PDA

View Full Version : Why Can Alcohol Companies Peddle On Television, But Not Tobacco?




RonPaulFanInGA
12-05-2014, 07:30 AM
Nothing makes one think more than seeing a Truth anti-smoking propaganda ad, immediately followed by a commercial for Jack Daniels whiskey.

What kind of bipolar country is this? Smoking is too bad to be advertised, but alcohol is not? How many lives, directly and indirectly, does alcohol destroy each year? Either by drunk driving, DUI arrests, alcoholism, alcohol poisoning deaths, etc. My stepmother died in 2010 due to liver disease as a direct result of extreme alcoholism in her 20s and 30s.

No, alcohol ads shouldn't be banned from television, but I will never understand why they're allowed and accepted, while tobacco ones are not. At the rate the government is going, I wouldn't be surprised if alcohol ads are still running after they've banned commercials for sugary beverages.

pcosmar
12-05-2014, 07:37 AM
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

CaptUSA
12-05-2014, 07:41 AM
Actually, there are plenty of ads paid for by tobacco companies on TV. They are the ones that tell you to stop buying their products.

There are only two industries I can think of that are mandated by law to spend millions of advertising dollars trying to convince the public to buy less of their product - tobacco and electric utilities.

It's all about the lobbyists. If your company could possibly be portrayed as doing any harm to anyone, you had better cough up to the politicians. If not, they will make sure your business is ruined. And you can't make the mistake of only supporting one side. If you only fund one party then the other party will try to limit your influence as soon as they gain power. Alcoholic beverage companies have learned this lesson. And since their profit margins are some of the highest in any industry, they can afford the fleecing.

RonPaulFanInGA
12-05-2014, 07:47 AM
It's all about the lobbyists. If your company could possibly be portrayed as doing any harm to anyone, you had better cough up to the politicians. If not, they will make sure your business is ruined. And you can't make the mistake of only supporting one side. If you only fund one party then the other party will try to limit your influence as soon as they gain power. Alcoholic beverage companies have learned this lesson. And since their profit margins are some of the highest in any industry, they can afford the fleecing.

I think there are two reasons why tobacco companies got bent over:

1. No social media to ridicule the politicians going after them back in the 1990s.

2. They're not spread out. Alcohol companies are everywhere, so there are plenty of House and Senate members representing their interests. Whereas tobacco is so confined to NC-WV-KY.

CaptUSA
12-05-2014, 07:55 AM
I think there are two reasons why tobacco companies got bent over:

1. No social media to ridicule the politicians going after them back in the 1990s.

2. They're not spread out. Alcohol companies are everywhere, so there are plenty of House and Senate members representing their interests. Whereas tobacco is so confined to NC-WV-KY.

I'm not sure about how much your first point matters, but your second is most certainly valid. The same thing is happening with coal. Although the area is a little more spread out, the only ones who care about it strongly reside in these regions. It's all about how much money you have to buy influence.

P.J. O'Rourke once said, "When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators." The only way to prevent this is to take away the politicians' ability to control commerce. Anything short of that means the fleecing will continue. The products you buy will be more expensive. Politicians will continue to become richer and richer. Mega-corporations will devise new regulations to prevent competition. And innovation and freedom will be stifled.

Southron
12-05-2014, 08:09 AM
I think some of it probably has to do with the culture of the people that make the laws. I'm sure there are far fewer tobacco users in D.C. than drinkers.

Also, in the past North Carolina had Senator Jesse Helms and he was a big defender of the tobacco industry but I don't think anyone like him exists in the Senate anymore.

FloralScent
12-05-2014, 08:13 AM
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

yup