Alcohol sponsor ban to cost Australian sport $300m

[El Diablo]

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,25791896-10389,00.html

Alcohol sponsor ban to cost Australian sport $300m
Article from: The Courier-Mail

Steve Lewis and Ben Packham

July 17, 2009 12:00am

AUSTRALIA'S premier sporting codes would be stripped of up to $300 million a year in alcohol sponsorship under a radical blueprint to fight disease and help people live longer.

Kevin Rudd's hand-picked preventative health taskforce has also called for an end to alcohol advertising on the internet and youth magazines.

The health shake-up would see household names such as Bundaberg Rum, VB, Tooheys and XXXX beer disappear from television screens and sporting arenas.

It would rob Cricket Australia, the AFL, National Rugby League and Australian Rugby Union of a massive revenue stream flowing from beer, wine and spirit companies.

And it would pit the Rudd Government against the powerful television networks, who also stand to lose lucrative alcohol-related advertising.

The Courier-Mail can reveal the explosive call to ban alcohol sponsorship of sporting and cultural events is a key recommendation of the National Preventative Health Taskforce.

Set up by Prime Minister Rudd last year, the taskforce's report contains a suite of reforms aimed at reducing the influence of alcohol, particularly on young people.

In its landmark report, to be released soon, the expert group has called for more stringent food labelling and a potential ban on junk food advertising on television.

The blueprint for a healthier Australia is one of a trio of key health reform documents, all under active consideration by the Government.

Last night, a spokeswoman for Health Minister Nicola Roxon said the minister was "considering all the recommendations" before the report was publicly released.

With alcohol-related illness costing the country an estimated $16 billion a year, the taskforce is urging Canberra to embrace a raft of hard-hitting policy reforms.

It calls on the Government to review the current taxation levels for alcohol products, but the taskforce backs away from a specific recommendation on raising the price of beer, wine and spirits.

A report commissioned by the Rudd Government last year found the social costs of tobacco, alcohol and illicit drug abuse had risen to $56.1 billion. The cost of alcohol was $15.3 billion alone, the report said.

The taskforce is also expected to urge the Government to raise tobacco tax.

Changes to pub opening hours are also proposed.

 

[El Diablo]

piss off Rudd you wowser

 

[Knightmare]

FMD, it's like he is trying really hard to succeed in the one area John Howard failed- being a one term PM!

 

[1 Eyed TEZZA]

Doubt this will get passed. If taxing alcopops didnt get past, I fail to see how this will either. The only line that KRudd can use is the "wont somebody please think of the children". If they are worried about children taking up drinking, they should look at some research stats. Most alcoholics, had parents that were alcoholics (or they are Parra and Dragons fans come semi final time).

 

[gong_eagle]

FMD 1st its the internet censorship that they are testing now this
whats next ?

 

[beave]

Don't look at me, I didn't vote for this f#$kwit.....................

 

[d3@t3h]

Excellent, just like what was done to tobacco this needs to happen as well.
I endorse this

 

[Surely]

Welcome to the peoples republic of australia, where you will be told what to eat, drink, read and watch.

 

[Brutus]

I didn't vote for the friggin tosspot either.

 

[$$Poor Boy Blues$$]

Doubt this will get passed. If taxing alcopops didnt get past, I fail to see how this will either. The only line that KRudd can use is the "wont somebody please think of the children". If they are worried about children taking up drinking, they should look at some research stats. Most alcoholics, had parents that were alcoholics (or they are Parra and Dragons fans come semi final time).

your intentions are misplaced.

Its a cycle. The ads are at the start of the cycle....dad sinking a carton on saturday is the end (these days usually with mum), and the kids are left wondering why they won't play ball with them. Or more likely, the kids are roaming the streets, thanking their lucky stars they are free of mum and dad and understanding they always have alchohol to "fall" back to, as if it helps.

I actually think its all very pathetic. Alchoholics self-medicate. Even people out at clubs are stepping beyond the boundaries of having fun into self-medication. Can't chat up girls unless you are drunk? Can't have a good time? Or high....

Whats more is that people these days have all those stupid stickers on their cars like bundy rum or jim beam ones, XXXX or victoria bitter, that proclaim the owner of said sticker is a "frequent enough" user of the product to warrant him displaying the fact to the world.

Now tell me, do you want a society where the first thing you know about a person is that they "love" sinking a particular beer/spirit as often as possible? If you look a bit deeper you will see that they show this behaviour to their kids, and instill the same "self-medication" principles that they probably tend towards.

And btw, alchohol is marketed at those weak-willed, quick-fix-seeking people. Yes, its ok to have fun in a social setting, but all too often, people use alchohol to hide dark things or inadequacies - and they tell their children to do the same by their actions.


Ban alchohol adverts now.

 

[Parra]

It would rob Cricket Australia, the AFL, National Rugby League and Australian Rugby Union of a massive revenue stream

Nothing compared to the damage it would do to Aussie motor sport.

Stupid idea .We should bring back tobacco money.

 

[Parra]

your intentions are misplaced.

Its a cycle. The ads are at the start of the cycle....dad sinking a carton on saturday is the end.

I actually think its all very pathetic. Alchoholics self-medicate. Even people out at clubs are stepping beyond the boundaries of having fun into self-medication. Can't chat up girls unless you are drunk? Can't have a good time? Or high....

Whats more is that people these days have all those stupid stickers on their cars like bundy rum or jim beam ones, XXXX or victoria bitter, that proclaim the owner of said sticker is a "frequent enough" user of the product to warrant him displaying the fact to the world.

Now tell me, do you want a society where the first thing you know about a person is that they "love" sinking a particular beer/spirit as often as possible? If you look a bit deeper you will see that they show this behaviour to their kids, and instill the same "self-medication" principles that they probably tend towards.

And btw, alchohol is marketed at those weak-willed, quick-fix-seeking people. Yes, its ok to have fun in a social setting, but all too often, people use alchohol to hide dark things or inadequacies - and they tell their children to do the same by their actions.


Ban alchohol adverts now.

Have a beer you mad bastard.

 

[myanonymoususername]

If banning alcohol advertising was indeed an effective way of reducing consumption of alcohol by idiots who drink too much of it and do damaging/stupid/violent things to themselves and other people, I'd be all for it. $16b a year in cost ot society from alcohol related diseases is a sh*tload of money to be pissing down the drain.

However, its a big if.

Nevertheless it will happen some time and proactive sports would be finding alternative sponsors. And I'd suggest Maccas, KFC and the like aren't a good idea - they'll be next cab off the rank for banning.

 

[Parra]

$16b a year in cost ot society from alcohol related diseases is a sh*tload of money to be pissing down the drain.

You think we'd save that much if people stopped drinking? Not likely. These stats are useful when trying to score political points (read:ram your way of life down other people's necks) but have no application in the real world.

How much have we saved with the massive reduction in smoker numbers? Answer: Non-smokers cost our health system more because they live longer. If budgets were the primary concern then everyone should smoke. Fills the coffers and the coffins. And dead people are not a burden on the health budget, old people are.

And I think you are right about who would be next. We should halt this before it starts.

 

[morley101]

Has banding advertising for tobacco reduced consumption or has education ?

 

[myanonymoususername]

Have a beer you mad bastard.

Another reason to ban advertising is that most of the stuff that gets flogged heavily is sh*t, like VB and XXXX. They have to flog it on image - they couldn't market it on taste. And they need to encourage drinking it in large quantities - you need to be pissed to even begin to think its nice.

 

[Parra]

I like the way you left Tooheys New off your list. I agree.

 

[Surely]

Whether its advertised or not people will still drink, why penalise sport by stopping the sponsorship dollars.

Why not just mandate that the ads carry a graphic health warning. We should also allow the advertising of tobacco as long as they carry the same warnings.

Nobody advertises pot but teens still smoke it.

 

[Timmah]

Blaming advertising for people's inability to take personal responsibility for their alcoholism is the most laughable thing I've ever heard.

This idea of Rudd's is ridiculous and draconian. If he intends to pass this, he better be prepared to fund these sports when they start tanking...

 

[macavity]

drug and alcohol consumption is darwinism at work.

it should not be discouraged - it could well improve.

Only thing i would change is that some sort of fertility supressant should be added to alcohol (and tobacco perhaps) so it really works properly.