Difference between revisions of "Globalisation:Democracy Institute:Alcohol"
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
===Health and Alcohol=== | ===Health and Alcohol=== | ||
| − | Basham and Luik have published a number of papers based on the notion that alcohol is being used as a scap goat for a number of issues and health problems in societies. A paper was funded by [[Cancer Research UK]] and was published in the journal of the National Cancer Institute linking breast cancer impacting on women who drink alcohol, but Basham and Luik discredit this notion. As it was an observational research process the results are not seen to be scientific in Basham and Luiks view. "the weakest kind of epidemiological endeavour and certainly nothing close to the gold standard of a randomised controlled trial – is inherently unable to draw any causal conclusions about a link between drinking and cancer"<ref> Basham P and Luik J,"[http://www.democracyinstitute.org/AnnouncementRetrieve.aspx?ID=34290, Women Keep Drinking"], Democracy Institute, 3 March 2009, accessed 11 April 2010 </ref>. Through another article which ahs been published by Spiked and [[ | + | Basham and Luik have published a number of papers based on the notion that alcohol is being used as a scap goat for a number of issues and health problems in societies. A paper was funded by [[Cancer Research UK]] and was published in the journal of the National Cancer Institute linking breast cancer impacting on women who drink alcohol, but Basham and Luik discredit this notion. As it was an observational research process the results are not seen to be scientific in Basham and Luiks view. "the weakest kind of epidemiological endeavour and certainly nothing close to the gold standard of a randomised controlled trial – is inherently unable to draw any causal conclusions about a link between drinking and cancer"<ref> Basham P and Luik J,"[http://www.democracyinstitute.org/AnnouncementRetrieve.aspx?ID=34290, Women Keep Drinking"], Democracy Institute, 3 March 2009, accessed 11 April 2010 </ref>. Through another article which ahs been published by Spiked and [[Cato Institue]] (an organisation Basham is associated with whose views are in favor of free markets) both state they are unsure if the government employee researchers that are independent or do they have the same values as them on alcohol. "Researchers funded by the UK government are objective in the debate over alcohol advertising policy because they are 'independent', whereas researchers funded by the alcohol industry are not" <ref> Basham P and Luik J, "[http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11195,A Bleary-Eyed Attitude to Alcohol Research"],Cato Institute, 3 Feburary 2010, accessed 11 April 2010 </ref>. Basham is a senior fellow in the Cato and he to will share their views of a free market and therefore, will appose those who try to discredit large corporations based on little evidence. John Luik has a number of issues through out his career based on the misconceptions he tells about himself. He claimed to have a doctrine from Oxford University at this time it was untrue, he did so later in his career. He is a consultant for the [[tobacco]] industry and will be highly knowlegdable in creating a positive concept for companies. Although his affilations with the alcohol industry are unclear what is certain is like Basham he speaks out against organisations that try to discredit corporations with weak evidence. |
==Notes== | ==Notes== | ||
<references/> | <references/> | ||
Revision as of 11:43, 25 April 2010
The Democracy Institute has various articles on the subject of alcohol and its issues, it looks at different claims stated by others and comes to its own conclusion. The democracy institute employs authors to write about different topics, but essentially this page is based on the topic of alcohol and the democracy institutes authors in particular Patrick Basham and John Luik's attitude towards it.
Contents
Alcohol Advertisement
The British Medical Association has called for a ban on advertising alcohol in a bid to reduce alcohol related issues, and the worrying consumption of alcoholic beverages consumed each week in today’s society. The BMA states that market advertising is some what promoting the increase in drinking alcohol, but does not expose the problems alcohol has on people's body and mind.“(BMA) believes that alcohol – the nation’s favourite drug –should be subjected to the same advertising rules as tobacco” [1]. In the United Kingdom there are three major issues which impact on people's health, thus being alcohol, tobacco and obesity. In this area one will focus specifically on how alcohol is represented in contemporary societies. The BMA believes that by banning advertising ‘Identifies effective ways of protecting young people from the influence of alcohol promotion and marketing’. [2]. What is evident from this claim is it has undergone much scrutiny and may not be the right path to reducing alcohol consumption and related issues.
The BMA report's attitude is based largely on the work of Ledermann who created the hierarchy effects model, which has been used in favor of their argument that alcohol advertising should be banned. This has come under fire from the Democracy institute as they believe this model has various flaws. Ledermann stated there was a link between alcohol consumption and alcohol abuse and how people's decision making is affected by advertisement. Researchers Skog and Makela claim does not take into account all parts of society, " Ledermann’s claim was not validated by Scandinavian data... could not explain abstainers"[3].Ledermann' s model shows what countries are similar to one another in alcohol their alcohol consumptions, but what is evident is their are major differences in the data. For example Italy and Ireland are similar, but the model does not take into account that there is more abusers and abstainers in Ireland, but the Irish consumes the same amount as Italian citizens. Authors of the democracy institute Basham and Luik disputes the models legitimacy as well. "The empirical evidence for this model is weak and even taken on their own terms studies of alcohol advertising consistently fail to demonstrate that the drinking behaviour of an individual is the causal result of an alcohol advertisement"[4].What is apparent is the BMA has used this model to claim alcohol advertising should be banned, but a problem with this statement is if there are flaws within their data,therefore their claim is some what based on inadequate findings.
Case Studies
In an attempt to uncover the claim alcohol advertising should be banned it is essential to find and evaluate scientific findings. This area attempts to discover if in actual fact it has been scientifically proven that there is a link between advertising and alcohol. Based on the data and findings, the BMA has reported that there is a link between advertising increasing the alcohol consumption of viewers, the Democracy Institute has various issues with this statement. There has been a variety of studies carried out on this contested topic. Connelly in 1994 tried to link advertising having a effect on consumor consumption. What was found was that there was no link. Where as report produced by Inter Science claims that there is in actual fact a link between the both of these attributes. There aim was to examine the relationship between the different types of advertising and the affect it has on adolescents. What was found was "Several forms of alcohol advertising predict adolescent drinking; which sources dominate depends on the child’s prior experience with alcohol"[5]. It this article state that advertising will affect those who are exposed to alcohol at a young age:"middle school youth who had already begun drinking by grade 7, future drinking is more likely to be influenced by exposure to alcohol advertising"[6]. The Archives of Pediatrics and Adolesent Medicine done a study on this contested topics as well. Through the use of the telephone they conducted research using people between the ages of 16 and 25 years old. The results showed "Youth who saw more alcohol advertisements on average drank more (each additional advertisement seen increased the number of drinks consumed by 1%" [7]. The link between advertising and alcohol has and will continually be researched with all having varied outcomes.
Democracy Institutes Attitude
Through out this BMA report the democracy institute has questioned their view on banning alcohol advertising, is there a reason behind disclaiming this report, or is it to educate citizens that the increase in alcohol consumption can not be solely blamed on advertising companies. Basham and Luik state that banning alcohol ads will not cure alcoholism, but will inadvertently make people want to drink more. They claim the model used by the British Medical Association has a number of faults and therefore, their claim for banning alcohol advertising is unjust. "The empirical evidence for this model is weak and even taken on their own terms studies of alcohol advertising consistently fail to demonstrate that the drinking behaviour of an individual is the causal result of an alcohol advertisement"[8]. Basham and Luik come to the understanding that the BMA did not gather enough statistical data and their findings were not fully conclusive. This article was published through the independent organisation; Spiked. This organisation does not state who funded this democracy institute report, but states it is a free thinking organisation a fighter in freedom of speech waging wars on the prejudice and narrow minded people of this world. The demesne of the magazine Living Marxism lead to the creation of the online organisation and publisher Spiked. Some writers have criticized Spiked as being pro corporations with right winged characteristics, shielded under the pretence it is a left winged organisation. George Monbiot writer for the Guardian claims Spiked is a front for 'corporate funding' and is a right winged organisation. He claims it has "travelled even further, from the most distant fringes of the left to the extremities of the pro-corporate libertarian right" [9]. The LM publicised itself as promoting confident individualism and with the same people running Spiked, they too will be in favor of this. Monbiot stated that it is in favor of corporations having freedom and therefore, will publish reports based on what corporations believe in the 'goodness'of their products.
Health and Alcohol
Basham and Luik have published a number of papers based on the notion that alcohol is being used as a scap goat for a number of issues and health problems in societies. A paper was funded by Cancer Research UK and was published in the journal of the National Cancer Institute linking breast cancer impacting on women who drink alcohol, but Basham and Luik discredit this notion. As it was an observational research process the results are not seen to be scientific in Basham and Luiks view. "the weakest kind of epidemiological endeavour and certainly nothing close to the gold standard of a randomised controlled trial – is inherently unable to draw any causal conclusions about a link between drinking and cancer"[10]. Through another article which ahs been published by Spiked and Cato Institue (an organisation Basham is associated with whose views are in favor of free markets) both state they are unsure if the government employee researchers that are independent or do they have the same values as them on alcohol. "Researchers funded by the UK government are objective in the debate over alcohol advertising policy because they are 'independent', whereas researchers funded by the alcohol industry are not" [11]. Basham is a senior fellow in the Cato and he to will share their views of a free market and therefore, will appose those who try to discredit large corporations based on little evidence. John Luik has a number of issues through out his career based on the misconceptions he tells about himself. He claimed to have a doctrine from Oxford University at this time it was untrue, he did so later in his career. He is a consultant for the tobacco industry and will be highly knowlegdable in creating a positive concept for companies. Although his affilations with the alcohol industry are unclear what is certain is like Basham he speaks out against organisations that try to discredit corporations with weak evidence.
Notes
- ↑ Patrick Basham &John Luik, ”What’s the BMA Been Drinking? The Case Against an Alcohol Ad Ban”, Democracy Institute Social Risk Series Paper, September 2009, accessed 11 February 2010
- ↑ Patrick Basham &John Luik, ”What’s the BMA Been Drinking? The Case Against an Alcohol Ad Ban”, Democracy Institute Social Risk Series Paper, September 2009, accessed 11 February 2010
- ↑ Patrick Basham &John Luik,”What’s the BMA Been Drinking? The Case Against an Alcohol Ad Ban”, Democracy Institute Social Risk Series Paper, September 2009, page 5 accessed 11 February 2010
- ↑ Patrick Basham and John Luik, "Banning Alcohol wont cure Alcoholism",Cato Institue, 21 July 2009, accessed 9 March 2010
- ↑ Phyllis L. Ellickson, Rebecca L. Collins, Katrin Hambarsoomians & Daniel F. McCaffrey," ",Does alcohol advertising promote adolescent drinking? Results from a longitudinal assessment",2005,page 235, accessed 1 March 2010
- ↑ Phyllis L. Ellickson, Rebecca L. Collins, Katrin Hambarsoomians & Daniel F. McCaffrey,"",Does alcohol advertising promote adolescent drinking? Results from a longitudinal assessment",2005,page 244, accessed 1 March 2010
- ↑ Leslie B. et al "Effects of Alcohol Advertising Exposure on Drinking Among Youth" Jama and Archives, 2006, accessed 11 April 2010
- ↑ Basham P. and Luik J,"[1]"2009,accessed 7 April 2010
- ↑ Monbiot G,"Invasion of the entryists", The Guardian, 3 December 2003, accessed 8 April 2010
- ↑ Basham P and Luik J,"Women Keep Drinking", Democracy Institute, 3 March 2009, accessed 11 April 2010
- ↑ Basham P and Luik J, "Bleary-Eyed Attitude to Alcohol Research",Cato Institute, 3 Feburary 2010, accessed 11 April 2010
