Consequences of Ads Ban

November 19, 2009 • By John Scott,
Print This Post
Email This Post

Considering the number of columns this publication has dedicated to the First Amendment and alcohol responsibility, I felt compelled to comment on the Nov. 16 Breeze article entitled “Alcohol Ads Ban is Appealed.”

First, it is naïve to assume an alcohol distributor will completely abandon its attempts to advertise to college students. Any student, under or over the age of 21, can obtain a copy of the Daily News-Record in Carrier Library, where the printing of alcohol ads is permitted. Also, don’t forget the high number of radio, television and Internet ads full of alcohol advertisements, easily accessible by any student.

David Clementson, spokesman for the Virginia Attorney General’s Office defiantly stood by the Alcohol Beverage Control Board’s reasoning for the ban, concluding in the Nov. 16 Breeze article that the “elimination of [alcohol] advertising will contribute to the effort to reduce the incidence of underage[d] drinking.” A college student needn’t look hard at the landscape of their alma mater to determine the effort’s futility.

Even assuming the ban is an effective means of reducing abusive and underaged drinking, the mere fact that the statute violates the First Amendment is all the reason necessary for its immediate elimination.
What’s far worse, however, is the policy’s several unintended and damaging consequences.

Bars are losing revenue because they are confused about current ABC policy and are afraid of fines for advertising. In the Nov. 16 article, Donna Finnigan, owner of Finnigan’s Cove, said she would not risk running an ad for her bar in The Breeze unless she was informed by the state that she could. Finnigan’s Cove was not the only bar cited in the article that expressed reservation about submitting ads.

Second, the policy’s very presence is inducing an increase in underaged and abusive drinking. Because of the decrease in advertisements and information about local bars, many students over 21 may not be aware of watering holes and instead host parties at their residences. These parties, usually advertised on Facebook, are bound to attract a plethora of underaged drinkers. At least establishments in town regulate the level of alcohol people consume. Bars are safer places to consume alcohol than apartment parties.

Another consequence, unrelated to the previous two, is the revenue loss to the Virginia student newspapers. Both Virginia Tech’s The Collegiate Times and the University of Virginia’s Cavalier Daily claimed a significant loss of advertising kickbacks. The size of a newspaper section directly correlates to the amount of advertising purchased for a specific issue. Therefore, the decrease in advertising has an impact on the number of articles and columns in a newspaper.

These ramifications, while perhaps not obvious, must have been contemplated by policy makers. In fact, it begs the question: Does the ABC Board enact regulations for the sole purpose of appearing to address the issue of abusive or underaged drinking, even if the statutes are actually ineffective? One can only speculate.

Regardless, the ABC’s policy has negative repercussions. The Board should consider dropping its appeal and permanently eliminate the policy. In the future, agencies should carefully analyze policies and predict all impacts — not just those involving their intentions.

John Scott is a senior writing, rhetoric & technical communication major and former SGA senator.

Contact John Scott at scott2ja@jmu.edu

Filed Under Opinion