Irish Election are pleased to announce our collection of Irish 
Opinio Hiberno: Anyone for a drink?
Read more about: Health, Law, Youth
In 2001 Gay Mitchell recommended that alcohol advertisement be banned from television. In 2003 the government declared its intention to ban alcohol advertisements during the broadcasting of sports events and the restricting of sports sponsorship in 2003, but dropped their Alcohol Products (Control of Advertising, Sponsorship and Marketing Practices/Sales Promotions) Bill (A&L Goodbody briefing), declaring that ’self-regulation’ would work best (Advertising Standards Authority alcohol advertisement guidelines). John Gormley of the Green Party was disgusted at the decision to ‘adjourn’ the Bill:
The Government response is shameful and deeply corrupt. It has bowed to an industry which produces the most harmful drug, albeit a legal one, in Irish society. It is a drug responsible for violence and disorder, serious health problems, marriage breakdown, suicide and depression, absenteeism and major problems in our accident and emergency units. It costs the State millions of euro every year. Yet, the Government has decided to play ball with the producers of this drug. It is nauseating to watch Ministers make sanctimonious statements about drugs like hashish and cocaine, and get cheap publicity for doing so, while at the same time ignoring the main problem. They ignore their own reports, the Strategic Task Force on Alcohol’s recommendations and the statements from the previous Minister for Health and Children, who proposed introducing this legislation in 2003. All these recommendations are to be ignored at the behest of the alcohol industry, which the Taoiseach, Tánaiste and the Minister of State, Deputy Sean Power, tell us will act responsibly.
As we prepare for the next general election it’s time to put alcohol advertisement and sponsorship back on the agenda. It seems clear that there is no deeply-rooted societal reason for deciding not to ban alcohol advertising: if it could be done so successfully with tobacco companies then why not also with alcohol? The answer is clear: vintners. Smoking is an infinitely easier societal evil to target through regulation because less people smoke than drink and most people realise that smoking has a detrimental effect on individual health, the health of those around them and the health service itself; but we’re all a bit more blasé when it comes to alcohol.
Official events almost uniformly involve an alcohol-related element; sports in Ireland are indelibly linked with alcoholic consumption and sponsorship, and many of our favourite TV programmes are brought to us courtesy of alcohol sponsorship with the ‘self-regulating’ tag on advising us to enjoy __ responsibly. It’s difficult to imagine that the advertisers are not trying to target people who are starting off on their ‘drinking career’; people who drink normally have a ‘regular drink’ and are unlikely to change it on the basis of advertising. I might think the Bacardi ads, for example, are sexy and imaginative but they’re not going to persuade me to change from my gin and tonic; my father might think Kilkenny ads are hilarious but he’d lose his life if someone produced a pint of it and neglected his beloved Guinness. However when someone steps into a pub for their first drink with their friends they’re faced with an array of drinks that is infinitely more exciting and tempting than the tame glass of shandy their parents bought them on their first ‘official’ pub visit. It would be naïve of us to think that advertising has no impact on what people decide to drink and, because we do tend to adopt something as our drink, if promoters can make their ads sexy enough that theirs is the first drink someone buys, and they like it, then maybe it’ll become their lifetime tipple.
There’s no need for us to rehash the dangers of excessive drinking and the high levels of alcohol abuse that we experience in Ireland, the only need is to demand some responsible action from political parties to commit to banning drinks advertising at all times and in all media and to banning sports sponsorship of all events. A government’s responsibility is to its electorate, not to alcohol companies.
I think there is a good area of study here in terms of working out how various people started drinking what they do drink. Could be a good standard question for the IElections blogs?
Not upsetting publicans is very important to the government
-remember the licenced cafes Mc Dowell wanted to allow- they were crushed by the backbenchers and the whole lot of them
During the run -up to the smoking ban in the pubs, which was about workers not having to breathe in smoke while at work, several packed contentious meetings of publicans were held around the country
Famously one shown on rte tv news showed the top table at one of these meetings asking “who runs the country ?” and the answer came back loud and clear menacingly from the audience “we do !”
But theyve just got their answer this time from the gardai random breath -testing
I expect the funeral directors to take umbrage at this change…..
You know ….
Michael McDowell’s Café licensing idea was put to bed by the vintners lobby.
I for one would have liked to see this legislation pass, why?
1. Remove demands on infrastructure at specific times of the days, e.g., help reduce taxi queues at 2 am at various spots in the city. Which in turn spurns anti-social behaviour, in line with adding pressure to policing and public transport networks.
2. Promote a more responsible and passé approach towards drinking responsibly and as part of culture, rather than binge culture that is apparent at the moment.
3. For the consumer to drive demand, as opposed to the supplier which is the case with the Vintners Federation of Ireland - VFI, and the Licensed Vintners Association - LVA. One will find many a Fianna Fail, PD and FG TD and senator heavily involved in these groups. This is analogous to the taxi regulation regime, believe it or not there are more taxi’s out there as a result of regulation. Part timers etc. More venues to consume, e.g., outside the regular, dank old bar would make the industry grow and buffer the food sector greatly.
4. The smoking ban has not had the adverse affect mooted, in fact figures and prices increases have indicated that the publican is now better off as a result of the smoking ban, as are the general non-smoking public.
Fiona, I think the sentiment is a good one. I just can’t see it happening. As Eddie Hobbs (not that I like writing that) pointed out the lobby in the vintners arena is extremely parochial and powerful. Maybe McDowell was working towards a more acceptable approach from an economic and social order aspect?
…can’t stand the ‘drink sensibly’ adverts, Dara O’Briain is doing himself a disservice in my view.
Ciao, J.