the personal responsibility of people to make their own decisions, you're probably a Democrat.

 

[Richard Hanson]

I think a far more interesting question is how did the government ever succeed in banning tobacco adds from the in a liberal society?

Best Regards,
Richard

 

[Pat H]

I don't smoke, never have. I don't grow tobacco either. Of course, if tobacco prohibition begins, who's to say. Nevertheless, though the SCOTUS has parsed commercial speech out from the speech protected by the 1st Amendment, there's no basis for that, so tobacco ads should appear on TV just like any other product.

As with any product intended for adult use, moderation should be the byword.

 

[Unregistered]

It has been proven that there is no safe level of use for tobacco.

I am not sure that is technically true. I don't think a study has ever done to see what the effects of tobacco in moderation are.

For example, I don't think anyone has ever done a study to see what the effects of 2 cigarettes a day are.

I don't smoke, or grow tobacco, or drink. I am an MD.

 

[Richard Hanson]

I don't smoke, never have. I don't grow tobacco either. Of course, if tobacco prohibition begins, who's to say. Nevertheless, though the SCOTUS has parsed commercial speech out from the speech protected by the 1st Amendment, there's no basis for that, so tobacco ads should appear on TV just like any other product.

As with any product intended for adult use, moderation should be the byword.

Pat H,

I was unaware that the Supreme Court had distinguished "commercial" speech from other forms of expression protected under the 1st Amendment. I will have to do a little research to remove this defect in my knowledge.

Thanks,
Richard

 

[Pat H]

I did a quick google search, try this site.

 

[joab]

I was unaware that the Supreme Court had distinguished "commercial" speech from other forms of expression protected under the 1st Amendment. I will have to do a little research to remove this defect in my knowledge.

History of Tobacco Regulation

On October 20,1971, a U.S. District Court ruled that the Congressional ban on cigarette advertising is constitutional. The ruling stated that such advertising does not qualify under the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech; a sharp distinction was drawn between guarantees of freedom. of speech for individuals and the "limited extent" to which broadcast advertising qualifies for such protection.

 

[BerettaCougar]

If you don't want to purchase the alcohol featured in the ads, then don't.

If you don't like seeing the ads, turn the TV off.

If you want Big Government to make more laws to ban things, rather than depend on the personal responsibility of people to make their own decisions, you're probably a Democrat.

I don't want either one to be banned from TV ads.
I was wondering why one is banned and the other is not.

And as far as marijuana, I never really understood why it is banned.

 

[Derius_T]

Justme wrote:

It has been proven that there is no safe level of use for tobacco. It has also been proven that smoking tobacco in the manner for which it was designed will not only kill you but kill those around you. It's bizarre that we even continue to allow tobacco to be grown since it's use in even tiny amounts will eventually kill you, it can not be made safe.

Where do you get your facts, truth.com or whatever? Sheesh. Reports published by both sides are so biased and conflicting that there is no clear way to distingush the real 'facts'. There is absolutely no proof that second hand smoke kills anyone, nor has ever given anyone cancer. It may be people's BELIEF that its true, but that doesn't make it medically accurate.

There are people with cancer every day, that never smoked, and where rarely ever around people who smoked. There are people BORN with lung cancer....guess the second hand smoke got to them too? :barf:

Now granted, smoking CAN BE a factor in health problems if YOU SMOKE.
I say can be because some people smoke their whole life and never have a problem and live to be 100. Its the crying and whining over secondary smoke that gets my goat....and NO I am not a smoker....

 

[brickeyee]

You need to ask the embarrassing question of
'What percentage of smokers get cancer?'
The one you see answered is invariably what percentage of people who have cancer smoked.

 

[Rob308]

I don't smoke, and I hardly drink....I was just wondering why the alcohol companies can still advertise in mass media.

It's because many (most?) people think that using tobacco is always a bad thing, no matter what. They think that tobacco, like illegal drugs, cannot be used in moderation. It's not the same with alcohol. Most people think that alcohol is a normal safe thing, that is only bad when abused. You can see this kind of thinking even in this thread.

 

[Derius_T]

Hmmm, why are there hundreds or thousands of programs, clinics, rehabs and the like for ALCOHOL, and smokers get some stupid gum?

That in itself is an argument that alcohol is a MUCH, MUCH bigger problem in this country than cigarettes. And much more readily abused.

There is no doubt that alcohol related violence and death is a billion times higher than cigarette related violence and death.

Whens the last time cops issued a DUI for smoking? Whens the last time someone got all hopped up on marlboros and robbed a liquor store, or beat thier spouse, or ran over some kid...ect, ect, ect....

Yeah, its clear cigs are MUCH, MUCH more dangerous to society at large than alcohol.....:barf:

 

[Rob308]

Yeah, its clear cigs are MUCH, MUCH more dangerous to society at large than alcohol........

Were you responding to my post?

I'm not saying that tobacco is more dangerous to society. I'm just saying that many people think it is. I'm not really sure which one is actually more damaging but I would think that alcohol is worse, for all the reasons you gave.

 

[The Tourist]

It's simply another product of 'free choice' that enslaves the user, is legal, and is allowed to be marketed without being held accountable for 'the clean up.'

We also have a large contingent of Indian Gaming in my area. I keep hearing the battle cry, "Hey, the casinos pay large amounts in taxes."

Hey, wake up dummy, that money paid in taxes is derived from the losses of gamblers. And like any tolerated addiction, the damage to individuals and families is tremendous.

While all of these factors and 'hobbies' are legal, I ask you to consider one aspect in their use.

When a man decides to change his life due to personal failures, job loss and the destruction of his family, what does he do?

Amazingly, he quits smoking, he quits drinking, using drug of all kinds, and brings money home, not to a casino.

When is a man a recognized fool? When you find him drunk, broke and out of job.

Oh, and the famous last words, "I can handle it."

That excuse belongs up there with, "...it appears to be a small iceberg..."

 

[TheBluesMan]

Only two posts referenced anything to do with legal or political. Rather than delete all the other posts, I'm going to just close this thread as off-topic.

Feel free to try again, as this topic certainly has legal issues that pertain to it.

-Dave