Netscape Forum Poll: Censor wine ads to protect children?

[Robin Garr]

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.

Now you're talking, Bob! They can't have my sippy cup until they pry it out of my cold, dead hands, though.

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?

OK, just screwed up a long reply. Short version:
Teens are quite different. The frontal lobes of their brain are way less developed. That makes their risk-taking analysis far worse than someone over 21. Which by the way is one reason why 18 yr olds are prized as foot soldiers.

Besides the drunk driving issues (teens are far more likely to drive when drunk than drunk adults, and then to compound the danger by driving fast), there are other issues where teen drinking leads to far more harmful effects:

alcohol poisoning (ask any ER doc what % of cases are teens)

fights/violence (I just had a 19 yr old doing community service hours for hitting a friend in the face outside a bar. I'll further say that as someone who worked as a bartender/bouncer in a college town bar the age of fighters was not a bell curve, but a steep slope with 18 year olds (legal at the time) being the most ornery, by the time you hit 23-24 fights were rare. And then there's relationship violence.

other crimes- ask any local judge re breakins, etc and alcohol is disproportionate.

All of those things happen with adults, but are way more common (proportionately) among teens.

We continue to try to teach David to drink responsibly. But anyone who thinks even 50% of teen drinking is responsible is delusional.

As an adult drinker, I can't see how anyone was harmed by Disney's decision (and even less how it could be deemed censorship).

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?

OK, just screwed up a long reply. Short version:
Teens are quite different. The frontal lobes of their brain are way less developed. That makes their risk-taking analysis far worse than someone over 21. Which by the way is one reason why 18 yr olds are prized as foot soldiers.

Besides the drunk driving issues (teens are far more likely to drive when drunk than drunk adults, and then to compound the danger by driving fast), there are other issues where teen drinking leads to far more harmful effects:

alcohol poisoning (ask any ER doc what % of cases are teens)

fights/violence (I just had a 19 yr old doing community service hours for hitting a friend in the face outside a bar. I'll further say that as someone who worked as a bartender/bouncer in a college town bar the age of fighters was not a bell curve, but a steep slope with 18 year olds (legal at the time) being the most ornery, by the time you hit 23-24 fights were rare. And then there's relationship violence.

other crimes- ask any local judge re breakins, etc and alcohol is disproportionate.

All of those things happen with adults, but are way more common (proportionately) among teens.

We continue to try to teach David to drink responsibly. But anyone who thinks even 50% of teen drinking is responsible is delusional.

As an adult drinker, I can't see how anyone was harmed by Disney's decision (and even less how it could be deemed censorship).

Dale,
Very well stated. I hate it when someone actually presents facts to an discussion. I wait anxiously for Robin's reply
Walt

[Robin Garr]

Very well stated. I hate it when someone actually presents facts to an discussion. I wait anxiously for Robin's reply

What can I say? I feel much the same as you do, Walt. I won't even try to argue with a lot of Dale's conclusions.

I'll nitpick one or two points that Dale raises, though:

1. At least somewhere in the distant early origins of this thread, I specifically used the term "self-censorship" to refer to Disney's action. It was the same kind of censorship as Mouton-Rothschild brought to bear when it took the Balthazar "nude child" label off the 1993 (?) bottlings destined for the US, absent any government ruling but out of concern that it might not pass American standards. So, yes, Dale, I know it's not outside censorship, but I'm still not happy about seeing them cave.

2. Even if teens do behave disproportionately badly, I still feel uncomfortable about the "culture wars" aspects surrounding alcoholic-beverage regulation and a lot of other things and harbor real concerns about mainstream organizations trying to meet True Believers halfway. At the risk of making a contentious discussion even more so, it doesn't work with abortion rights and it doesn't work with gun control; why should it work with booze?

To me censorship is suppression by a censor, who by definition has some form of governmental support. You can have self-censorship by not doing something that is likely to run afoul of the censor. That's what happened with '93 Mouton with label by Balthus - they decided not to submit in case BATF didn't approve label. That's self-censorship. This is a marketing decision.

There are True Believers on both sides of the abortion and gun control debates, and apparently (I see now) on alcohol.

However, the majority of the US population on each of these issues are somewhere in the middle, and therefore strive to find some form of common ground. We chose our battles. I consider myself a fairly strong proponent of a woman's right to choose, but would never spend my time fighting against bills banning post-viability abortion (if there is a maternal morbidity clause). I am for the vast majority of gun control bills, but don't support fringe bills that aim at completely removing firearms (including sporting weapons) from the US. There will always be the rabid fringes on these issues, but the laws will be for the most part shaped by those in the middle.

One disadvantage of deciding to be a no-compromise true believer on any issue is what it does for ones credibility in the middle. When the Juanita Duggans (or her successor, she left right?) of the world start screaming that interstate shipping is a danger to children, it is far more effective if the opponents are on record as people who are willing to compromise on the issue of uderage drinking, as most people are again in the middle.

[Robin Garr]

When the Juanita Duggans (or her successor, she left right?) of the world start screaming that interstate shipping is a danger to children, it is far more effective if the opponents are on record as people who are willing to compromise on the issue of uderage drinking, as most people are again in the middle.

I'll have to think about that, Dale. You make a good argument, and one that I can't really counter without going deeper into Republican-and-Democrat politics than I really want to do here.

Of course, Juanita is in fact already yelling exactly that ... and as Walt points out, they're winning.

'There are True Believers on both sides of the abortion and gun control debates, and apparently (I see now) on alcohol."

Dale, thanks for a very useful insight. I've been aware of the strong religious feelings among drys, but I see now that some wets, at least, approach alcohol in the same way.

I'm an agnostic on alcohol, especially for younger adults -- I admire your approach with your David. Teaching kids how to properly analyze the risks and benefits of alcohol is extraordinarily difficult, at least it was in my personal experience.

Thank goodness those days are over for me. And, thanks to you, I recognize the futility of discussing risks and benefits of alcohol with True Believers on either side of the issue.

Thanks for the insights.

Regards, Bob

[Robin Garr]

There are True Believers on both sides of the abortion and gun control debates, and apparently (I see now) on alcohol.

I think we've chewed most of the flavor out of this debate, and in spite of my natural tendency to keep on argu^H^H^H^H debating until every possible nuance has been beaten into the ground , I'm about ready to move on.

I would like to post one bit of food for thought, though, and after thinking about it overnight, I think I can express it apolitically: SOME issues aren't zero-sum games, and to assume that every debatable issue is best resolved by seeking the middle between the two extremes strikes me as being akin to the old saying about "the worst evil comes when good people stand by silently and say nothing (when something needs to be said)."

That's probably not the case with relatively trivial issues like young people drinking. But in some cases - including, perhaps, the two broad issues I raised as examples - I'm not prepared to agree that the opposite ends of the spectrum are morally equal. Sometimes it's important to take a stand. I'll agree, though, that the case at hand is probably not one of these times.

I'm more concerned about F-ing Disney getting into wine. Right after that happens I hope they market a hand-basket for me to take a ride to Hell in.

To comment on Disney's decision, the first thing I would say is that I am stunned that they even considered associating Ratatouille with wine!

A successful business has figured out what it is, what it does, what it stands for. For almost a century now, the Disney name has been synonymous with family entertainment, with the emphasis on family. That identification is why they make more adult-themed movies under the Touchstone Pictures label. I thought it was totally out of character for the Disney name to be associated with alcohol.

Maybe Roy Disney and friends should have won the proxy battle?

There are True Believers on both sides of the abortion and gun control debates, and apparently (I see now) on alcohol.

I think we've chewed most of the flavor out of this debate, and in spite of my natural tendency to keep on argu^H^H^H^H debating until every possible nuance has been beaten into the ground , I'm about ready to move on.

I would like to post one bit of food for thought, though, and after thinking about it overnight, I think I can express it apolitically: SOME issues aren't zero-sum games, and to assume that every debatable issue is best resolved by seeking the middle between the two extremes strikes me as being akin to the old saying about "the worst evil comes when good people stand by silently and say nothing (when something needs to be said)."

That's probably not the case with relatively trivial issues like young people drinking. But in some cases - including, perhaps, the two broad issues I raised as examples - I'm not prepared to agree that the opposite ends of the spectrum are morally equal. Sometimes it's important to take a stand. I'll agree, though, that the case at hand is probably not one of these times.

Hey, I can chew gristle for hours.
I certainly agree that not all sides on most political debates are morally equal in my mind. And I certainly feel there are principles that are worth fighting tooth and nail for. But I don't think this is one of those (a company choosing not to market a product due to potential opposition. Especially since that company has a decent record for standing up to right wing bullies).

And even as to other, more important issues, it is not ceding moral equivalency to compromise. In the eyes of most, my positions on gay rights, education, poverty, immigration, and most other hot button issues would be somewhere between centrist liberal and Trotskyite. But searching for a common ground - but as close to my side as possible!- isn't cowardice or weakness, but a neccessary pragmatism. While I support gay marriage, I'd be happy for now to have civil unions (with attendant benefits) accepted everywhere. And so on.