<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><HTML><FONT SIZE=2 PTSIZE=10 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><BR>
Phil et. al.<BR>
<BR>
Really, Phil, you call your response "dialog?" <BR>
<BR>
It is more accurately described as "exaggeration, deflection, distortion and denial."<BR>
<BR>
I presented facts of the consequences of alcohol abuse among underage drinkers. I also presented facts about the marketing strategy of modern companies that sell alcohol. The facts speak for themselves. I am merely the messenger for the revelation of a reality it appears you do not wish to squarely and honestly face. <BR>
<BR>
My posts on this subject said what I wanted to say, and if there was any "other agenda" I would state that agenda. Certainly I do not have a goal to achieve "a society free of all chemical dependencies," which anyone with half a brain knows is utopian and not achievable. Why bring up such an extreme unachievable goal and suggest this is what I was aiming at? Why indeed!<BR>
<BR>
I'll provide evidence of my description of your response by referencing my post's exact words, and your response to my post in question regarding these issues in your exact words.<BR>
<BR>
Here is the only paragraph in my last post where I mention the tobacco companies:<BR>
<BR>
Ted wrote:<BR>
<BR>
"The alcohol companies, just as the tobacco companies, know that if someone does not develop the habits of using their drugs before they are in their 20s, that the adult use of these drugs drops off dramatically. In other words, the customers must be snagged when they are young, or many will not become heavy users in adulthood who would have otherwise."<BR>
<BR>
And you reply, exhibiting "exaggeration, deflection, distortion and denial."<BR>
<BR>
Phil wrote:<BR>
<BR>
"You also seem to be focused on Tobbaco and seem to see it as a giant <BR>
corporate conspiracy. Since 40-60% of the price of a pack of smokes is <BR>
owned by the government, why exactly is it that its not a government <BR>
conspiracy? As was said of the Nixon campaign funds, all you have to do is <BR>
follow the money trail and for cigs, that trail leads right to the hands of <BR>
the government, the entity that makes the bulk of the profits from each pack <BR>
of smokes sold. Smokers in Idaho, just for an example, put $150,000 a day <BR>
into the hands of the general revenue. Drinkers put a bunch more in sin <BR>
taxes into the non-drinkers hands. Every time there is a stop gap needed <BR>
for budget shortfalls, bingo, the price of beer, wine, booze and smokes goes <BR>
up. Big Tobbaco makes some serious money, but government makes ten times <BR>
what they do.<BR>
<BR>
You and some of the others seem to hate the sin of smoking and drinking." <BR>
<BR>
You exaggerate and distort my statements when you suggest words in my mouth about the "sin" of smoking and drinking. I never mentioned "sin" in this context or said it was a "sin" to smoke or drink. This is a "religious" concept which I did not introduce. <BR>
<BR>
Also, more importantly, you do not directly address the central point in my paragraph that mentions the tobacco and alcohol marketing strategy that involves "snagging customers when they are young." Instead, you appear to attempt to deflect the discussion away from this marketing and advertising strategy of the corporations involved to sell their products to youth with a discussion of government taxation, and thus offer no evidence at all to demonstrate that the strategy I describe is not being employed. By totally ignoring what was obviously a central point of my post, you deny it is worth discussing.<BR>
<BR>
This is not "dialog" in good faith giving honest responses to critical points.<BR>
<BR>
Let's examine another of your responses, or perhaps I should say the lack of a direct response, to one of my points about marketing alcohol to youth:<BR>
<BR>
Ted wrote, as his final words in his post that posed a critical question:<BR>
<BR>
"Who can doubt that this fact based logic of the marketplace influences corporate promotion of alcohol use among youth? If the advertising to promote alcohol use among youth did not result in increased consumption, would the corporations who have the best data gathering and advertising wonks in the business continue with these sorts of ads?"<BR>
<BR>
The critical question above references the previous point about the marketing strategy of snagging customers when they are young.<BR>
<BR>
The only argument I can find about marketing alcohol which Phil makes in response presents this argument, which does not reference contemporary marketing strategy to sell to youth, which is heavily dependent on televised media:<BR>
<BR>
"In 1919 we tried to deal with a total prohibition which <BR>
turned out to be less than desirable in its consequences. Surely that <BR>
suggests that even without advertizing from 1919-1933 the consumption of <BR>
very illegal alcohol did not fall."<BR>
<BR>
Comparing an age without television advertising to the televised media age we live in raises some obvious problems with this argument that I won't labor. Suffice it to say it is a very weak argument against my point that alcohol companies target youth with aggressive advertising that is one variable in the complex equation influencing rates of abuse of alcohol among youth.<BR>
<BR>
Phil also poses a question linking homosexuality and drinking and smoking to civil rights:<BR>
<BR>
"Which civil liberty of mine am I supposed to be more <BR>
concerned with?"<BR>
<BR>
Phil, be concerned with all of them! But don't use the issue of civil liberties to side track a discussion of alcohol abuse among youth being impacted by modern corporate marketing strategies to sell alcohol to youth, OK?<BR>
<BR>
And on that critical subject, perhaps you can answer this one question below directly and honestly. I don't want to go off on a discussion of tobacco abuse, but the current ban on tobacco advertising on television relates to what might be considered the possible benefits of also banning all alcohol advertising on television.<BR>
<BR>
Do you think television advertising of tobacco products should be again allowed? <BR>
<BR>
If our society determined that the advertising of tobacco products in televised media resulted in too much damage to society to allow it to continue, I wonder why applying this same logic to the marketing of alcohol in televised media is so off the mark?<BR>
<BR>
If you follow your libertarian thinking, you may view government regulation of advertising as such a threat to civil liberties that you also think tobacco companies should be allowed once again to sell their products on television, and that even if it can be shown that marketing alcohol to youth in televised media results in increased abuse of alcohol among youth, this sort of advertising should also continue to be allowed.<BR>
<BR>
Ted Moffett<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT></HTML>