• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should Alcohol companies not be allowed to advertise?

Should commercials promotic Alcoholic bevarges be banned from TV?

  • Yes

    Votes: 8 22.9%

  • No

    Votes: 25 71.4%

  • other

    Votes: 2 5.7%
  • Total voters
    35
Captain America said:
I agree that parents should have more influence over their children but my observations in this day and age make me wonder, generally speaking, how many actually do.

My nephew comes to mind. He has good parents. He's in his teens now and thinks he's black. All his friends think they're black. In fact, they give blacks a bad name they are so bad at it.

I KNOW he didn't get it from his parents.

All that being said, keep in mind that I am an old fart and I probably just don't understand.
Click to expand...

OK, but that's not my problem. People have to raise their own kids. I should not be held responsible because of it. The tobacco and alcohol companies shouldn't be held responsible because of it. People make the choice to have kids. It's hard, it's not easy, it's tough and requires countless hours. That's their choice and the consequence of it. Why can't a tobacco company have a commercial? Because kids may see it? If a parent can't sit down with their kid and overall in their life have a more positive and powerful influence over their kids than a commercial...well they probably shouldn't have been a parent in the first place. But it's not my problem, and it's not the tobacco company's problem, and it's not the alcohol company's problem. It's the parents problem. They have to do the work, they have to put in the effort. Yes, tobacco and alcohol are bad for you, certainly there is room for reasonable regulation to make them state these things. But people are free to make choices, and if someone chooses to smoke or drink; that's their choice. They are beholden to the consequences of it. No one else.

I grow weary of the "Oh won't someone please think of the children" arguments. Helen Lovejoy coming out of the woodwork. And the "it's bad for you" argument is just as bad. Who are you to tell me what I can or can't do? Just because it's bad for me doesn't mean I can't do it or the company can't advertise. If some people are so strongly inclined to try to save us from ourselves, they should be pushing for prohibition. But as it stands, tobacco and alcohol are legal products. And there's no reason to forbid a company selling legal products from advertising their products. That's it. Don't care if it "influences the children", go be a parent. I don't care if "it's bad for me", it's my damned choice. If it's legal, it should be allowed to be advertised.
 
Laila said:
That is all well and good but if the Government has fooled itself into thinking making drugs illegal will somehow "stop them" then I'm sure they can expand that delusion to include alcohol.
Click to expand...

I want to make sure I understand you. You're saying because the folks who run government are delusional enough to believe their failed policy of drug probition is effective, that's the reason we should expand that failed policy to include alcohol? That can't possibly be your stance. I must be misunderstanding you.

And as for taxes, why not?
I didn't like the increase of tax on my fags, the watershed mark, the change of law for smokers but I still understood why the Government did it. Parliament cannot please everyone.
Click to expand...

Because taxing someone because you don't like what they are doing is a policy just begging for abuse. Would you be OK with a tax on fast food? Unhealthy snacks like pop and potato chips? Lady Gaga CDs? White Sox gear? All of them are bad for you. We should tax them all into oblivion.
 
Last edited:
And I might also add you haven't addressed the negative consequences of prohibition. Obviously you don't object to violation of personal liberty to decide what will injest into your own body. But are you ok with spending (aka wasting) billions of dollars to arrest, prosecute, and incarcarate non-violent drug offenders who harmed no one other than possibly themselves? Do you not object to creating a black market that funds violent criminal cartels?
 
Psychoclown said:
Unhealthy snacks like pop and potato chips? Lady Gaga CDs? White Sox gear? All of them are bad for you. We should tax them all into oblivion.
Click to expand...

Oh tax the **** out of White Sox gear! God damned White Sox!
 
BCR said:
[These] commercials do a great job of portraying consumption of "Alcohol" as cool and fun. I got nothing against Alcohol but I really don't think we need to have these advertisements, it should be regulated like Tobacco companies when it comes to advertising.
Click to expand...

I disagree alcohol is not an addictive substance like tobacco. I have disagreements with the government taxing an addictive substance as well. But you're also kind of wrong. Alcohol happens to be cool and fun.
 
Psychoclown said:
I want to make sure I understand you.
Click to expand...
:lol:

I was wondering how long it would last. Honestly, I'd prefer all drugs either legalised or all banned. I don't like the hypocritical stance of many of accepting alcohol but rejecting something like marijuana. I would like to see alcohol banned only to be amused by how many switch sides when it comes to the drug debate.

Because taxing someone because you don't like what they are doing is a policy just begging for abuse. Would you be OK with a tax on fast food? Unhealthy snacks like pop and potato chips? Lady Gaga CDs? White Sox gear? All of them are bad for you. We should tax them all into oblivion.
Click to expand...

... what is white sox? :confused:
And unhealthy snacks are taxed. So is fast food.
You can't even buy Lucky Charms here :roll:
 
Last edited:
BCR said:
Tobacco companies have very strict regulations for advertising but why is it so relaxed when it comes to Alcohol companies. I can't watch a TV show or getting on the internet without seeing some kind of Alcoholic beverage commercial.
Click to expand...

There's no valid reason to ban tobacco ads on TV. Just over-zealous government power hungry bureaucrats obeying the whim of control freaks in the public.

Tobacco is a lawful product. It's wrong to deny them their First Amendment freedom to speech.

It's doubly wrong to apply the flawed logic that muzzles tobacco companies to other products.

Next alcohol, after that Coca Cola and Pepsi, then meat, where does it stop?

This used to be a free nation where people had the responsibility to make choices for themselves.

Now our nanny government wants to prevent people from seeing the choices, and thus endeth freedom.
 
I voted "Other" because they are legally age-restricted products. Thus, the advertising should only be allowed on networks and/or at times that children aren't typically watching television. That said, I believe the restricions can only be on network television whose airwaves are owned by us (i.e. the government) and not network or pay channels who don't fall under the same regulations.
 
Ikari said:
Please, like TV has more influence over children than their parents. Maybe parents should watch what their "susceptible kids" are watching and make better judgments off of that. Tobacco and alcohol are legal substances. Companies which sell these legal products should not be barred from advertising.
Click to expand...

There's always Carl Sagan's "ad nix" idea, where TV advertising vanished because modern TVs skipped the ads. ("Contact") Someone could sell a program that edits out the cigarette ads.

That's how the free market is supposed to work.
 
Kal'Stang said:
I've noticed that since cigarette companies were banned from advertising there have been a lot more laws put into effect regarding cigarettes. Mainly because they are not allowed to advertise I would bet. I like how alcohol companies advertise. "Be Responsible" has become thier mantra really. Why couldn't cigarette companies do the same? Basically since they can't defend themselves through advertising and all we are seeing are the advertisements designed to tear them down...well smoking cigarettes is being phased out.
Click to expand...

You mean besides the fact that it's not the government's job to "phase out" a product, that's what the market is for.

There's that.
 
No, of course not. To be honest I think the bans on cigarettes ads should be gone too. There's no need for such ban.
 
Ikari said:
OK, but that's not my problem. People have to raise their own kids. I should not be held responsible because of it. The tobacco and alcohol companies shouldn't be held responsible because of it. People make the choice to have kids. It's hard, it's not easy, it's tough and requires countless hours. That's their choice and the consequence of it. Why can't a tobacco company have a commercial? Because kids may see it? If a parent can't sit down with their kid and overall in their life have a more positive and powerful influence over their kids than a commercial...well they probably shouldn't have been a parent in the first place. But it's not my problem, and it's not the tobacco company's problem, and it's not the alcohol company's problem. It's the parents problem. They have to do the work, they have to put in the effort. Yes, tobacco and alcohol are bad for you, certainly there is room for reasonable regulation to make them state these things. But people are free to make choices, and if someone chooses to smoke or drink; that's their choice. They are beholden to the consequences of it. No one else.

I grow weary of the "Oh won't someone please think of the children" arguments. Helen Lovejoy coming out of the woodwork. And the "it's bad for you" argument is just as bad. Who are you to tell me what I can or can't do? Just because it's bad for me doesn't mean I can't do it or the company can't advertise. If some people are so strongly inclined to try to save us from ourselves, they should be pushing for prohibition. But as it stands, tobacco and alcohol are legal products. And there's no reason to forbid a company selling legal products from advertising their products. That's it. Don't care if it "influences the children", go be a parent. I don't care if "it's bad for me", it's my damned choice. If it's legal, it should be allowed to be advertised.
Click to expand...

You're preaching to the choir here Ikari. I think the Marlboro man is cool. If we can advertise pharmaceuticals that might kill you or make your babies come out toothless and naked, and advertise Vodka, or even military recruitment, why should the cigarette industry be singled out? People have been selling snake-oil since they invented money. Some people buy into it, some don't. Where's the line?

Besides, I really like this guy here --->
n49626846068_8982.jpg
 
Last edited:
BCR said:
Tobacco companies have very strict regulations for advertising but why is it so relaxed when it comes to Alcohol companies. I can't watch a TV show or getting on the internet without seeing some kind of Alcoholic beverage commercial.

This commercials do a great job of portraying consumption of "Alcohol" as cool and fun. I got nothing against Alcohol but I really don't think we need to have these advertisements, it should be regulated like Tobacco companies when it comes to advertising.
Click to expand...

I don't think the government has the right to ban the advertisement of a legal product. Why stop at alcohol? Heart disease is the number one cause of death in America. Why not just have the government regulate food commercials? No more Burking King or Taco Bell commercials. How about they regulate car commercials? Only the cars that are the most environmentally friendly should be allowed to be advertised. Give the government an inch and they will take a mile (through eminent domain of course). Plus alcohol commercials are already regulated. Have you ever seen anyone actually drink an alcoholic beverage in a commercial? It would seem odd that no one would be drinking the product being sold. Due to regulations no alcohol commercial can show people drinking the alcohol.
 
Captain America said:
You're preaching to the choir here Ikari. I think the Marlboro man is cool. If we can advertise pharmaceuticals that might kill you or make your babies come out toothless and naked, and advertise Vodka, or even military recruitment, why should the cigarette industry be singled out? People have been selling snake-oil since they invented money. Some people buy into it, some don't. Where's the line?

Besides, I really like this guy here --->
n49626846068_8982.jpg
Click to expand...

Not only would you lose that guy, you would also lose the most interesting man in the world!!
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
You mean besides the fact that it's not the government's job to "phase out" a product, that's what the market is for.

There's that.
Click to expand...

That would work even better if we were allowed to ala carte our cable options. But the cable companies didn't want to, so it's all packaged. That way we all have to pay for ****ty channels like Oxygen instead of letting them die. But if we had true ala carte, we could have all sorts of channels set at market price. If not a lot of people wanted a channel, but those people were die hard fans of the topic and were willing to shell out a bit more, you could still do it. But if no one wanted your channel, then you're SOL. I think something like that were it's direct buy of channels would go a LONG way into improving the format and quality of our TV entertainment...but that's another thread for another time.
 
The Giant Noodle said:
They are a baseball team located in Chicago. (and they are better than the Cubs ;) )
Click to expand...

You...you...heathen! The Cubs are the greatest team ever, they won back to back world series titles And not too long ago they took the NL Central twice in a row! The Cubs are infinitely better and cooler than the White Sox.

BTW, I'm going to see the Cubs play this weekend at Coors Field (I live in CO now). They jack the prices on tickets when the Cubs come into town. Kinda sucks, but I guess Daley needs his cut.
 
Ikari said:
People are responsible for there own decisions and the consequences there of

Freedom 101
Click to expand...

True... but only a small percentage actually take the reins for a variety of reasons... Lack of confidence, won't stick their necks out, burned too many times when they did, don't know what to do in new situations, don't want to make waves... That's why bosses outnumber workers 20 to one... Psychology 101

ricksfolly
 
ricksfolly said:
True... but only a small percentage actually take the reins for a variety of reasons... Lack of confidence, won't stick their necks out, burned too many times when they did, don't know what to do in new situations, don't want to make waves... That's why bosses outnumber workers 20 to one... Psychology 101

ricksfolly
Click to expand...

If bosses outnumber workers 20 to 1 doesn't that mean a large percentage of people do take the reigns?
 
ricksfolly said:
True... but only a small percentage actually take the reins for a variety of reasons... Lack of confidence, won't stick their necks out, burned too many times when they did, don't know what to do in new situations, don't want to make waves... That's why bosses outnumber workers 20 to one... Psychology 101

ricksfolly
Click to expand...

Their problem, not mine.

Psychoclown 101
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom