The American Spectator

Print Email

Text Size

Special Report

(Page 2 of 2)

Changes in advertising -- significant upsurges in the U.S., France, and the Netherlands, and complete elimination in several Nordic countries -- have had no measurable impact on total consumption. In fact, young people say that their parents most affect their attitude towards drinking, followed by the views of their peers. When kids explain why they drink, they never cite ads.

Why, then, do companies advertise? To win market share. People are going to drink. But which brand they drink is not foreordained.

As in many cases involving abusive litigation, the facts consistently contradict the legal allegations. The Federal Trade Commission reviewed industry advertising and produced the 2003 Report on Alcohol Marketing and Advertising.

The FTC discovered "no reliable basis to conclude that alcohol advertising significantly affects consumption, let alone abuse." Moreover, the Commission "found no evidence of targeting underage consumers." Firms advertised to get drinkers to change brands, not to get kids to drink.

The Department of Health and Human Services recommended against restrictions on alcohol advertising in a report to Congress. The agency observed no significant relationship between advertising and consumption.

Private studies as well have found no meaningful connection between advertising and limits on advertising and drinking. There is no evidence justifying regulation or litigation. Explains John Calfee of the American Enterprise Institute: "Invariably, empirical research finds no effect of advertising on the total amount of alcohol consumption."

There's certainly nothing which suggests advertising encourages irresponsible drinking, which is the real issue. People who abuse alcohol don't need to be encouraged to do so.

But all of this evidence is really irrelevant. The Constitution protects freedom of speech, and that includes commercial speech by alcohol producers. We punish brewers and distillers for selling their legal products at our peril, since there's no reason to assume that the regulatory paternalists won't soon find another unpopular vice to penalize.

Moreover, controlling publications mostly read by adults because some teens also see them sets an extraordinarily dangerous precedent. There is little in life that does not have some impact on some child in some place.

Surely we do not all want to be treated as kids as a result. The government should not "reduce the adult population," observed the U.S. Supreme Court 20 years ago in the case Bolger v. Young Drug Products Corp., "to reading only what is fit for children."

And if there seems to be a convincing reason to sacrifice free speech rights, it should be done by the Congress, after a full debate, and not by a judge in a tort case. The political process is imperfect, but better includes diverse interest groups and better balances diverse interests than does a lawsuit.

Even some trial attorneys realize that they are operating on shaky legal ground. After Coors threatened to seek sanctions for frivolous litigation against Kenneth McKenna, the lawyer for Ryan Pisco, McKenna dismissed the lawsuit "with prejudice," which means that it cannot be refiled.

Unreasonable lawyers, juries, and judges have been turning America into a society of victims. No one is responsible for anything; everyone is liable for something. Now the trial bar has set its sights on the alcohol industry.

We must reject regulation by lawyers. Most people who drink do so responsibly; those who do not have only themselves to blame. The only way to deal with alcohol abuse is to hold drinkers -- not brewers or distillers or sellers -- accountable.

topics:
Trade, Sports, Movies, Constitution, Law, Supreme Court