The Federal Trade Commission recently exonerated the alcohol industry from the charge that it's trying to seduce underage drinkers with flavored malt beverages such as Smirnoff Ice and Bacardi Silver, which critics call "alcopops." The commission, which prefers the less inflammatory term "FMB," reported to Congress that "adults appear to be the intended target of FMB marketing." Its investigation "found no evidence of targeting underage consumers."
Anti-alcohol activists replied that the industry's intent is beside the point. "It's impossible to construct an advertisement that appeals to a 21-year-old, on his 21st birthday, and doesn't appeal to someone who's 18 years old or maybe even 16," said George Hacker, director of the Alcohol Policies Project at the Center for Science in the Public Interest.
Hacker is right, which is why it's unreasonable to expect manufacturers of alcoholic beverages to aim their marketing with laser-like precision. They should not have to ignore the lucrative market of drinkers in their 20s simply because some of their ads might also be attractive to teenagers.
Yet that is the implication of a National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report on underage drinking that was released the same day as the FTC report. The authors insist the industry has a "social obligation" to keep its ads away from people under the age of 21.
The NAS committee concedes that "a causal link between alcohol advertising and underage alcohol use has not been clearly established." But it says the possibility of a connection means that "alcohol companies should refrain from displaying commercial messages encouraging alcohol use to audiences known to include a significant number of children or teens when these messages are known to be highly attractive to young people."
Acknowledging the constitutional problems with trying to impose such restrictions by force, the NAS committee settles for the threat of force. "In the event that the industry fails to respond satisfactorily to this challenge," the report warns, "the case for government action might become more compelling."
Only if you think the government is justified in prohibiting messages because it worries how people will respond to them. Assuming that teenagers drink more than they would in the absence of advertising (a doubtful proposition), we are still talking about speech, which should be countered not with force but with more speech -- from parents, from teachers, even from activists like George Hacker.
Great Moments in Human Rights: Mandated “Emotional Support” Animals in College Dorms | Daniel J. Mitchell