Should Alcohol Advertising Be Banned in Australia?

Tobacco has and still is the most important public health issue faced in Australia and internationally. (Jochelson, 2006). Many countries such as North America, England, Australia, Canada and Ireland have introduced policies regarding smoking in public areas and restriction of smoking in indoor areas. (Thomson, Wilson & Edwards, 2009). The government, community leaders and policy makers work towards introducing policies that will stop consumers from smoking in public areas. (Pizacani, maher, Rohde, Drach & Stark, 2012). Government intervention should extend public smoking bans so that second hand smokers can be safe, a better environment and less death incidents relating to smoking.

Tobacco companies advertise in magazines, promote their products in convenience stores and market their brands through websites and social networks. Many of these tobacco industries get publicity and attract more young customers when using the newly in media to promote their products. Many of these tobacco companies don’t understand that tobacco advertising is a huge public health issue that increases smoking. Tobacco company advertising and promoting is the start of the use of tobacco among teenagers. Now, these media and magazine advertisements about cigars have caused teenagers to be exposed to cigarette advertising. Not only that but also these teenagers find ads appealing and also increase their desire to smoke. Cigarette companies spent about $8.37 billion on advertising and promotional expenses in the United States in 2011.

Many Americans do not feel like adults until their 21st birthday. At age 18 an American has the ability to vote, be drafted or enlist into the military, own a weapon, request a loan, get married, buy cigarettes and many more liberties and consequences that come when a teenager becomes an adult. Nonetheless, in the United States and adult does not have the ability to legally drink until the age of 21. I find the regulation of alcohol necessary and as a protection for the citizens because, as the article “Effects of Alcohol Use” states, the abuse of alcohol contributes to liver damage, leads into driving under the influence, domestic violence and in the long term it can cause cancer and death of brain cells. However, I believe that the alcohol regulation is bias and should be at the same level of liberty as voting, joining the military, owning a weapon, buying cigarettes, requesting a loan and getting married.

This paper will examine the history of the tobacco industry and its advertising campaigns from the 1920s to the present. Some of the issues discussed in this paper will include: What forms of mass communication has tobacco companies used to persuade the public, how changes in technology have influenced the way tobacco companies communicate with target audiences, and how the United States government restrictions affect the current efforts of tobacco companies advertising strategies. Other topics that this paper will expound upon are, the ethics of the tobacco industry’s advertising approaches, how tobacco companies responded to health warnings from the government, and what

I am against Amendment 23. I don’t think that the law should allow alcohol in the state. My reasoning for this is because since alcohol has been allowed in the state lots of people are continuing on buying alcohol and they have been getting hurt by it. Some states only allow 21 and older to buy alcohol. That’s one good thing. But in some stores, if they are lucky enough, customers can get alcohol at age 16 if the cashier lets them.

Alcohol and tobacco advertising is not a new concept to this world. Alcohol and tobacco advertising has been going on since the mid 1900’s. During this time, alcohol and tobacco ads were on the TV almost as much as regular programs (Danna). This source is credible because the author has written many articles for the Chicago Tribune before. When alcohol and tobacco advertising first started they actually argued that smoking and drinking was beneficial for the human body. Since then, the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau and many other departments have tried to put in laws and acts to help regulate the advertisement of alcohol and tobacco. For example, laws such as the "Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act of 1965”, and the

This event was, until this law was passed, advertised (on billboards, in magazines and on television) all over Montreal. Bill C-71 was an attempt at preventing teenagers from seeing these advertisements, as the government believed this to be an important factor in the growth of youth smokers. This legislation though, was not very effective as statistics show that more than half of Canadian teens have seen advertisements for tobacco sponsored events. (Scott, 1997).

Tobacco is the number one cause of preventable death in the United States. According to the American Lung Association in 2009, 20.6% of adults were current smokers. In 1970, the United States banned television and radio advertisements of cigarettes. Across the world countries battle similar issues in how to help prevent deaths, lower healthcare costs, and educate the population. Countries have banned advertising, posted health causes, renamed brands, and even included informational fliers in packs of cigarettes. In 2001, The Government of India decided to ban the advertising of cigarettes. This ban was created to help the youth of India and hoped to reduce the amount of future smokers. The proposal of this restriction caused debates between the government, advertising companies, and tobacco manufacturers. The supporting and dismantling arguments for these ethical and commercial causes of the ban have enabled the government to make their final decision.

Despite the prohibitions placed on tobacco in the eighteen nineties, by the first World War, negativity towards tobacco began to fade. The lack of scientific evidence that smoking was harmful at the beginning of the century, and the war effort increased the demand for cigarettes. People only suspected the addictiveness of Nicotine, but could not prove it. It was not until the mid nineteen fifties that smoking was linked to lung cancer and other illnesses. Also at this time, the Tobacco Institute was created. The Tobacco Institute is a lobby, or organization that seeks to influence lawmakers for their own benefit. Today in the nineties, tobacco is legal but restricted depending on where you go. Tobacco sales are restricted to minors, some places have banned vending machines, most have banned sale and use of tobacco in schools, and even more have prohibited the sale of single cigarettes, or free samples of cigarettes.

Tobacco and the U.S share a rich history; it dated back to the 17th century when the first commercial crop was planted. Many people claim tobacco had an influence in the colonization of North America and without it; the colonies would not have survived. While our history with tobacco is long and rich, it doesn’t erase the fact that it kills more people annually than cocaine, heroin, meth and all other illegal drugs combined. In the argument of whether or not tobacco should be banned, many people are evenly split. Tobacco could become a black market if banned, and it is widely practiced in Native American ceremonies, while the high mortality rates, and the financial burden have others petitioning for it to be banned.

The Tobacco Products Control Act of 1989 sought to impose restrictions on the promotion of tobacco products. These restrictions concerned limitations in three commercial categories: advertisement, promotion, and labelling. Under the Act, tobacco products cannot be advertised, and products must be labeled with viable health warnings and a list of toxins. The packaging must be minimal, as to not be ostentatious to persuade Canadians from buying. Furthermore, the Act would prohibit the distribution of free samples. Appellants RJR-Macdonald Inc. dissented, stating the Act was a direct infringement upon the Charter’s s.2 freedom of expression clause, and appellant Imperial Tobacco Ltd. further dissented.

     Should tobacco advertising be restricted? This is a very controversial issue. There is the idea that young children that smoke started smoking because of advertisements, but there is also the idea that children start smoking for other reasons. Many big, well-known tobacco companies like RJ Reynolds are being sued for their advertisements. On Monday April 20th, 1998 the jury heard a testimony from Lynn Beasly, the marketing vice president of the RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company. The courts believed that the advertisement was directed towards children under the age of 18, due to a document from the RJ Reynolds Board of Directors showing that they set a goal to increase the company's market share among 14

Passage two focus is on personal actions. Alcohol ads are not forcing underage drinkers to pick up a drink, it is their choice to do so. They already observe their role models and favorite celebrity, pick up an alcohol beverage and drink it. Already in a teen mind, if they see their favorite actor do it, they want to feel ‘cool’ doing it also. Alcohol ads are under the same freedom as everyone else, freedom of speech in the Constitution. This is a reasonable support that they are not trying to condone underage drinking, however, they will not take the blame of underage drinking. They feel as though lawyers are on a case putting an end to drinking, while tobacco consumers are uprising. Passage two believes, alcohol publicity is identical with

Tobacco ads have been barred from television for over twenty years. Young children don’t need the influence to smoke or dip, considering they’ll have enough peer pressure to do so later in life. By essentially censoring television ads, the government decreases the advertising power of tobacco companies. However, there are simply some things that should not be censored. When censored, any sort of art loses its meaning. When the government tries to censor art, such as music, paintings, digital art, movies, or TV shows, people can no longer truly express their feelings or convey the message they were attempting to portray.

Advertising for tobacco is another source that cause teenagers smoke and adults smoke. Recently, tobacco companies have found new ways to promote their products to youth. They support their sporting events, concerts and movie. Many people favor idols or stars smoke in the movies and they seems very cool. And Teenagers are curious about imitation. Smoke containing nicotine acts as a stimulant to the brain. Nicotine in the bloodstream acts to make the smoker feel calm. In fact, nicotine is a lethal poison, affecting the heart, blood vessels, and hormones. Tobacco smoke contains over 4,000 chemical compounds. More than 60 of these are known or suspected to cause cancer. What is more, secondhand smoke can be harmful in many ways and it ruins thousands of non-smoking people, children's health. The US Surgeon General and the US Food and Drug Administration are among those who have examined the evidence and concluded that tobacco advertising does increase overall consumption. If we ban adverts on tobacco products, they will gradually lose their appeal, because they won't symbolize anything "cool", "smart" or "amazing". Tobacco products will become ordinary consumption goods and thus the number of young people who take up smoking in order to "be somebody" will decrease.