Alcohol Sponsorship

Ispeakthetruth

There is currently a move, certainly being pushed by Roisin Shorthall, to stop alcohol sponsoring sporting events. In this country we have some of the most stringent laws and the prices we pay in both licensed premises, offlicenses and supermarkets are far higher than countries such as Germany, France, Belgium, Spain, Portugal (to name but a few) also the aforementioned do have a much broader choice of alcoholic beverages and even sell spirits in petrol stations. I just don't understand it, with all our laws and our this that and the other we still have the biggest problems with the abuse of alcohol. If sponsorship is taken from sporting events, what effect will it have only detriment to sporting competitions?

Nodin

Ring added that the evidence from the State of the Nation's Children report
showed that proportion of young people not drinking before the age of 18 was
growing, despite the era of saturation TV coverage of events sponsored by drinks companies. The reverse had been the experience in France where drinks sponsorship was banned.

http://www.rte.ie/sport/other-sport/2013/0327/378700-alcohol-sponsorship-crucial-claims-sports-chiefs/

Rather bizarre notion, given the above. It has the reek of 'Look = We're Doing Something' to it.

Cody Pomeray

^^That's correlative. That could mean anything.

Very balanced study on the link here from the Oxford Journal Alcohol & Alcoholism.

http://alcalc.oxfordjournals.org/content/45/5/470.full.pdf

From the abstract:

Results: At follow-up, logistic regression demonstrated that, after controlling for confounding variables, involvement with alcohol marketing at baseline was predictive of both uptake of drinking and increased frequency of drinking. Awareness of marketing at baseline was also associated with an increased frequency of drinking at follow-up.

Conclusions: Our findings demonstrate an association between involvement with, and awareness of, alcohol marketing and drinking uptake or increased drinking frequency, and we consider whether the current regulatory environment affords youth sufficient protection from alcohol marketing.

I can't believe someone paid money for that study.

It basically says "marketing works".

hatrickpatrick

God almighty I despise Roisin Shorthall with a firey passion words can't describe.
This is never going to work. I mean for example, what are you going to do about the Heineken Cup exactly? Ban it from being shown in Ireland? Try to pixelate out all the Heino logos without disrupting coverage of the rugby matches? Ban commentators from referring to it as such?
This is bollocks. Deal with problem drinkers by actually punishing anti social behavior instead of throwing out suspended sentences for people who misbehave while pissed. The usual Irish solution of a blanket ban or a blanket policy of price rises will do f*ck all except piss everyone off.

Ispeakthetruth

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

God almighty I despise Roisin Shorthall with a firey passion words can't describe.
This is never going to work. I mean for example, what are you going to do about the Heineken Cup exactly? Ban it from being shown in Ireland? Try to pixelate out all the Heino logos without disrupting coverage of the rugby matches? Ban commentators from referring to it as such?
This is bollocks. Deal with problem drinkers by actually punishing anti social behavior instead of throwing out suspended sentences for people who misbehave while pissed. The usual Irish solution of a blanket ban or a blanket policy of price rises will do f*ck all except piss everyone off.

I concur. I also agree that Roisin Shorthall can only be described with sentiments leading to a ban from boards.ie

Fratton Fred

IIRC, banning tobacco sponsorship would mean that snooker and F1 were certain to go bust.

Pete_Cavan

Sports events are generally social occasions which I enjoy with friends or family. As with many other people, I often enjoy a few drinks at social occasions. In relation to sport, this can take the form of meeting in the pub before/after attending the match, watching the match in a pub or buying a few beers to drink while watching the match in a house. Sponsorship has nothing to do with it. The thing which often prevents me from drinking before/during/after a match is when I am playing sport myself the next day (the thought of letting your team mates down is one of the most effective ways to stop people from drinking I have ever seen). Removing alcohol sponsorship will only reduce the funding available to sporting organisations to provide the facilities etc. to allow people to play these sports. Even if other companies come in to replace, the competition and therefore sponsorship money is reduced.

Does alcohol sponsorship of sporting events influence my choice of drink? Possibly, I drink what I like the taste of but I do not claim to be totally immune to the effects of advertising.
Does alcohol sponsorship of sporting events influence my choice to drink? Absolutely not.

I dont really have an issue with minimum prices for alcohol tbh but I think this proposal is ridiculous.

p1akuw47h5r3it

I also think the proposals are nonsense. Alcohol advertising does not make you start drinking, it simply makes you aware of one brand over another.

But what i really don't understand is why cultural and arts events are excluded. All that will happen is Alcohol companies will advertise at cultural events, arts events or buy naming rights to concerts/festivals. We'll be seeing Rihanna playing in the 02 in association with a host of alcohol companies. People, especially young people and teenagers who watch sporting events are more than likely to play those sports or have an interest in fitness. The same can't be said for concert goers or cultural enthusiasts imo.

The proposals are a waste of time. I, like others, also have serious amount disdain for Shorthall.

oscarBravo

DanDan6592 wrote: »

Alcohol advertising does not make you start drinking...

Interestingly, that seems not to be the case according to the health policy analyst that pops up on Drivetime on a regular basis.

Manach

I enjoy watching rugby, especially the Heiniken Cup, but as a non-drinker it never cross my mind to take up the habit.
Given that traditionally Sport has only had minimum State oversight this seems to be more creeping oversight of non-State bodies (offhand base on Law and Sport book) - especially as if this stream of sponsorship is checked then the State becomes the paymaster. A paymaster which studies have shown that the Minister of Sport (from various governments) constituency always gets more funding per capitia than other areas.

Cookie_Monster

Fratton Fred wrote: »

IIRC, banning tobacco sponsorship would mean that snooker and F1 were certain to go bust.

F1 now a days is all about cost control and blah blah blah, they need to bring back ciggie sponsoring so there can be outrageous levels of funding again and decent development and removal of engine and part multi race life spans.

p1akuw47h5r3it

oscarBravo wrote: »

Interestingly, that seems not to be the case according to the health policy analyst that pops up on Drivetime on a regular basis.

And?

How many people started drinking because they saw an ad for it on tv? Did you?

oscarBravo

DanDan6592 wrote: »

How many people started drinking because they saw an ad for it on tv?

I don't know. Sara Burke (I couldn't think of her name earlier) described a detailed study that showed a correlation between increased exposure to alcohol advertising and an increased likelihood of starting drinking (among those who didn't drink) or increasing consumption (among those who did).

I'll try to find the study she was citing, but in the meantime, you can have a look at this one:

Conclusion
data from prospective cohort studies suggest there is an association between exposure to alcohol advertising or promotional activity and subsequent alcohol consumption in young people.

JustinDee

Explain how a country with comparatively fewer regulations on alcohol sponsorship (Ireland) experiences lower consumption in alcohol (as per CSO stats on www.cso.ie) while a country like Norway with price-control, govt monopoly on general sale and no advertising or sponsorship for alcoholic brands experiences the opposite, is fighting a losing battle against smuggling and cross-border shopping of alcohol products and sees increased consumption of alcohol amongst its population.

oscarBravo

JustinDee wrote: »

Explain how a country with comparatively fewer regulations on alcohol sponsorship (Ireland) experiences lower consumption in alcohol (as per CSO stats on www.cso.ie) while a country like Norway with price-control, govt monopoly on general sale and no advertising or sponsorship for alcoholic brands experiences the opposite, is fighting a losing battle against smuggling and cross-border shopping of alcohol products and sees increased consumption of alcohol amongst its population.

Is that intended as a rebuttal of the report I linked?

JustinDee

Don't answer if you don't want to. Maybe somebody else will. I'm interested in what can be said about it.

oscarBravo

JustinDee wrote: »

Don't answer if you don't want to.

Answer what?

Can you outline the methodology you used to compare Ireland with Norway, controlling for factors other than alcohol advertising? Or - again - are you attempting to offer a cherry-picked example as a rebuttal of a scientific study?

We all know smokers who have lived to their nineties; that doesn't mean smoking doesn't reduce life expectancy.

My argument was with the assertion that "alcohol advertising doesn't make you start drinking". I mentioned a study, and linked to another, that indicate that alcohol advertising is indeed a factor in whether people start drinking. So far all I'm seeing in response is anecdotes about elderly smokers.

BluntGuy

DanDan6592 wrote: »

How many people started drinking because they saw an ad for it on tv? Did you?

This is a bit of a weak line of argument. How many times have you consciously gone out and bought or done anything, just because you saw it on TV? Probably very little, if at all.

hatrickpatrick wrote:

Deal with problem drinkers by actually punishing anti social behavior instead of throwing out suspended sentences for people who misbehave while pissed.

Anti-social behaviour is only one of the problems caused by excessive drinking. Many, if not most people who excessively drink do not engage in anti-social behaviour. In my experience, I think people have a skewed idea of what an "excessive" amount to drink is, and studies and polls seem back this up again and again. It seems to me there is a broad recognition of our society's alcohol problem, but a lack of realisation that many of us are contributing to the problem ourselves. We see our own drinking as normal.

Your suggestion also seems to be a rather reactive measure, and while it's not an either/or, surely it's better to stop people drinking excessively in the first instance?

JustinDee

oscarBravo wrote: »

Answer what?

Can you outline the methodology you used to compare Ireland with Norway, controlling for factors other than alcohol advertising? Or - again - are you attempting to offer a cherry-picked example as a rebuttal of a scientific study?

We all know smokers who have lived to their nineties; that doesn't mean smoking doesn't reduce life expectancy.

My argument was with the assertion that "alcohol advertising doesn't make you start drinking". I mentioned a study, and linked to another, that indicate that alcohol advertising is indeed a factor in whether people start drinking. So far all I'm seeing in response is anecdotes about elderly smokers.

There's nothing anecdotal about such a comparison. Anecdotal is slipping a "we all know smokers who have lived til very old" etc into the conversation.

The CSO's own statistics show an decrease in alcohol consumption in the Republic of Ireland, since 2000 in particular.
In Norway, the institute of public health (Folkhelseinstittutet), a government funded health body, is where to start as well as their Ministry of Health headed by Jonas Gahr Stoere, who have launched a second national action plan on alcohol and drug abuse in the past year which looks further into the effect of their rising alcohol consumption on employment and industry (sick days increasing particularly on Mondays and Fridays, black market alcohol, smuggling of alcohol), mental health and general health. The WHO report on Norway's situation can be found on www.who.int. Another study on alcohol problems in family life in Norway can be found here.

Don't forget about Norway's Nordic neighbour, Finland or their Scandinavian neighbours, Sweden and Denmark. Why the increases despite what is in place?
How does a country with such stringent policies on availability, cost and promotion of alcohol-related products see a rise in consumption each year?

oscarBravo

JustinDee wrote: »

Why the increases despite what is in place?

Are you going to tell us why, or keep asking a rhetorical question? Are you claiming that there's an inverse correlation between alcohol advertising and alcohol consumption, or are you continuing to use anecdotal evidence to attempt to refute a scientific study?

How does a country with such stringent policies on availability, cost and promotion of alcohol-related products see a rise in consumption each year?

I don't know. How?

JustinDee

oscarBravo wrote: »

Are you going to tell us why, or keep asking a rhetorical question? Are you claiming that there's an inverse correlation between alcohol advertising and alcohol consumption, or are you continuing to use anecdotal evidence to attempt to refute a scientific study?

I didn't give you anything anecdotal. I asked you a question as to why stringent policies fail in a country, namely Norway. The govt programme I mentioned attempts to explain a number of causes of increasing alcohol consumption.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I don't know. How?

Precisely. You don't know, and judging by what you post are not willing to look at anything put to you that lies contrary to your stance on the matter.

Cody Pomeray

oscarBravo wrote: »

Are you claiming that there's an inverse correlation between alcohol advertising and alcohol consumption

It's not necessary to believe there is an inverse correlation to oppose the ban; it is perfectly possible that there is a small correlation but no causal link.

The correlation that has been established so far is quite a small one in fairness, and the causal evidence is weak.

It strikes me as incredible that anyone could think marketing suddenly stops working in respect of alcohol advertisement, when we know it works everywhere else. But there is more to alcohol advertisement than in sports.

And anyway, the question is how much of an effect it realistically has on alcohol consumption. The alcohol and Alcoholism study suggests the link is smaller than the link between alcohol consumption as a base point, alcohol consumption by the mother, alcohol consumption by friends.

There is certainly a link, but it needs to be established that (i) it is a causal link and (ii) that this causal link is so substantial that banning alcohol advertisement would be a proportionate response.

hfallada

Advertising works. Look at tobacco. 90% of smokers start before the age of 18 and even through cigarette companies spend billions on adversting and can't get smokers to switch brands. What does that tell, that the advertising targets children to get them to smoke their brands.

Im a teenager and we had to pick our favourite ad and discuss it in 4th year English class. About 80% of students picked alcohol related ads as their favourite adverts. Meaning drink ads do affect children.

But if the government had allowed the bar/cafe style bar like in Paris. We probably wouldnt have the heavy drinking we have now

oscarBravo

JustinDee wrote: »

Precisely. You don't know, and judging by what you post are not willing to look at anything put to you that lies contrary to your stance on the matter.

I didn't express a stance on the matter. I took issue with the bald assertion that alcohol advertising doesn't encourage people to start drinking, or to drink more. That's simply not something that can be stated as a fact, because it's quite likely not true.

Now, I've linked a study done by scientists who set out to try to determine whether or not alcohol advertising has an influence on how much people drink. You've come up with some anecdotal evidence, which you have heatedly denied is anecdotal, while refusing to explain how your methodology is superior to that used by actual scientists doing actual science.

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove, or to whom, but asking rhetorical questions to which you don't know the answers yourself isn't proving much of anything to me.

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

It's not necessary to believe there is an inverse correlation to oppose the ban; it is perfectly possible that there is a small correlation but no causal link.

The correlation that has been established so far is quite a small one in fairness, and the causal evidence is weak.

It strikes me as incredible that anyone could think marketing suddenly stops working in respect of alcohol advertisement, when we know it works everywhere else. But there is more to alcohol advertisement than in sports.

And anyway, the question is how much of an effect it realistically has on alcohol consumption. The alcohol and Alcoholism study suggests the link is smaller than the link between alcohol consumption as a base point, alcohol consumption by the mother, alcohol consumption by friends.

There is certainly a link, but it needs to be established that (i) it is a causal link and (ii) that this causal link is so substantial that banning alcohol advertisement would be a proportionate response.

Sure. All of which makes a lot more sense than baldly claiming that alcohol advertising has no impact on how much people drink, because Norway.

JustinDee

Considering the consequences on sport were investment in it to be abolished from the sector in question, it is up to those insisting on legislation and far more stringent regulation on alcohol vending, promotion and consumption to prove that these measures will work for the better.
That isn't "heated" nor were the programmes and findings I pointed out to you or mentioned "anecdotal".

RandomName2

Lynx sponsorship should be banned as it promotes substance abuse.

I find people who encroach the freedom to sell or advertise a particular product in reality want it banned outright.

BluntGuy

RandomName2 wrote: »

Lynx sponsorship should be banned as it promotes substance abuse.

Utterly disingenuous comparison, and you know that.

I find people who encroach the freedom to sell or advertise a particular product in reality want it banned outright.

Who are these people? I don't see a clamour for outright alcohol banning, yet most of us agree with restrictions on alcohol.

Cody Pomeray

BluntGuy wrote: »

Who are these people? I don't see a clamour for outright alcohol banning, yet most of us agree with restrictions on alcohol.

Does public opinion matter?

If so, public opinion is reported at 46-42 against a ban in advertising at sporting events.

RandomName2

BluntGuy wrote: »

Utterly disingenuous comparison, and you know that.

How? Aerosols are well known as being used for substance abuse. Lynx adverts advertise aerosols all the time.

What's that? They don't in any way suggest that people should use aerosols for substance abuse? Well I haven't seen many adverts for alcohol suggesting that people should becomes drunks or dangerously pissed. If you are saying that we must "protect" the public from exposure to alcohol adverts we must also protect them from other adverts which may similarly endanger them.

BluntGuy wrote: »

Who are these people? I don't see a clamour for outright alcohol banning, yet most of us agree with restrictions on alcohol.

Same sort of people who claimed that they merely wanted to protect people from second hand smoke, and we are now at the stage where you can't even see cigarettes in shops; never mind the noises being made about banning smoking in parks and on beaches. I'm not beating the drum for the tobacco industry btw, never smoked in my life; but I've noticed the creepy way that they have been attempting to get rid of smoking altogether.

I'd say Rosin Shorthall is no fan of drinking at all, and the sports sponsorship is just the first of many milestones on the road.

BluntGuy

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Does public opinion matter?

If so, public opinion is reported at 46-42 against a ban in advertising at sporting events.

I said most of us agree with restrictions on alcohol, not specifically against advertising at sporting events and presented evidence for this. However, there is no major clamour for alcohol to be banned. I was asking who the people are that are calling for an outright ban.

RandomName2 wrote: »

How? Aerosols are well known as being used for substance abuse. Lynx adverts advertise aerosols all the time.

What's that? They don't in any way suggest that people should use aerosols for substance abuse? Well I haven't seen many adverts for alcohol suggesting that people should becomes drunks or dangerously pissed. If you are saying that we must "protect" the public from exposure to alcohol adverts we must also protect them from other adverts which may similarly endanger them.

(1) Do we have an endemic solvent abuse problem? Do 58% of Lynx users engage in harmful use?

(2) There are studies, clear evidence, that have been referred to previously in this thread showing a relationship between alcohol advertising/sponsorship and increased consumption, and abuse of alcohol. Can you present such for aerosol advertisement and solvent abuse?

(3) You don't have to be a drunk or "dangerously pissed" to be abusing alcohol.

You seem to want a blanket way of looking at it, such that every product that could possibly cause harm is treated the same way. This inevitably leads to absurdity. I suggest, we look at everything individually and consider the pros and cons. Cigarettes and alcohol are incredibly dangerous products, they cause huge social and health problems, the cost of treating them to the taxpayer is enormous. Is solvent abuse costing us billions a year? Is Lynx a product, when used "normally", still carries a large number of health risks? Is misuse of Lynx arguably almost inherent to our culture? Associated with a good time, with socialising? I'm sorry but they're not remotely comparable.

Same sort of people who claimed that they merely wanted to protect people from second hand smoke, and we are now at the stage where you can't even see cigarettes in shops; never mind the noises being made about banning smoking in parks and on beaches. I'm not beating the drum for the tobacco industry btw, never smoked in my life; but I've noticed the creepy way that they have been attempting to get rid of smoking altogether.

I don't really see what's so bad about trying to get rid of smoking altogether. Not that anything close to a full-scale ban is on the table. Such a ban would be unlikely to pick up much traction.

I'd say Rosin Shorthall is no fan of drinking at all, and the sports sponsorship is just the first of many milestones on the road.

There's nothing to suggest a full-scale ban is on the table or will be any time soon.

Cody Pomeray

BluntGuy wrote: »

I said most of us agree with restrictions on alcohol, not specifically against advertising at sporting events

I know, but I wasn't accusing you of having commented on sporting events.

You brought up public opinion.
This indicates public opinion carries some weight in your mind.
Public opinion is 46-42 against banning alcohol advertising in sport.

I don't see how you can attempt to raise public opinion in one line of argument, and dismiss it in the next; to do so is incoherent.

BluntGuy

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

You brought up public opinion.
This indicates public opinion carries some weight in your mind.
Public opinion is 46-42 against banning alcohol advertising in sport.

I don't see how you can attempt to raise public opinion in one line of argument, and dismiss it in the next; to do so is incoherent.

Here was the original claim I was responding to:

I find people who encroach the freedom to sell or advertise a particular product in reality want it banned outright.

This claim suggests that people who support alcohol restrictions, want it banned outright.

I said:

Who are these people? I don't see a clamour for outright alcohol banning, yet most of us agree with restrictions on alcohol.

And you presented a statistic showing that there isn't majority support of banning of alcohol sponsorship, which I acknowledged. I clarified that I said "restrictions", and this doesn't mean every restriction proposed.

Where exactly am I being incoherent or contradicting myself. My point is that there is widespread support for restrictions on alcohol but not for an outright ban.

You're suggesting because I brought up public opinion, I support the position of the public. I never suggested nor implied this.

RandomName2

BluntGuy wrote: »

(1) Do we have an endemic solvent abuse problem? Do 58% of Lynx users engage in harmful use?

(2) There are studies, clear evidence, that have been referred to previously in this thread showing a relationship between alcohol advertising/sponsorship and increased consumption, and abuse of alcohol. Can you present such for aerosol advertisement and solvent abuse?

(3) You don't have to be a drunk or "dangerously pissed" to be abusing alcohol.

You seem to want a blanket way of looking at it, such that every product that could possibly cause harm is treated the same way. This inevitably leads to absurdity. I suggest, we look at everything individually and consider the pros and cons. Cigarettes and alcohol are incredibly dangerous products, they cause huge social and health problems, the cost of treating them to the taxpayer is enormous. Is solvent abuse costing us billions a year? Is Lynx a product, when used "normally", still carries a large number of health risks? Is misuse of Lynx arguably almost inherent to our culture? Associated with a good time, with socialising? I'm sorry but they're not remotely comparable.

Apparently .1% of the population is abusing solvents: that's a relatively large percentage of Lynx users. Unlike moderate alcohol consumption, all solvent abuse is incredibly harmful. It doesn't even have the benefit of promoting having a good time or socialising.

No, I'm afraid that you are grossly underestimating the severe danger posed by deodorants and the necessity of banning all sports sponsorship associated with them. There is a clear link between such sponsorship and sales of aerosol deodorant after all.

Go into orbit and nuke the site from above. It's the only way to be sure.

BluntGuy wrote: »

I don't really see what's so bad about trying to get rid of smoking altogether. Not that anything close to a full-scale ban is on the table.

Just 400% taxation, complete ban on advertising, display, illegal to smoke in workplaces and many public grounds and moves to ban in cars, etc? It is only a small step to ban the sale altogether. Don't get me wrong - I think some of this is justified (like second hand smoke) but the campaign has been quite disingenuous. Besides which, when does personal choice come in?

BluntGuy wrote: »

There's nothing to suggest a full-scale ban [of alcohol] is on the table or will be any time soon.

Thank God.

RandomName2

oscarBravo wrote: »

I didn't express a stance on the matter. I took issue with the bald assertion that alcohol advertising doesn't encourage people to start drinking, or to drink more. That's simply not something that can be stated as a fact, because it's quite likely not true.

Now, I've linked a study done by scientists who set out to try to determine whether or not alcohol advertising has an influence on how much people drink. You've come up with some anecdotal evidence, which you have heatedly denied is anecdotal, while refusing to explain how your methodology is superior to that used by actual scientists doing actual science.

Well of course alcohol advertising will increase the consumption of alcohol. Advertising is designed to increase the sale of the product being advertised. Whether or not one considers this a "bad thing" will be largely predicated on whether one agrees, or disagrees, with the sale of the product in question.

Oh people can say that a certain percentage of alcohol consumers are problem drinkers - and this may well be true; but it comes back to the fundamental aspect of whether one agrees or disagrees with the sale of the product in question. All that advertising will do is to increase the absolute number that one is talking about, not the percentage.

Cody Pomeray

BluntGuy wrote: »

Where exactly am I being incoherent or contradicting myself. My point is that there is widespread support for restrictions on alcohol but not for an outright ban.

You're suggesting because I brought up public opinion, I support the position of the public. I never suggested nor implied this.

Of course you implied this.

If you don't think the public opinion matters to this debate, you wouldn't have brought it up; it's just that you prefer to use public opinion only when it suits your opinion. When it seems public opinion is against you, you don't seem to be quite so interested in it.

nesf

oscarBravo wrote: »

Interestingly, that seems not to be the case according to the health policy analyst that pops up on Drivetime on a regular basis.

I can understand alcohol advertising increasing alcohol consumption somewhat. I don't really understand it making you more likely to start drinking in somewhere like Ireland. Not drinking here is quite a difficult choice since almost all socialising for teenagers (gosh! they drink!) and young adults involve alcohol. It's very different to smoking in this regard, you really don't subtract from your quality of life by being a non-smoker, the exact opposite is the case whereas anyone who has gone sober can tell you that going pubbing and clubbing as the only non-drinker can be a very annoying experience as drunk people are really not very pleasant to be around when you're completely sober. Sure you don't get bad hangovers but most people don't get them either when they drink sensibly.

Not drinking here as a teen or young adult is fairly tough (especially for men). Perfectly doable but the ones I knew who did it were very committed to not drinking, they weren't wavering on the boundaries.

nesf

BluntGuy wrote: »

I don't really see what's so bad about trying to get rid of smoking altogether. Not that anything close to a full-scale ban is on the table. Such a ban would be unlikely to pick up much traction.

More importantly it wouldn't work and would just drive "customers" to the black market sellers. We already have a very serious problem of some very nasty organised crime rings making a lot of cash off illegal cigarettes because our Governments have pursued an absurd policy of price increases on tobacco when it is used in every introductory economics class as an example of an inelastic good, i.e. a good where consumption and price are poorly correlated.

RandomName2 wrote: »

Just 400% taxation, complete ban on advertising, display, illegal to smoke in workplaces and many public grounds and moves to ban in cars, etc? It is only a small step to ban the sale altogether. Don't get me wrong - I think some of this is justified (like second hand smoke) but the campaign has been quite disingenuous. Besides which, when does personal choice come in?

There isn't much personal choice when it comes to addiction (anyone telling you smokers can just quit and stay off them whenever they like is basically a moron). That's the tricky part. It's both why price increases and outright bans are very dumb ideas (they won't work and just give money to criminals) and why we also need to try and reduce consumption in other ways. But forcing people to quit is quite a dangerous precedent.

hatrickpatrick

oscarBravo wrote: »

Interestingly, that seems not to be the case according to the health policy analyst that pops up on Drivetime on a regular basis.

I can't help wondering which particular vested interest this one answers to...

hatrickpatrick

BluntGuy wrote: »

This is a bit of a weak line of argument. How many times have you consciously gone out and bought or done anything, just because you saw it on TV? Probably very little, if at all.

I hate to admit this, but I actually am a sucker for good advertising especially when it comes to musical instruments or gadgets
Having said that, my favourite drink on a night out is usually Corona - when was the last time you saw an ad for it? Actually I don't think I've ever seen one, Corona is my drink because it was the drink they had the first time I properly drank (one of my friend's 18ths) good memories etc

Anti-social behaviour is only one of the problems caused by excessive drinking. Many, if not most people who excessively drink do not engage in anti-social behaviour. In my experience, I think people have a skewed idea of what an "excessive" amount to drink is, and studies and polls seem back this up again and again. It seems to me there is a broad recognition of our society's alcohol problem, but a lack of realisation that many of us are contributing to the problem ourselves. We see our own drinking as normal.

Your suggestion also seems to be a rather reactive measure, and while it's not an either/or, surely it's better to stop people drinking excessively in the first instance?

I don't, as you probably know, believe in the nanny state. I don't like getting pissed, but if I did, in my view it's only the government's business if I actually infringe the rights of someone else otherwise it's my body and my choice.
Of course, if I end up in A&E having to get my stomach pumped, I'd expect to have to pay for the doctor's trouble. That's a separate issue. But what people do in the privacy of their own homes without hurting anyone who doesn't consent to involvement is nobody's business but their own. I apply this to all drugs and to consensual prostitution etc btw, this isn't exclusive to drink, and I don't take any other drugs apart from the occasional beer so you know this is actually a moral principle and not just that I personally want to be able to buy litres of vodka for ten quid, I just don't believe in victimless crime. At all.

The fact that some people out there can't handle it shouldn't mean that I have to pay more for a couple of cans. Deal with those muppets and leave those of us who don't misuse alcohol alone.

BluntGuy

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Of course you implied this.

If you don't think the public opinion matters to this debate, you wouldn't have brought it up; it's just that you prefer to use public opinion only when it suits your opinion. When it seems public opinion is against you, you don't seem to be quite so interested in it.

Stop conflating things.

I never suggested public opinion doesn't matter to the debate. Whether I think it "matters", and whether I agree with it are two separate things. I have not once used public opinion to "suit" me. I clarified exactly what I meant in the previous post.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I don't, as you probably know, believe in the nanny state. I don't like getting pissed, but if I did, in my view it's only the government's business if I actually infringe the rights of someone else otherwise it's my body and my choice.

I agree with the principle.

Of course, if I end up in A&E having to get my stomach pumped, I'd expect to have to pay for the doctor's trouble. That's a separate issue.

I don't think it is, really. On the contrary, I think the cost, both in economic and social terms, is the very heart of the issue. You say...

But what people do in the privacy of their own homes without hurting anyone who doesn't consent to involvement is nobody's business but their own.

But this is the problem. It comes down to how you define "hurt". Because to me, it goes beyond the obvious and narrow example of a rowdy drunkard hitting someone or being abusive to their spouse or what have you. The 58% of alcohol users who misuse it may not be going out smashing people, but we have widespread evidence of the effect misuse of alcohol has on families, the link between alcohol and depression, the billions it is costing us in health, its pervasive influence on our culture and lifestyle, that as alluded to above by Nesf, makes social participation for younger people more difficult.

And it is not just younger people. Recent anecdote, I have a friend from Sierra Leone, who was about a month back, acquainted with some people I know. She was poured a glass of wine, and when she said she didn't drink there was a bemused shock, "you don't drink? What?", almost as if she was crazy. It was good-humoured and whatnot, but I even remember remarking on it at the time as one of those examples of how ingrained our drink culture is, how there is an assumption that everyone participates.

Individual rights and freedoms are very important and should never be casually discarded. But alcohol use is demonstrably harming other people, whether we like it or not, and this cannot be ignored. I don't think prohibition is the answer, the evidence seems to point against it being workable, but it seems (not that you're doing this) every time the issue is even put on the agenda there are howls of "nanny-state", yet little in the way of productive solutions put forward.

Let's be productive, what proactive measures do you think we should take to curb our drink culture?

I apply this to all drugs and to consensual prostitution etc btw, this isn't exclusive to drink, and I don't take any other drugs apart from the occasional beer so you know this is actually a moral principle and not just that I personally want to be able to buy litres of vodka for ten quid, I just don't believe in victimless crime. At all.

On an individual level I couldn't care less whether someone wants to drink (without causing trouble) or pay for sex or whatever. In fact, we have a massive double standard on the prostitution issue, though that's another discussion.

The fact that some people out there can't handle it shouldn't mean that I have to pay more for a couple of cans. Deal with those muppets and leave those of us who don't misuse alcohol alone.

Sounds great in principle, but unfortunately that "some people" is over fifty percent of alcohol users. That's an awful lot of muppets to deal with.

nesf wrote: »

More importantly it wouldn't work and would just drive "customers" to the black market sellers. We already have a very serious problem of some very nasty organised crime rings making a lot of cash off illegal cigarettes because our Governments have pursued an absurd policy of price increases on tobacco when it is used in every introductory economics class as an example of an inelastic good, i.e. a good where consumption and price are poorly correlated.

That's true, the evidence of which being the huge sums the government manages to pull in tax despite the massive increases. To be fair price increases do still have a negative impact on consumption. That said of course, as any reasonable study acknowledges, it's hard to estimate the amount of illicit consumption. I think ~15% is the estimate here.

nesf

BluntGuy wrote: »

That's true, the evidence of which being the huge sums the government manages to pull in tax despite the massive increases. To be fair price increases do still have a negative impact on consumption. That said of course, as any reasonable study acknowledges, it's hard to estimate the amount of illicit consumption. I think ~15% is the estimate here.

There are two main groups of smokers in society (obviously there are others but these make up the majority). The working class and the mentally ill. Bipolar, depression and schizophrenia are all to varying degrees linked to much higher rates of smoking regardless of income level or background etc. Also the poorer you are the more likely you are to be a smoker.

Basically the price hikes hit what we like to think of as the vulnerable/worst off in society.

oscarBravo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I can't help wondering which particular vested interest this one answers to...

Because citing a scientific report necessarily requires a hidden agenda driven by a vested interest?

How very cynical.

Cody Pomeray

BluntGuy wrote: »

I never suggested public opinion doesn't matter to the debate.

I'm glad that's established.

To summarise: here are the known facts

1. An opinion poll suggests that public opinion is against a ban.
2. There is evidence of a "small but significant" link between alcohol consumption and alcohol marketing, qualified by:
(a) This is not limited to alcohol marketing in sports.
(b) This link is smaller than other social and family effects
(c) This link has not been shown to be causal
(d) While there is a correlation between marketing and consumption, neither any correlative nor any causal link has been established between marketing and drinking to excess , or binge drinking.

Any ban on alcohol marketing in sports must be proportional to the damage it causes. So far, there is no evidence of alcohol marketing causing any damage.

On the other hand, there may be a risk that such a ban may diminish the funding available to sports organizations. We should be wary of the repercussions any such funding shortfalls would have on young people, community cohesion, and public health.

hatrickpatrick

oscarBravo wrote: »

Because citing a scientific report necessarily requires a hidden agenda driven by a vested interest?

How very cynical.

No actually, just because the "experts" they commission for either government reports or even worse, media talk shows, almost always seem to be revealed as having ties to one stakeholder or another in the end.

K.Flyer

Anyone who thinks that Alcohol Advertising does Not encourage people to drink or to start drinking obviously has no understanding of the advertising industry.
WHY would they spend millions a year between themselves advertising their products, be it through t.v. or event sponsership, if they thought there was not going to be a significant return.
They are in it to make money and advertising helps them make money.
Unfortunately it can encourage people who should not drink to use their products (not just the skanger brigade).

nesf

K.Flyer wrote: »

Anyone who thinks that Alcohol Advertising does Not encourage people to drink or to start drinking obviously has no understanding of the advertising industry.
WHY would they spend millions a year between themselves advertising their products, be it through t.v. or event sponsership, if they thought there was not going to be a significant return.
They are in it to make money and advertising helps them make money.
Unfortunately it can encourage people who should not drink to use their products (not just the skanger brigade).

Your argument doesn't work. Even in an absolutely saturated market with 100% coverage, companies will sink in millions a year just to increase their share of that 100%. Growth/encouraging people to start are nice bonuses but not required once a market is big enough.

K.Flyer

nesf wrote: »

Your argument doesn't work. Even in an absolutely saturated market with 100% coverage, companies will sink in millions a year just to increase their share of that 100%. Growth/encouraging people to start are nice bonuses but not required once a market is big enough.

Regardless of market share the alcohol industry still need to use advertising to encourage some people to start /continue to drink alcohol, otherwise they will have a steady decline in consumers.

nesf

K.Flyer wrote: »

Regardless of market share the alcohol industry still need to use advertising to encourage some people to start /continue to drink alcohol, otherwise they will have a steady decline in consumers.

You're assuming the advertising is what's starting people/keeping them continuing where the social pressure to consume alcohol in this country is very, very high (I constantly get handed beers and whiskies by relatives even though they know I don't drink and that it screws with my meds badly).

K.Flyer

nesf wrote: »

You're assuming the advertising is what's starting people/keeping them continuing where the social pressure to consume alcohol in this country is very, very high (I constantly get handed beers and whiskies by relatives even though they know I don't drink and that it screws with my meds badly).

I am saying that I do believe that advertising plays a big part of it, and I completely agree with the rest of your post, Social / Peer pressure is the biggest culprit.

nesf

K.Flyer wrote: »

I am saying that I do believe that advertising plays a big part of it, and I completely agree with the rest of your post, Social / Peer pressure is the biggest culprit.

Well, believing something isn't a good basis for policy, though it's an excellent basis for politics.

As Cody pointed out above the paper involved here only showed a small effect for advertising. It's similar to cigarette price increases, we know these have only a small effect on cessation rates in smokers, yet we persist with them because they both earn the State money and play well with the health lobbyists. Similar here, banning advertising is being made into a big song and dance with little attention being paid to the question of how big a factor advertising is in people's drinking habits outside of what brands they imbibe.

Cody Pomeray

K.Flyer wrote: »

I am saying that I do believe that advertising plays a big part of it, and I completely agree with the rest of your post, Social / Peer pressure is the biggest culprit.

So why target sports?

Everybody seems to be agreeing we need to rebalance our attitude to alcohol, what's less clear is why sport is being subjected to such an unbalanced and disproportionate sanction.