|
 f
you've watched any television in your lifetime, chances are you've
seen more than a few beer ads. In fact, some of the most memorable
advertisements in the history of the medium have been produced by
beer makers, as they vigorously compete for customer allegiance.
But if you're
a consumer who enjoys other spirits besides beer, you might be wondering
why you never hear anything on TV about your favorite brands. The
reason you don't is because, for the past 50 years, the spirits
industry has voluntarily refrained from putting liquor ads on TV.
But as revenues have declined gradually over the past two increasingly
health-conscious decades, the industry has rethought the wisdom
of the ban and began cautiously testing the regulatory climate by
placing ads on some local TV or cable stations. The debate over
the wisdom of this reversal has been heating up nationally since
NBC announced recently that they would allow liquor commercials
to run during late-evening programming, making them the first national
network to do so.
Not surprisingly,
a lot of social do-gooders are up in arms over this and are demanding
that federal policymakers take action to halt the practice. Joseph
Califano, director of the National Center on Addiction and Substance
Abuse at Columbia University, told the Wall Street Journal
recently, "The only solution now is for federal regulation,
just as we have federal regulation prohibiting tobacco ads on television."
From a public-policy
perspective, the fear seems to be puritanical in character: If people
see booze ads on TV, they will, like a mindless herd of robots,
make a mad dash to their local liquor stores just because they see
a few TV ads. But those fears are misguided. In fact, Dr. Morris
E. Chafetz, president of the Health Education Foundation and author
of The Tyranny of Experts, argues that "the claim that
advertising can lead anyone down the bottle-strewn garden path not
only to drink alcohol but to abuse it, is pure hokum." In the
mid-1990s, Dr. Chafetz conducted a review of academic research for
the New England Journal of Medicine on the question of how
advertising affected alcohol use. His conclusion: "I did not
find any studies that credibly connect advertising to increases
in alcohol use (or abuse) or to young persons taking up drinking.
The prevalence of reckless misinterpretation and misapplication
of science allows advocacy groups and the media to stretch research
findings to suit their preconceived positions."
So even though
the evidence suggests that exposure to advertising is unlikely to
increase consumption, liquor companies are still willing to run
ads, perhaps in an attempt to build brand recognition or attract
beer and wine consumers. The question is, is there anything wrong
with that?
The answer,
of course, is all a matter of personal opinion. In a free society,
however, people should be at liberty to make such choices without
government entering the picture. Adults should be responsible for
their decisions in this regard and they should exercise authority
over their children until they reach an age when they can be trusted
to make such decisions on their own.
If the mere
fact that children might see ads is justification for banning them,
then why not ban liquor ads in print mags — kids can see them
too. In fact, why not ban ads for cars, riding mowers, high-fat
food, or computers? All of those can be harmful to kids, as well,
in certain circumstances.
Moreover, a
federal ban on televised liquor advertising would probably not pass
First Amendment muster today. In the important 1996 decision Liquormart,
Inc. v. Rhode Island, the Supreme Court struck down a
Rhode Island ban on the advertisement of retail liquor prices outside
of the place of sale since such a blanket prohibition against truthful
speech about a lawful product betrayed the First Amendment. The
Court bolstered this line of reasoning in the subsequent 1999 decision
Greater New Orleans Broadcasting Assn., Inc. v. United
States, which declared that the FCC could not ban casino advertising
in states where gambling was legal.
There has never
been any logic behind the artificial distinction between liquor
and other products, such as beer and wine, when it comes to promotional
activities. Alcohol is alcohol. Why should the form in which it
is delivered change its legal status? And why place advertising
restrictions on lawful products at all? If someone were trying to
sell crack cocaine or cruise missiles on TV, the government would
have constitutional grounds for restricting such ads. But alcohol
is a legal product that manufacturers have every right to promote.
Policymakers need to take a sober look at these realities before
they rush headlong into needless and unconstitutional restrictions
on liquor advertisements on TV.
|
