Would you support a *complete* ban on alcohol advertising?

Lando Griffin wrote: »

That's because they consume these deadly drugs with Alcohol that's advertised.

So there's a proven link between advertising alcohol and drug use?

Banning advertising alcohol would do pretty much nothing to sales of alcohol in Ireland unless you want to ban all promotional activities in the entire hospitality industry. Advertising isn't done to gain sales, it's done to create awareness of brands and to connect certain products with certain attitudes and certain "types" of drinkers. Bulmers is strategically advertised as a product that is enjoyed on a nice summers day, WKD is a mischievous light drink, Guinness is for people who enjoy and savour their pint, Coors Light is the cool youngsters beer, gin is for classy people, yada yada yada. You don't see tequila or sambuca advertised because everyone knows what they are and what they're for - to get wrecked - and there is no point in creating brand awareness for a product like that. Advertising is at a stand-off so they are only doing it to bolster their image and keep up with each other, since not doing it will result in a loss of sales to a competitor. It's a big game of keeping up with the Jones'. Banning advertising will just impact brands, it will do nothing to actual alcohol consumption.

If a producer wants to sell more of their product the way to do it is to go through promotions - giving it away to people in bars where they are already having a good time (basic but effective) or by going through the staff of the hospitality industry - give bars loads of your product for free so that they use it in the hope that people will get used to using it instead of a competing brand that they normally use, throwing industry nights for bar staff and pamper the hell out of them so that they push your product when they're working.

Banning advertising won't do anything, people like to drink and they know what they want to drink. All advertising does is try to get you to drink vodka A instead of vodka B, it will have about zero effect on how much people drink and if advertising were banned then promotional activities would just be bumped up and made more creative as the producers try to outdo each other in the new environment that an advertising free market would create, so the companies would just use the same money they were using on advertising to subsidise giving away free booze in order to maintain the image of their brand, so banning advertising would probably actually result in people getting sh1t-loads of free booze on nights out.

Banning advertising is a waste of time, creating awareness of the dangers and damages of excessive alcohol consumption which the government is already doing is a far more effective move in terms of the larger picture and long-term consequences. Don't try to stop the producers, try to educate the market so the producers are powerless.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Minimum pricing ... would make a meaningful impact in the level of irresponsible drinking in this country.

The problem there though is that min pricing would hurt the pockets of people least able to afford it and exacerbate poverty. People struggling to pay mortgages who can no longer afford to go to the pub and pensioners who have a few cans at the weekend for example. It could also create a black market if the price strays (and it almost inevitably would) upwards from its true market value.

I reckon we should follow the successful example of cigarette smoking, that is, ban advertising which presents drug consumption as desirable lifestyle and do the opposite i.e. information and health campaigns on the dangers of alcohol and stigmatise alcohol abuse.

Perhaps minimum pricing could be part of the picture but I'm not convinced it would have much effect by itself.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

With due respect, people who are struggling to pay their mortgage probably oughtn't be in the pub in the first place, and in any case as I said, pubs already charge well higher than any minimum pricing would affect.

I agree. The point I was making was that minimum pricing will impact most those with the least disposable income which is pretty self-evident.

I think you're incorrectly conflating the issue of tobacco and alcohol, to be honest.

They're different drugs but the way they're presented by the advertising industry would be similar. I was hinting at how smoking has declined hugely as both a desirable product and has been stigmatised as a dirty habit (by means of advertising bans and public health campaigns).

The tobacco black market would not be replicated in an alcohol circumstance. Prices are already lower in duty-free and across the border, and that has not led to the creation of a substantial black market for illicit booze.

If the price of a unit increases it increases the govts tax take (VAT) and creates the incentive to raise prices further. If the minimum price remained reasonably low I agree that a black market would not emerge because alcohol is a bulky item and can't easily be smuggled for profit.

My fear would be that dullard politicians prodded by their buddies in the VFI would continuously raise the floor price and end up making it profitable to smuggle which in turn increases the costs of policing.

If this were to go ahead the budweiser horses would be out of work and it'd be off to the beef factory for them

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Only if they either drink to excess or drink beyond their means.

Well you could argue that spending anything on booze is beyond the means of those least able to afford it but that's a bit paternalistic.

Smoking has declined to a certain level and levelled off. The main factors that I identify in its decline are a) it's universal bad for health

That's a fact we know now because of public health research, the stigmatising of smoking by banning advertising, and public health campaigns.

Longitudinal studies consistently suggest that exposure to tobacco advertising and promotion is associated with the likelihood that adolescents will start to smoke.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed

b) the smoking ban in public places and c) the development of NRT and vaping technologies.

These helped but the decline was well in motion long before these measures were taken especially vaping.

None of these are replicable in the context of alcohol. I don't think advertising plays a significant role there at all, in fact. Much more important are societal issues like the so-called central role of pubs in Irish socialising.

I stopped drinking for about 6 months a couple of years ago and I couldn't believe the amount of alcohol advertising on the TV. Sport is absolutely drenched in alcohol advertising and kids are watching sports with their parents. When you talk about societal issues surely you must consider the effect of ubiquitous alcohol advertising?

There is the additional issue of product confidence. Would you buy a bottle of unspecified alcohol from someone in the street?

If I was into spirits and the price of vodka was twice the price? Hell yeah - but I'd be careful about my supplier (this is normal in the illegal drug trade)

It's already profitable to smuggle.

For booze? I had no idea.

The problem is no one will buy in a black market context.

One thing you can be sure of is if the price crept inexorably up the black market (and associated costs) would expand.

If it came to pubs and off-licences crossing the border to stock up, you'd have a problem, but an easily solved one.

Just tonight I heard James Reilly saying he was discussing a cross-border synchronized minimum price on the radio in the car. For sure, increasing the price here and not in the north would be idiotic .

joetoad wrote: »

If they banned alcohol advertisements what would I masturbate to?

MTV hits?

joetoad wrote: »

Anyone want a cup of tea?

Would love a few beers.

joetoad wrote: »

Drinkin ice cold bottles, their soooooo nice