The influence of alcohol beverage advertising on consumption and abuse is examined on the basis of scientific research and evidence.

Consumption & Abuse

Advertising increases alcohol consumption, which increases alcohol abuse….right? WRONG. There is no solid evidence from either scientific research or practical experience that this theory of advertising is correct.

A study by the Federal Trade Commission found that there is “no reliable basis to conclude that alcohol advertising significantly affects consumption, let alone abuse.”

A United States Senate subcommittee reported in the Congressional Record that it could not find evidence to conclude that advertising influences non-drinkers to begin drinking or to increase consumption.

The United States Department of Health and Human Services in its report to Congress concluded that there is no significant relationship between alcohol advertising and alcohol consumption. It did not recommend banning or imposing additional restrictions on advertising.

A University of Texas study of alcohol advertising over a 21-year period found that the amount of money spent on alcohol ads had little relationship with total consumption in the population.

Studies in both Canada and the United States find no significant link between restrictions on advertising and alcohol consumption.

Alcohol advertising expenditures have increased, during which time alcohol-related traffic fatalities have declined.

The founding Director of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism recently pointed out that “There is not a single study – not one study in the United States or internationally – that credibly connects advertising with an increase in alcohol use or abuse.”

The definitive review of research from around the world found that advertising has virtually no influence on consumption and has no impact whatsoever on either experimentation with alcohol or its abuse. This is consistent with other reviews of the research.

Advertising does not increase consumption. For example, alcohol brand advertising was first introduced in New Zealand in 1992. While advertising continues to increase, consumption continues to fall.

What Advertising Does

If advertising doesn’t increase consumption, why bother to advertise? The answer is simple: to increase market share.

Alcohol is a “mature” product category in that consumers are already aware of the product and its basic characteristics. Therefore, overall consumption is not affected significantly by advertising specific brands.

Instead of increasing total consumption, the objective of advertisers is to encourage consumers to switch to their brand and create brand loyalty. Thus, effective advertisers gain market share at the expense of others, who lose market share. They do not try to increase the total market for the product. An example can illustrate why they don’t.

The total retail value of beer produced annually in the U.S. is about $50 billion. If a producer’s advertising campaign increases its market share by one percent, its sales would increase by $500 million. However, if the total market for beer increased by one percent, a brand with a 10% share of the market would only experience a sales increase of $50 million.

Clearly, a producer has a great incentive to increase market share, but little incentive (or ability) to increase the total market. For this reason, advertisers focus their efforts on established consumers. They seek to strengthen the loyalty of their own consumers and induce other consumers to try their brand.

A Flood of Commercials

A widely reported “fact” is that by the age of 18, the typical young person will have seen 100,000 beer commercials. However, to see that many such commercials, it appears that a person would have to view television for about 161,290 hours or 18.4 years.  Thus, a person would have to begin watching TV 24 hours a day, each and every day, from birth until after age 18.

In reality, viewers are much more likely to see alcohol portrayed during TV programs than during commercials. For example, an analysis of prime time TV found that alcohol commercials appeared at the rate of 0.2 per hour while drinking portrayals during programs occured 25 times more frequently, at five times per hour.

Perhaps those who want to reduce the presence of alcohol on television should propose eliminating the programming and let children watch commercials instead.

Unidentified Printed Objects

You haven’t noticed them?! All those swirls, squiggles and unusual shapes in ice cubes, on bottles, in liquid being poured, and elsewhere in alcohol beverage ads. The Center for Science in the Public Interest insists that “With little imagination, one can see some of these elements as faces, animals, breasts, penises, death masks, and other forms….”  This assertion may tell us more about the Center for Science in the Public Interest than about the ads.

Most people can easily imagine or “see” faces, animals and other objects in clouds and inkblots, but the Center for Science in the Public Interest suggests that the “unidentified printed objects” in alcohol beverage print ads are intentionally placed there by advertisers, apparently to subconsciously seduce people to drink Astonishingly, it actually calls for an investigation of these sinister objects, including having “corporate executives testify under oath on the witness stand.” And while the Center for Science in the Public Interest is at it, perhaps it should call for a Congressional investigation of clouds and inkblots.

A Function of Commercials

One of the main arguments against alcohol beverage ads on television is that they “normalize” drinking in the minds of young viewers. To the extent that this is true, the ads may be performing a positive role.

The commonplace nature of alcohol ads on TV serves not to glamorize the products, as some critics suggest, but to cast them as mundane consumer products, right alongside aspirin, cookies, and alkaline batteries. That’s a constructive way for young people to view them.

On the other hand, if we treat beverage alcohol as a dangerous substance to be avoided and not even advertised, we inadvertently raise it up from the ordinary into the realm of the powerful, the tantalizing, and the desirable Big Deal. In so doing, we slip into the familiar, failed pattern of demonizing the substance of alcohol rather than discouraging irresponsible behavior.

We should help young people regard the substance of alcohol as neutral — neither inherently good nor inherently bad. What matters is how it is used, and we must convey by word and example that the abuse of alcohol is never humorous, acceptable, or excusable.

Do alcohol ads portray the products being enjoyed in the most appealing settings and by the most attractive people? Of course they often do — no less than do ads for cars, instant coffee and anti-fungal sprays. That normalcy of alcohol ads helps demystify the product — which is a good place to begin encouraging realistic, moderate, and responsible attitudes about it.

Responsible attitudes toward alcohol are based on the understanding that such beverages are yet another part of life over which individuals have control, like exercise, personal hygiene, or diet.

If alcohol beverages are to be used moderately by those who choose to consume them, then it’s important that these beverages not be stigmatized, compared to illegal drugs, and associated with abuse. They aren’t dangerous poisons to be hidden from sight and become a subject of mystery and perhaps fascinating appeal. But that would be the message sent if alcohol commercials were banned from TV.

Parental Influence

In spite of all the colorful rhetoric and emotional anecdotes, alcohol commercials do not cause young people to drink. The greatest influence of their beliefs, attitudes and behaviors are from their parents.

Parents are much more influential than they generally realize. For example, among six things that might affect their decisions about drinking, 62% of American youth aged 12 to 17 identified their parents as a leading influence:

1. Parents (62 percent)
2. Best friends (28 percent)
3. Teachers (9 percent)
4. What they see on television (7 percent)
5. What they see in ads (4 percent)

It is parents, rather than alcohol ads, with the great influence over young people.

Used by the permission of Prof. David J. Hanson, Ph.D.
Questions? Comments? E-mail him: hansondj@potsdam.edu
Sociology Department, State University of New York, Potsdam, NY 13676.
Copyright © 1997-2007 D. J. Hanson. All rights reserved for entire web site.

In the recent news, there have been many reports of accidents caused by drunken drivers that result in the deaths of innocent people.

The only way to stop drunken driving is to stop the drinking. Once someone is drunk, that person is not going to make a good decision about not driving.

Advertising beer and other alcoholic beverages on television increases the number of drunken people, who will then drive. Many of these TV ads appear with sporting events that many young people watch.

Cigarette advertising has been eliminated from TV to reduce health problems caused by smoking.

Deaths from drunken driving would also be reduced if advertising of beer, wine and whiskey were eliminated from TV broadcasts.

Joyce B. Delahooke

Selma

Taken from: http://www.claytonnews-star.com/default.asp?sourceid=&smenu=90&twindow=Default&mad=No&sdetail=1074&wpage=&skeyword=&sidate=&ccat=&ccatm=&restate=&restatus=&reoption=&retype=&repmin=&repmax=&rebed=&rebath=&subname=&pform=&sc=2111&hn=claytonnews-star&he=.com

The Summer II session has begun and I look forward to introducing you to Edublogs and Nicenet. Remember if you have any questions, please see me before or after class. Also, you can make an appointment to see me during my office hours.

Let’s work hard this session.

Alex

We are down to the last essay of the session.  I have decided to get your opinion on single sex education.  The question – Should boys and girls attend separate schools?  First, you have to take a side, for or against, then you should support your opinion with supporting details.

Download the reference page entitled ‘The ELC Writer’s Blog on Schools’ under the Writer’s Page.  This reference is where you will find support for your opinion on single sex education.  The page entitled ‘Need for Islamic Girls School’ and ‘Single Sex Education’ are especially filled with great information for your argument.

 We will work on this in class next week, so please be prepared.  Thanks.

After reading and listening to the report, has you opinion changed or stayed the same? Leave your comments for your classmates and the world!

Thanks…

Is marijuana a harmful or a helpful plant?  Is it more or less dangerous than alcohol and tobacco – both legal drugs. !

Read the essay below and the articles on Nicenet and respond with your opinion on the legalization of marijuana.  What are the pros and cons of its legalization?  Share your opinion with the class and the world!

Persuasive Essay on Legalizing Marijuana

Canada recently made international headlines by legalizing marijuana for medicinal purposes. I have no problem with this decision. If patients could already get morphine, marijuana is no big deal. However, this decision may lead to the legalization of marijuana for recreational purposes, something that I oppose.

Legalizing casual pot encourages people to rely on a drug and instead of relying on themselves. For example, an out of shape person feeling the ill effects of a junk food diet could relieve his ailments with exercise and better diet instead of grass.

Marijuana supporters say that it is a profitable underground industry with a huge tax potential that cannot be shut down. They also state that people should have the right to ingest whatever they want to. By that rationale, we should also legalize cocaine and heroin. It would be naïve to think that we could make a fortune taxing pot. Enforcing the taxed selling of cannabis would be just as challenging as enforcing anti-marijuana laws. Many pot users would grow their own cannabis or buy some tax-free from a friend rather than taxed retail grass.

Legalizing marijuana gives the impression that it is acceptable and beneficial. Lenient laws often lead to mass misuse with limited benefits. The United States has more tolerant laws for gun and weapon ownership than Canada does. The N.R.A. often quote the constitution, “all have the right to bare arms”, when facing critics. Who in their right mind would say that liberal gun laws have benefited the U.S. and Canada should follow their example?

What would a terminally ill person sitting immobile in a hospital bed using marijuana do if they were physically healthy again? Answers might include travel, going back to school or spending more time with friends and family. Basically living each day to the fullest. Cannabis activists are lucky to have their physical health but are not living life to its fullest. They are lobbying the government so they can sit around immobile and smoke pot.

The physical effects of marijuana use are “relatively harmless”, but what are the benefits? Escaping your problems without having to deal with them. Ever wonder why the pothead and stoner are stereotype includes laziness? It’s probably rooted in wanting to experience an altered mood without having to do anything.

This is not a holier than thou essay. Like all people, I have skeletons in my closet. I have had an addiction to getting high that started at a young age and remains to this day. It’s not a drug however; I’ve been getting high on life. Only your imagination and perseverance limit what can get out of your day. Get out! Go biking, spend time with family or friends or volunteer. Whatever gets you naturally high.

CounterPoint (by Ron Barker):

I agree with you that marijuana is far from healthy. Obviously, inhaling any kind of smoke is a health hazard. And, if I’d read your essay a few years ago I probably would have agreed with you. When I was in high school, I had friends who were major pot heads. I myself never cracked under the peer pressure (in high school anyways), so I got to sit back and watch my stoned friends fail out of high school. It seemed obvious to me that anyone who smoked marijuana was doomed to live a failure of a life.

My opinion of that changed slightly, however, when in my first semester of university I had a philosophy professor who used to smoke a joint before every class. Anyway, I did an extensive research paper dealing with marijuana where I studied many statistics from recent years. I noticed that a lot of the negative information about marijuana out there is in fact either made up or highly skewed.

Of course, I understand that it works the other way too. Marijuana activists make up positive information to help strengthen their side of the debate.

One point that I never could understand, however, is why alcohol is legal. If you look at the premises presented by the side that thinks marijuana should stay ILLEGAL, you’ll see that most of them can easily be attributed to alcoholics.

Alcohol causes more health problems than does marijuana. Alcohol causes people to forget their inhibitions and act on impulse; marijuana does the opposite, causing most people to slow down and think about their actions more. And, alcohol causes more deaths than does marijuana – this is a fact which cannot be argued.

So, to get to my point, I am neither for nor against legalizing marijuana. I believe that if marijuana is bad enough to be illegal, alcohol should also be illegal. Likewise, if alcohol is okay, marijuana is okay.

I think the police force should be spending more time investigating serious crimes and forget about busting people for having a joint.

Also, to get back to my friends who failed out of high school. I don’t think it was caused by the marijuana. I think that people of such attitude CHOOSE to be marijuana users, and often because of this their failures are attributed to marijuana. I believe that, these same people, if they could relive their lives without marijuana, would fail in the same way.

On the other hand, MMA (mixed martial arts) is the new kid on the block.  It encompasses all fighting styles.  It allows you to use your whole body to defeat your opponent.  Fighters are allowed to stand up or take the fight to the mat.  This sport also has descriptive words to describe aspects of the fight; my favorite term is the ‘rear naked choke’.

 Have you ever seen a Boxing match? How about an MMA match?  What’s your opinion of these two styles of competition.  Can they co-exist or should they both be outlawed?  Your comments would be greatly appreciated.

Stem cells have the remarkable potential to develop into many different cell types in the body. Serving as a sort of repair system for the body, they can theoretically divide without limit to replenish other cells as long as the person or animal is still alive. When a stem cell divides, each new cell has the potential to either remain a stem cell or become another type of cell with a more specialized function, such as a muscle cell, a red blood cell, or a brain cell.

If stem cells can save lives, why do most politician refuse to support this important research with funding?  In your opinion, is stem cell research an important tools to save lives.  Research this topic for discuss in class or blog your answer.

 Home Schooling Advantages vs. Disadvantages By: Kris Koonar

Home schooling is an option that is becoming more attractive to parents as time goes on. Schools have become increasingly unstable over the past couple of decades. Children roam the hallways unchecked, textbooks are outdated, violence is prevalent, children are bullied mercilessly, and the quality of education on the whole has greatly diminished.

What options do parents have to combat this downward spiral? Initially, private school was thought to be the answer. As enrollment in private schools soared many parents failed to see a difference between public and private schools. The problems were still the same.

The option of home schooling has been around for a long time; however, until recently it had not been so popular. The idea of home schooling seems like a cure-all to many parents due to the advantages this type of education provides over traditional schools. Children who are home schooled can avoid many of the problems schools have become known for. For one, the environment is less threatening. Children can learn without fearing other students, aggressive or nasty teachers, and be under the constant supervision of parents. In addition, home schooling allows parents to dictate the academic course of their children. Home schooling also allows students to proceed at their own speed. If a child is weak at multiplication and division, a parent can focus lessons on those skills in favor of another skill that the child might grasp rather easily.

Home schooling is also advantageous because it keeps children away from other students that may be corruptive forces. There are many students in school who do not value learning. This is not any fault of the schools; however, it is still a painful reality. These students can lead to the destruction of a stable learning environment. Home schooling keeps children focused on learning and not on avoiding social pressures.

It may sound like the perfect option, but there are many disadvantages of home schooling. First of all, home schooled children are usually less socialized. While schools can sometimes be the breeding ground for poor social behaviors, school is also a place where students learn to interact with others and build social skills. It seems a bit like a catch 22.

In addition, another drawback to home schooling could be implementation of an educational plan. Many parents are not qualified as teachers and may not understand what is necessary to ensure a child has access to the proper curriculum.

Finally, another disadvantage to home schooling is the necessity for parents to take full responsibility for their childs education. If you choose to home school your child there is no one for you to blame if your child does poorly. The responsibility falls completely on the parent.

There are many advantages and disadvantages to home schooling. Before you begin a home schooling plan make sure you have evaluated your ability to properly instruct your child and provide a quality learning experience. If you do not think you can handle it, you might as well send your child to school but become more involved with his or her education.

In recently years, the “Big 3″ (B3) – GM, Ford and Chrysler have shown themselves to be not as attentive to the wants and needs of the American driver.  Toyota, Nissan, Honda, Hyundai and others, have continually stole market share from the B3.  As the imports became more popular, the B3 failed to follow their lead with styling and innovation. 

For the past few months, we have learned that the B3 are all hemorrhaging money; Downsizing, plant closings, layoffs and buyouts are the norm at the B3 now.  In recent weeks, Daimler, parent company of Mercedes-Benz, decided to sell off its Chrysler division to an American investor group; it was sold for a lots less money than it was purchased for. 

Ford recently learned that it has been surpassed by Toyota as the number 2 automaker in the US.  Toyota is definitely aiming for numero uno (or number 1).

What makes an import cars different or better from the American one?  I own a Toyota after having other American, German, and Japanese cars;  there are a lot of things I love about my Toyota, and because of past experiences, I plan to give my future business to the so-called importers.  What’s you opinion on this subject? Blog it!!