Only when compared to regulations for tobacco advertising.

Recently in CorpusChristi, Texas, a commercial advertising whiskey was aired. The premise of the commercial involved two cartoon dogs having been depicted as obedience school graduates, with one of the dogs wearing a hat that said “valedictorian”. Instead of holding a graduation diploma, the little pooch had a bottle of Seagram’s Crown Royal whiskey. “The ad marked the first time that a liquor company had broken the 60 year old voluntary industry ban on hard liquor” (“Should Liquor Be”). This kind of commercial is obviously directed towards younger viewers in an attempt to begin drawing a parallel between cute little cartoon dogs and Crown Royal whiskey.

Although that liquor commercial has recently been the focus of an alcohol advertising controversy, what’s really important is the beer that is being advertised. Have you ever thought about the effects the three little frogs who blurted out “Bud-weis-er” had on society? Or how about the Coors Twins who can be seen in commercials with the subliminal message of “drinking doubles your fun”? These ads, among others, have had a more significant effect on us than one might consciously think about.

Even though alcohol is just as harmful to you as tobacco, the same regulations on tobacco advertising seem not to apply to alcohol advertising. Tobacco advertisements have been severely restricted within the past decade, and there seems to be no reason why these kinds of restrictions cannot be applied to alcohol advertisements. For some reason, alcohol restrictions seem to be exempt from such regulations because of its grasp on our national economy. Alcohol advertising is something that should be more strictly controlled so that the younger generations are not constantly bombarded with alcohol promotions and subconsciously told that drinking equals being cool and having fun.

Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., said on NBC's “Meet the Press” that “[advertising alcohol on TV] is a big mistake. I think it would have a bad impact on our children and young people and society as a whole” (“Should Liquor Be”). People take for granted the amount of alcohol that is being advertised daily on the average television.

Kids see only one of the industry’s "responsibility" ads, for every 60 alcohol commercials they watch. Research suggests what most parents already know: This barrage of alcohol advertising is a threat to their children. The federal government spends only $71 million a year on anti-underage drinking efforts, compared to $18 billion fighting drug abuse. And yet, alcohol abuse kills 6.5 times more kids than all drugs combined. Meanwhile, the alcohol industry is spending $3 billion a year on alcohol ads. (“Tighten Youth Access”)

In a study held by Laura Lieber, director of the Center on Alcohol Advertising, found that many children can easily identify some beer commercial characters. In a study of children ages 9 to 11, 70% of them knew that the frogs in the Anheuser-Busch Co.’s ad say Bud-weis-er (“Tobacco and Alcohol”). It is clear that children are very receptive of these alcohol ads. “According to a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, underage drinking accounts for 20 percent of all alcohol consumption in the United States” (“Tighten Youth Access”).

People underestimate the effect that banning alcohol ads, and alcohol for that matter, can have in the United States. Back in the early 1900’s during the Prohibition, the government issued a ban on the selling of alcohol in the United States. This government regulation had a serious impact upon the consumption of alcohol in the country and resulted in a decline in alcohol related health problems. “John C. Burnham argued that the national ban on alcohol [during the Prohibition] helped improve Americans' health. Death rates from liver cirrhosis fell from 29.5 per 100,000 men in 1911 to 10.7 in 1929, while admissions to state mental hospitals for treatment of alcoholic psychosis also declined markedly” (“Should Liquor Be”). Although alcohol has such a strong hold in our economy today, these measures seem unlikely. However, a campaign for stricter regulation of alcohol advertisements centers on the “proposed Sensible Advertising and Family Education (SAFE) Act, first introduced in 1993 by Sen. Strom Thurmond, R-S.C., and Rep. Joseph P. Kennedy II, D-Mass. The legislation would have required all advertising for alcoholic beverages to include one of seven health warnings on a rotating basis” (“Should Liquor Be”). Simple warnings could help tremendously, but the industries refused.

People who believe that alcohol and tobacco advertising should be regulated also agree that the icons, slogans, and cartoons used to advertise those products are in part directed to appeal to children (“Tobacco and Alcohol”). “A survey reported in the December 11, 1991 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) found that the Joe Cool character was as recognizable to American children as Mickey Mouse, the mascot of Walt Disney World and Disneyland, children-oriented theme parks. More than 90% of six-year-olds in the study could link the Camel character to cigarettes” (“Tobacco and Alcohol”). This survey clearly shows the impact of how a simple cartoon advertising for Camel cigarettes can be such an influence in the minds of little children. Because these kids have grown up watching Joe Cool, when they are introduced to smoking, the cigarette companies hope that they would choose Camel cigarettes.

As tobacco industries continue to spend more money on advertising, it does not seem like a coincidence that as a result of their spending there is an increase in teenage smoking. “A study appearing in Journal of Marketing (April 1996) found that, on average, a 10% increase in spending by cigarette makers on their ad campaigns resulted in a 3% greater share of the adult market, but a 9% greater share in the teenage market” (“Tobacco and Alcohol”). When cigarette companies plan their advertising schemes, it seems that their main audience is young teenagers and children. Defenders of tobacco and alcohol advertising try to refute the notion that they market their products to children. They believe “that their main focus is not to have people start smoking and drinking, but to influence the choices in brands the consumers make. They claim that adult choice is what they structure their ads on” (“Tobacco and Alcohol”). If this is the case, then how come in a 1973 internal document written by the assistant director of research and development of a tobacco industry, it reads: “Realistically, if our company is to survive and prosper, over the long term, we must get our share of the youth market. In my opinion this will require new brands tailored to the youth market” (“Tobacco and Alcohol”). Obviously tobacco and alcohol industries take advantage of the youth of America by advertising their products to them in an attempt for them to begin using their products at an early age.

In recent years however, the government has taken a new approach to the tobacco and alcohol advertising problem. They have begun to strictly regulate tobacco advertisements, and these regulations have had a significant impact upon youth consumption. A few of these restrictions are:

· Ban billboard advertisements of tobacco products from within 1,000 feet of schools or playgrounds; all other tobacco billboards and signs will be limited to black and white text only, except those in adult-only facilities, such as bars or nightclubs

· Restrict tobacco ads to black and white text only in all magazines that have a youth readership of more than two million, or more than 15% of total readership. Popular magazines affected include Sports Illustrated, Vogue and Rolling Stone.

· Ban brand-name sponsorship of sporting or entertainment events by tobacco companies.

· Ban promotional giveaway items, such as hats and t-shirts, that bear brand names or logos of tobacco products. (“Tobacco and Alcohol”)

It is clear that the government has taken into consideration the impact that tobacco advertising has on children. They have taken steps to restrict these advertisements, but for some reason they tended to forget about the alcohol advertisements. These regulations, however, have not been taken easily by the tobacco industries. “The tobacco industries and their defenders contend that they have the same rights to promote and advertise their wares as any other legal product. Nearly all products, from cars to aspirin, can be used irresponsibly and abused” (“Tobacco and Alcohol”). This statement holds some validity, except for the fact that most of the products that can be “used irresponsibly and abused” if they are taken in excess. At a moderate amount however, pills help people feel better and get healthier while cars serve as an essential mode of transportation. Smoking in moderation does not have any useful purpose at all.