Skip to main content

ANCYL seeks to ban liquor advertising in South Africa

Ban alcohol advertising - ANCYL


A newspaper report reveals that the ANCYL sees liquor advertising as a problem [1]. The league proposes the ban of liquor advertising, and they also propose the ban of liquor sales on Sundays, just like we had during apartheid. As reported, the ANCYL sees a correlation between the advertising of alcohol and the moral degeneration of South Africa.

There claims are curious and riddled with loaded assumptions. I was curious to find out exactly how many people have been harmed as a direct result of advertising and liquor advertising in particular. Fortunately, I managed to track down a profile of fatal injuries in South Africa for 2005 [2].

Since an organisation with such a proud tradition as the ANCYL is sure to base its discussions on actual topics garnered from sound evidence, I was shocked not to find a single death attributed to advertising. Not even a case where a roadside billboard fell on someone. However, I did learn other interesting facts from this document.

The most common cause of non-natural fatalities in South Africa is homicide, followed by transport. In 2005, transport related fatalities accounted for 35,5% of non-natural fatalities. By contrast, fatalities attributed to non-transport incidents were on the decline, with the exception of homicide. It is not clear whether culpable homicide is included in the homicide fatality statistic or the transport related fatality statistic.

Since there is a correlation between transport and fatality that far outweighs the statistically non-existent correlation between advertising and fatality, it would perhaps be wiser to ban the use of transport on certain days. The 2005 figures reveal that Saturdays are the days with the most transport related fatalities.

Curiously, Saturdays are also the days with the most homicides. The implication is there is a correlation between homicide and transport. Fuzzy logic dictates that transport makes people homicidal, especially over weekends.

In the absence of any statistic implicating the advertising of liquor in fatality, my questions are thus:

  • Homicides and the dangers of transport besides, how does the ANCYL determine that South Africa is in a state of moral degeneration when non-transport and non-homicidal fatalities are clearly in decline?

  • What credible evidence does the ANCYL have to implicate the advertising of liquor in fatalities when it is clear that cars are more dangerous than liquor (or any other kind of) advertising?

  • The ANCYL poll regarding the sale and use of liquor on Sundays shows an undecided result, with 50% voting yes and 50% voting no [3]. Note that the advertising of liquor and the sale of liquor are two different issues entirely. Nonetheless, with such an indifferent response from within its own ranks, how did the ANCYL determine that the sale or use of liquor on Sundays are pressing issues?

  • Weekends are clearly the most fatal, with homicide and transport being the biggest causes of fatalities during these times. Is the ANCYL considering banning the use of transport on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays?


Clearly transport, unlike the voluntary exposure to advertising, is a significant contributor to non-natural fatalities. Transport, not advertising, is the culprit. As transport is implicated in correlating with homicide, our society should rid itself of transport.

Since advertising is not statistically implicated in anything, let alone as a contributor to fatality, perhaps we should accept advertising as a producer practicing his fundamental right of freedom of expression.

Sources


  1. Ban liquor advertising - ANCL at IOL.co.za

  2. A report of fatal injuries in South Africa during 2005

  3. ANCYL poll results

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Fist bump the Trump

I must confess that I did not follow this election as it unfolded, because I have no skin in this game. I only became interested when I saw the crocodile tears on Facebook.

What fascinated me more was that the Trump supporters came out of the closet for the first time to voice their opinions. Virtually none of these Trump supporters espoused racist, misogynistic or any of those kind of deplorable views. Most of them were just pointing fingers at the know-it-all Clinton supporters.

What characterised this election? Rather than enlightened liberals waging a culture war with backward rednecks and hayseeds, three things characterised this election for me:
Shared hubris: Our candidate is bad, but the other candidate is even worse. Both parties seemed to espouse this sentiment.Joe Sixpack's Revenge: Based on voter turnout and based on for whom the largest voting group voted, this election was the revenge of the average American. That is average American by sheer number. Nobody bothered t…

Why has outrage come to dominate platforms like Twitter?

This question was posted on twitter by Sarah Britten Pillay. I shall try to answer that here, or at least address some of the topics surrounding this notion.

What makes a platform like Twitter more outrageous than the next? A brief summary of my thoughts on the topic: It would be interesting to contrive some outrage meter that could detect outrage levels in a piece of text.Plenty if not most of social media outrage is manufactured as a distraction.Outrage that isn't manufactured can be analysed by means of kin selection concepts from biology.If you aren't entirely sold on the sociobiology idea, then the balance of risk and incentive from game theory can also shed some light on the rationale behind social media outrage. Outrage levels are too damn high I do agree that social media platforms tend to be filled with more outrage than others, but as far as I know there is no means of detecting or measuring outrage. The need exists for some outrage quotient or some method of classify…

White tears the most valuable currency but not as valuable as fauxtrage

This formerly glorious publication which I shall not even bother naming has also fallen into the habit of censoring its comments section, at least when it comes to white tears. Fortunately, I could still save this obviously far superior comment from the rather myopic agitprop from whence it came. I know it is superior because the quality of your commentary is inversely proportional to how long it stays unscathed. That's why the sanctimonious finger-wagging op-eds rarely get deleted, but the comments rarely last long.
Anyone - black or white or of any other pigmentation persuasion - with a Rhodes Scholarship can but only cry White Tears. Someone with a Rhodes Scholarship is in the very lap of privilege, the likes of which not even the majority of pale South Africans born with a silver spoon will ever see. That is why it is not uncommon to see their ilk waiting on tables instead of whipping their slaves on their ill-begotten land, which they refuse to give up, you see.
A similar campa…