Alcohol Sponsorship

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.

K.Flyer

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

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.

That I dont know, I dont see how they can discriminate between arts and sports. All or nothing I suppose, in that regard.
While I can appreciate the concerns of the sporting sector, thats not my corner to argue for.

K.Flyer

nesf wrote: »

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.

I'm not coming from or supporting any political angle, I come from the side that has seen first hand the damage that alcohol has done to people, their families and their friends, with no direct programmes of assistance from the alcohol industry to help them.

nesf

K.Flyer wrote: »

I'm not coming from or supporting any political angle, I come from the side that has seen first hand the damage that alcohol has done to people, their families and their friends, with no direct programmes of assistance from the alcohol industry to help them.

That was a dig at certain politicians rather than a dig at you. Sorry, I was unclear.

the_syco

K.Flyer wrote: »

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 do it for market share. If someone drinks beer, they're more likely to try something that they know about. If they're in a pub, and decide on something different, an advertisement that may be fresh in their head may get them to try it.

To those stating that advertising starts people drinking; I have my doubts, as most people start on the cheapest stuff possible known to man (and the rest either don't drink, or go "home-brand") from an early age. If there was no advertising, I doubt it would stop people starting to drink, although IMO, once people are drinking, then advertising comes in to play regarding what to drink.

long range shooter

JustinDee wrote: »

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?

You can't compare Norway to Ireland in this matter anyway.
Norway is totally different in all aspects in comparison.We talking two very different countries and cultures.:rolleyes:

oscarBravo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

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.

She's a health policy analyst. She quoted a study done by someone else. If you believe she has a dog in the race, it's only fair that you state why you believe that to be the case; otherwise you're impugning her reputation for no good reason.

the_syco wrote: »

To those stating that advertising starts people drinking; I have my doubts...

With respect, your doubts add nothing to the conversation unless they're based on a carefully controlled scientific study. There are lots of people out there who have their doubts about whether smoking causes cancer, but that doesn't change the facts.

In the interests of clarity (which I would have hoped would be unnecessary but this thread has clearly shown me otherwise) I'm not claiming that advertising does start people drinking; I've simply pointed out that there is evidence that this is the case, and that it's completely pointless arguing that it's not the case unless you adduce evidence to the contrary. "I have my doubts" doesn't constitute evidence.

JustinDee

long range shooter wrote: »

You can't compare Norway to Ireland in this matter anyway.
Norway is totally different in all aspects in comparison.We talking two very different countries and cultures.:rolleyes:

With respect to attitudes to drinking and alcohol, do elaborate.

long range shooter

JustinDee wrote: »

With respect to attitudes to drinking and alcohol, do elaborate.

age?sex?married,single,work?,income?geography,where in Norway,where in Ireland?access to alcohol?homebrew,smugling?
physical health,mental health? i can go on and on.

JustinDee

long range shooter wrote: »

age?sex?married,single,work?,income?geography,where in Norway,where in Ireland?access to alcohol?homebrew,smugling?
physical health,mental health? i can go on and on.

Yes you probably could go on and on, but you're not specifying why or how the comparison is invalid. You stated that Norwegian culture with respects to alcohol consumption is different. How exactly and based on what?

long range shooter

JustinDee wrote: »

Yes you probably could go on and on, but you're not specifying why or how the comparison is invalid. You stated that Norwegian culture with respects to alcohol consumption is different. How exactly and based on what?

Norway is different when it comes to price,access to alcohol,smugling of alcohol,geography,thats why its different.
Alot of people make their own brew,or smugle alcohol vs buying,because of high prices and taxes.
And theres a difference in geography as well.
People in the Northern counties are living a bit more isolated than the rest of the country,and prefer the homebrew more than the southern counties.
And also have to face the wintermonths in total darkness and the problems that comes with it,and many tend to alcohol,drugs etc.
The eastern counties,closer to Oslo prefer going to Sweden,Denmark for their alcohol,because its cheaper,and many gamble on smugling as well.
In the western counties,stavanger,Bergen,Ålesund etc,many people work in the offshore industry,and have more strict toleranse towards alcohol,because the oil industry demands it.
Theres a lot of factors that comes into this,and like i said i could go on about this,but it doesnt give a hole picture of the country,because many factors comes into it.
If you can show me something similar to this,i might believe it more.

http://alcalc.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2012/03/29/alcalc.ags032.full