Riana Herbold Part IV

According to the 2015 NSDUH, “about 7.7 million people ages 12–20 reported drinking alcohol in the past month (“Alcohol Facts and Statistics” par. 11).” In other words, the United States has seen a significant increase in drug abuse over the past 10 years; specifically, among teenagers. With that being the case, most people would agree that these statistics are alarming to say the least, and it’s no surprise that our country is quickly struggling to find a solution. One common proposal in discussion is drug advertising. Could drug advertising be the key to solving this ever growing problem? Although many would say no, there is evidence that shows otherwise.

In 2000, Budweiser spent an estimated $770 million on TV ads and another $15 million on radio commercials. Although there are plenty of other alcohol manufacturers who spend just as much on advertisements each year, Budweiser is particularly interesting. This brand is one of leading makers of children-targeting ads (Riccio par. 6). Oftentimes, manufacturers like Budweiser hide their immoral propaganda with public service announcements on “drinking responsibly.” However, according to an article by Current Health, it’s “estimated that for every public service announcement a kid hears about drinking, they’re likely to see 25 to 50 ads promoting beer or wine (Roccio par. 6).” After hearing statistics like these, the effectiveness of those “safe drinking” service announcements really comes into question.

According to Albert Bandura, one the most credited psychologists in United States history, the “Social Learning Theory” suggests that “repeated exposure to modeled behavior can result in behavioral change (Kilbourne par. 13).” In addition, this theory has been proven to be particularly effective among children. Knowingly or not, drug manufactures across the United States seem to take advantage of this. Alcohol and cigarettes are advertised by desirable individuals. Many ads imply that drinking is a rite of passage into adulthood (Kilbourne par. 17). According to the Center on Alcohol marketing and Youth, “almost a quarter of all television alcohol advertising in 2001 was delivered more effectively to youth than to adults (“Center on Alcohol marketing and Youth” par. 18).” When looking at the amount of advertisements our youth sees every day, the effects it must have on teenage drinking are undeniable. Consequently, studies have shown that teens who begin drinking are four times as likely to become alcoholics as those who don’t begin drinking until age 21 (Riccio par. 7).

Ultimately, the question on whether or not drug advertising is increasing drug abuse has only been tested on a small scale. Although there is much evidence to support the negative effects of drug ads, in the end, the most effective way to know if a potential solution will work, is to implement it. But how? Should we change the script of drug advertising or eradicate it altogether? Knowing that everyone’s common goal is the same: decreasing drug abuse in the United States, exploring every side to possible resolutions to this problem is crucial.


4 Comments Add yours

  1. mulkay says:

    I would try to make the psychological connections between part three and four. Both sections overlap with psychology but you can also use the different theories to refute each other or state why one is stronger than another. At times, it was difficult to understand the perspective and adding stories or testimonials would be helpful. Another thing to consider is defining drug advertising as this was something that immediately confused me.


  2. I think you have an interesting argument. I think that as you said, advertising is essential for a company so how could we ask them to stop. We can’t place government restrictions because that would go against our free enterprise economy. I would add what our options are to stop the drug advertising to children.


  3. ckoepnick10 says:

    At times I was confused. One point you seemed to fault Budweiser for promoting safe drinking. Also, what ads did Budweiser run that were targeted towards kids? I may be wrong, but I doubt it was specifically kids, and if I am wrong. Find and describe an ad where that was the case to really emphasize the point. I did like all the statistics about how much was spent and what not in there though.


  4. schbra17 says:

    It seems like you have ideas in both of your parts that support each side of the argument. I think they could be separated a little bit better so the stance that is taken is more easily recognizable.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s