Netscape Forum Poll: Censor wine ads to protect children?

[Robin Garr]

As discussed briefly at the end of last week's Wine Advisor, Disney studios recently announced that it was backing out of a deal to market a French Chardonnay under a "Ratatouille" label, featuring characters and design from Disney/Pixar's animated movie.

What do you think? Is the concern of exposing children to information about alcoholic beverages serious enough to justify self-censorship or even legal restraints? Or should the people who worry about children taking a drink be advised to police their own offspring and stop worrying about what other people do? Tell us your opinion in the CompuServe/Netscape forum poll!

<b>Click here to vote</b>
(You don't have to register or log in to Netscape to vote. Feel free to come back and discuss the issue in this thread if you prefer.)

I think the problem here was using cartoon characters to promote wine, not the promotion of wine per se. I don't think cartoon characters should be used to promote wine.

I am with Oliver, why use cartoons? I think Disny showed some restraint and we probably do not need a law. Sort of a non issue.
Walt

I'm a traditionalist, to me the word "censor" implies a public authority. One can self-censor to avoid the scrutiny of the censor. But that's not what happened in this case. It looks like Disney just made a marketing decision. And like the others I think probably the right one- lots of options other than cartoon characters to promote wine.

Enjoyment of wine shouldn't mean that one turns a blind eye to the problems that alcohol can cause, and kneejerk cries of "neo-prohibitionist" are as unbalanced as ...well...the neo-prohibitionists.

[Robin Garr]

kneejerk cries of "neo-prohibitionist" are as unbalanced as ...well...the neo-prohibitionists.

I alluded to this last week, but I'll repeat my fairly strong and considered opinion: This whole business about "marketing liquor to young people" strikes me as a culture wars battle in which the antis will accept no compromise. Meeting them halfway lets them tug the center in their direction, and that's not a good thing.

Can someone explain to me in simple terms why using cartoons in liquor advertising is such a bad thing, or why the issue of youngsters drinking should be a matter of concern for anyone but parents?

. Meeting them halfway lets them tug the center in their direction, and that's not a good thing.

I'd say that the issue is not as simplistic as a tug of war. Nor is it neccessarily us and them. Part of living in a democracy is finding the balance between different opinions. And holding out for an absolutist us/them framework generally leaves one on the (unimportant) fringe.

Can someone explain to me in simple terms why using cartoons in liquor advertising is such a bad thing, or why the issue of youngsters drinking should be a matter of concern for anyone but parents?

To me this is similar to the Joe Camel issue (remember the AMA journal article where more kids recognized JC than Mickey Mouse). You might recall the cigarette company's firm denial they had any interest in young smokers (till the internal documents surfaced). In this case, it's even more clear- a cartoon from a movie designed for kids. Have you ever been in the grocery store where the kid- who has never tasted a cereal- starts clamoring for a box because X is on the front?
It's hard to deny the influence that popular cartoon characters have on the young.

While I am about as far from a prohibitionist as one can get, I think society has a firm and vested interest in limiting alcohol consumption of minors to that which is permitted by their parents. I let my stepson sample wine, and have tried to instill the idea of responsible drinking. It's hard to see where the interests of wine-friendly folk is harmed by Disney's decision.

Can someone explain to me in simple terms why using cartoons in liquor advertising is such a bad thing, or why the issue of youngsters drinking should be a matter of concern for anyone but parents?

Soft paternalism. It's everywhere, this is one of the less egregious examples I've seen.

Can someone explain to me in simple terms why using cartoons in liquor advertising is such a bad thing, or why the issue of youngsters drinking should be a matter of concern for anyone but parents?

Robin,
I know your approach to this type of things and most of the time agree with you but these two comments make no sense to me. Cartoons, generally speaking are for kids. What appeal does a cartoon have to someone deciding what wine to buy; maybe it sells a few more bottles to the mentally challenged but weigh that against the appeal the wine advertisement would have on youth. Guess you have no problem with cartoon ads for cigarettes or alcohol? The other thing I have a problem with, you Libeteraian Hippie, regards "the issue of youngsters drinking should be a matter of concern for anyone but parents?" A yong person may not be my child but shouldn't I have some concern for their abuse of alcohol? I am not saying we need a law. I would rather have companies respond to common sense and pressure where it can be applied. But the only logic, IMHO, to using a cartoon character in advertising wine is to attract the young, almost all under legal age.
Walt

Did I misunderstand you, wrcstl, or did you equate youngsters drinking with alcohol abuse?

Did I misunderstand you, wrcstl, or did you equate youngsters drinking with alcohol abuse?

Isaac,
You understood me correctly. I am not talking about sharing a glass of wine with your children over dinner, which we always did. They now appreciate wine and consider it a part of a meal, not something to consume in large quantities. I am talking about companies marketing to youth products like alcohol, tobacco, or even sugar filled snacks. It is human nature to want the things that are shown in advertisements to be fun. That's what marketing is about. When young children start smoking early or drink excessively (not under parents supervision at a dinner table) I believe this leads to potential problems later in life or even quite early in life. How about lung cancer or drunk driving at the age of 16? It really disgusts and insults me when a company makes an ad that appeals to youth when you cannot purchase such an item but then claim it is targeting adults.
Walt

"[W]hy the issue of youngsters drinking should be a matter of concern for anyone but parents?"

Simple answer: Parents don't pay all of the costs connected with teenage drinking.

Regards, Bob

[Robin Garr]

Simple answer: Parents don't pay all of the costs connected with teenage drinking.

Bob, I buy the parallel argument when it's applied to mandatory seat-belt and motorcycle helmet laws, given the health costs of lifetime care for a non-earning quadriplegic.

But that hits all ages. I think this argument fails on logic when we set apart youngsters for separate consideration. Even granted that immaturity fosters bad decisions, can we honestly argue that the public costs associated with the carnage caused by drunk teens proportionately exceeds that caused by all drunks of all ages?

I continue to submit that there's a certain knee-jerk "Who will think of the poor children" response to under-age drinking. But public policy is probably not best established on the basis of emotion.

[David M. Bueker]

I continue to submit that there's a certain knee-jerk "Who will think of the poor children" response to under-age drinking. But public policy is probably not best established on the basis of emotion.

It's much broader than that Robin. The "Who will think of the poor children" defense is used all over the place to create laws or other restrictions that would otherwise be very hard to pass. It's the real third rail of politics. If someone votes against a law "designed to protect children" they are a monster, no matter if the law will actually do any good for kids. It's a really chepa way to get people to vote for something. Invoke the kids. "They're the future." Rubbish. A person is a person, no matter what their age, color, religion, etc. A law is no more important based on the age of the "intended" beneficiaries.

The auto accident costs associated with teenage drinking, particularly teenage boys in their first year of driving seem to be significantly higher than for other age groups. I know you are fully familiar with the sources of information on the subject; here's just one sample:


Driving under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs is a common cause of serious crashes, especially fatal ones, involving teenage drivers. Teenagers who drink and drive are at much greater risk of serious crashes than are older drivers with equal concentrations of alcohol in their blood.

California Department of Motor Vehicles.

In addition, I found this article from the NY Times very significant:

Today, public health experts regularly warn that teenage drinkers run greatly increased risks of involvement in car accidents, fights and messy scenes in Cancún.

But what was once a social and moral debate may soon become a neurobiological one.

The costs of early heavy drinking, experts say, appear to extend far beyond the time that drinking takes away from doing homework, dating, acquiring social skills, and the related tasks of growing up.

Mounting research suggests that alcohol causes more damage to the developing brains of teenagers than was previously thought, injuring them significantly more than it does adult brains. The findings, though preliminary, have demolished the assumption that people can drink heavily for years before causing themselves significant neurological injury. And the research even suggests that early heavy drinking may undermine the precise neurological capacities needed to protect oneself from alcoholism.

The Grim Neurology of Teenage Drinking.

The auto statistics can always be challenged, but the numbers for teenage boys are so large relative to other age groups that it's not reasonable to ignore the difference. The neurological evidence is early days.

But, it seems to me parents need to understand the risks and take action to protect their kids and other people as well.

We know that not all parents do so. It's not unreasonable for society to take actions to make up for their failures.

I think it's worth debating the wisdom of appropriate actions, but it's not worth arguing about why teenage drinking is an issue only for parents.

Regards, Bob

I drank to excess when I was an adolescent, as did most of the kids I knew. There were no cartoons promoting alcohol back then that I recall. Binge drinking is rampant in American highschools and college. I don't know the stats for other countries like France and Italy, so I can't speak to them. But it seems to me that the puritanical tendencies in the U.S. often lead to the rebellious sorts of behavior that we see.

I attended an intervention for an alcholic family member once. It lasted for two days, and the person who led the intervention has many, many years of experience and a good bit of statistical information as well as medical data that he shared with us. And one of the interesting things he told us was that some of the children who were most at risk for developing problems with alcohol (in addition to the obvious children of alcholics) were the ones that came from very strict, tea-toddling families. When alcohol is either strictly forbidden or not discussed at all, it leads to the ignorance or rebellion that tends to get kids into trouble.

Could it be possible that had Disney gone ahead with the promotional, it might have given parents a good chance to actually bring up the subject of wine/alcohol in a healthy way with their kids? Ah, but then who really thinks that parents are going to sit down and take the time to do that...

I think agree with Robin on this one. Responsibility lies with the parents, and far too many parents have abdicated the majority of that responsibility to the media and the state.

Simple answer: Parents don't pay all of the costs connected with teenage drinking.

Bob, I buy the parallel argument when it's applied to mandatory seat-belt and motorcycle helmet laws, given the health costs of lifetime care for a non-earning quadriplegic.

But that hits all ages. I think this argument fails on logic when we set apart youngsters for separate consideration. Even granted that immaturity fosters bad decisions, can we honestly argue that the public costs associated with the carnage caused by drunk teens proportionately exceeds that caused by all drunks of all ages?

I continue to submit that there's a certain knee-jerk "Who will think of the poor children" response to under-age drinking. But public policy is probably not best established on the basis of emotion.

Robin,
I really cannot follow your logic. The fact that a 17 year old kid was killed 100 yards from our house last year when he hit a telephone pole at 2:00 in the morning because he was drunk is an emotional issue. Forget this, it happens everywhere. The issue started as a pole regarding censorship of advertising alcohol to youth. Your question was "Is the concern of exposing children to information about alcoholic beverages serious enough to justify self-censorship" I voted no to required censorship but feel we should put pessure on corportations that use ads that will obviously intrest youth even though the youth cannot purchase the product. A cartoon mouse and Joe Camel is not acceptable and I find it hard to believe that people do not see the tacit message sent by these ads. Large comercial corporations have a history of talking out of both sides of their mouth, ie pledging support for laws against underage drinking but then use a cartoon character to advertise their product. Disney got it right. Maybe I cannot save the 40 year old's life when he crashed while driving drunk but what is wrong with at least trying to save a 17 year old life? Nothing personal, just my opinion.
Walt

[Robin Garr]

I really cannot follow your logic. The fact that a 17 year old kid was killed 100 yards from our house last year when he hit a telephone pole at 2:00 in the morning because he was drunk is an emotional issue. Forget this, it happens everywhere. The issue started as a pole regarding censorship of advertising alcohol to youth. Your question was "Is the concern of exposing children to information about alcoholic beverages serious enough to justify self-censorship" I voted no to required censorship but feel we should put pessure on corportations that use ads that will obviously intrest youth even though the youth cannot purchase the product. A cartoon mouse and Joe Camel is not acceptable and I find it hard to believe that people do not see the tacit message sent by these ads. Large comercial corporations have a history of talking out of both sides of their mouth, ie pledging support for laws against underage drinking but then use a cartoon character to advertise their product. Disney got it right. Maybe I cannot save the 40 year old's life when he crashed while driving drunk but what is wrong with at least trying to save a 17 year old life? Nothing personal, just my opinion.

Walt, I know there's nothing personal here. This is an interesting topic, and that's all. I respect your opinions and am thinking hard about them.

I'm still having a little trouble dealing with the notion that a rigid prohibition - and expending considerable public cost and energy to enforce it - is based on the assumption that young people suddenly become mature enough to drink at the age of 21. Particularly in an era when we're sending 18-year-olds into harm's way in Iraq.

I kind of like Mike Royko's theory: Rather than a firm age, base the right to drink alcoholic beverages on certain simple tests: If you wear a baseball cap indoors, you can't drink until you're 30, and if you turn it around backwards, you can't drink until you're 60. Stuff like that.

I'm also not convinced that <I>Ratatouille</i> is a kids' movie, by the way. I think most youngsters would be bored stiff during much of its two hours, while all the adults I saw in the theater were riveted.

[Robin Garr]

... at much greater risk ... greatly increased risks ... Mounting research suggests ...

Very vague, Bob. As a lawyer, would you go into court with no numbers to back up language like that?

the numbers for teenage boys are so large relative to other age groups that it's not reasonable to ignore the difference.

Is there a dramatic and abrupt infusion of common sense on one's 21st birthday, as far as you know?

I think it's worth debating the wisdom of appropriate actions, but it's not worth arguing about why teenage drinking is an issue only for parents.

I'm not certain I agree, Bob. But if it must be legislated, how about this modest proposal: Hold parents civilly and criminally responsible for the actions of their minor children with no exceptions for "He was out on the town and I wasn't there."

Like so many legal and moral issues, it comes back down to whether it is better to be a society where that which is not forbidden is permitted or where that which is not permitted is forbidden. Better, I think, to deal appropriately with those who do wrong or cause damage than to create a body of controls on the assumption that everyone is likely to do wrong.

"Can someone explain to me in simple terms why using cartoons in liquor advertising is such a bad thing?"

Just to be clear on what divides us, Robin, I saw nothing wrong with Disney's original decision to run the ads or their subsequent decision to drop the project.

They are a very powerful marketing organization; they tested a marketing concept; and they cut and ran when they saw the reaction to their concept. Free market in action, and although not directly relevant, freedom of speech concepts in action as well.

[David M. Bueker]

Is there a dramatic and abrupt infusion of common sense on one's 21st birthday, as far as you know?

Based on the drinking habits of a number of executives that I know I would venture to say that there is not. Or if there is then it gets removed based on a certain salary level.

"Very vague, Bob."

I'd read the studies, Robin, before going to court, as I'm already doing.

"Is there a dramatic and abrupt infusion of common sense on one's 21st birthday, as far as you know?"

No. Actually I'm a long way from 21 and still don't have very much common sense.

But there is an significant element of risk to folks like me and my property from young male drivers, among other groups,and I believe I have an interest as a member of society in reducing that risk. How to do so effectively, and still preserve our freedoms, is a very difficult issue.

"Hold parents civilly and criminally responsible for the actions of their minor children with no exceptions ..."

There are plenty of laws in that area already, Robin, a fine of $1000 bucks for serving alcohol to a minor, for example. I suppose as a lawyer I should applaud your suggestion -- that would create tons of litigation and job security for another million lawyers -- but as a citizen, it's an ineffective and unenforceable proposal.

I'd rather just ignore the whole issue, and drop the drinking age to one year old or so. As soon as a kid can hold a glass, can or bottle, properly, they would be free to drink alcohol. But, not out of a bottle with a nipple. The State has some obligations toward Mommism after all.

Regards, Bob

Apologies for intruding on an essentially American debate, but as a comparative yardstick I am curious to know the following -

what is the age of consent in most states in the USA?

what is the minimum age at which firearms may be purchased?

I'd rather just ignore the whole issue, and drop the drinking age to one year old or so. As soon as a kid can hold a glass, can or bottle, properly, they would be free to drink alcohol. But, not out of a bottle with a nipple. The State has some obligations toward Mommism after all.

Regards, Bob

Bob,
Interesting proposal. I think Robin would be able to support this idea.

Walt

what is the age of consent in most states in the USA?

what is the minimum age at which firearms may be purchased?

Tim,

You have to be 21 years of age to legally drink alcohol everywhere in the USA. You can legally shoot things at any age, though state laws vary on age requirements to purchase fire arms and ammunition. I believe 16 to 18 years of age is typical.