First, there is the presumption in this amendment that somehow the advertising is evil or bad, or that it wreaks health problems on the American people. There is no question in anybody's mind across this land that the abuse of alcohol is one of our greatest problems--no doubt. Yet, there is no scientific evidence that would even suggest the casual relationship between advertising and abuse. In order to get to the root of the problem of alcoholism and all of the problems that it brings, study after study after study has been made in the relationship of advertising. In fact, during the 1980's, when the advertising for alcohol products was increasing, actual consumption per capita actually was decreasing. So not only does advertising not impact abuse, it doesn't even impact the overall consumption. Singling out a product is not, I don't think, what fair tax law is about. So let's be upfront about it, because I am familiar with the broadcast industry. It has economic impacts on small business. It has economic impacts. And once we start singling out products, do we start talking about red meat, eggs, or sugar?
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of advertising regulations related to alcohol during Senate debate.
Share
More from Joseph T. Burns
I rise in support of a measure that I introduce today, with the support of my colleague, Senator Wyden. We worked closely on the CAN SPAM bill together, and after four years of effort finally saw its successful passage last year. I am…
That is a large swing. We are talking a 10 percent, 11 percent swing over the next 2 years.
It is pretty clear to me, and I think it was pretty clear to the judge and most other folks who look at this that the State Constitution is pretty specific that only citizens are entitled to vote.
Mr. Chairman, we have had this debate before. We had it in subcommittee, we had it in committee, and the same rhetoric is here on the floor today. The opposition and the Woolsey amendment would roll back time and take us back prior to 1998…





