<<  <  >  >>

· The city of San Diego passed a similar ordi-

Keeping the

to regulate alcohol.72 Another poll by the

American Beverage Institute taken in 1998

nance, removing over half of the city's bill-

public ignorant

found 55 percent of respondents agreeing

board space from use by beer and alcohol

of alcohol's

that the spirits industry is a "harm" or "great

industry firms.

· Baltimore has banned the advertisement

health benefits

harm" to society. Half thought the same of

the beer industry.73

of alcohol or tobacco in any "publicly visi-

obviously makes

ble location."77

By preventing the alcohol industry from

· Chicago, adopted an ordinance based on

it easier to enact

communicating the health benefits of its

Baltimore's model.78

products, anti-alcohol groups and govern-

policies that

· Los Angeles, Washington, DC, Seattle, and

ment agencies ensure that public debate about

restrict the

alcohol and public health will be dominated

Albuquerque are considering, but haven't

public's access to

yet adopted, the Baltimore model.79

by anti-alcohol groups and government agen-

cies. Keeping the public ignorant of alcohol's

alcohol.

health benefits obviously makes it easier to

Just how those bans will hold up to First

enact policies that restrict the public's access

Amendment scrutiny isn't yet clear. The

to alcohol. The point here is a very modest

Baltimore ban was upheld by a federal appel-

late court in 1994.80 In Anheuser-Busch v.

one: "Self-serving" statements from the liquor

industry are not automatically false. And state-

Schmoke, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals

ments from "public health" activists are not

held that restrictions on commercial speech

automatically true.

were allowable under the First Amendment so

There's evidence that the strategy of sup-

long as the restrictions were narrowly drawn

pressing positive information does affect the

to address a substantial government interest,

political climate. A December 2002 survey by

as outlined in the landmark commercial

the Alcohol Epidemiology Program at the

speech case Central Hudson Gas and Electric v.

Public Service Commission.81 The court held that

University of Minnesota, for example, found

that 70 percent of respondents favor outright

the city of Baltimore's interest in minimizing

bans on "youth-oriented" alcohol packaging,

the external effects of alcohol was substantial

67 percent favor banning liquor commercials

and that the restrictions banning certain sub-

on television, 62 percent favor banning "alco-

stances from billboard ads were narrow

hol marketing with athletes," and 61 percent

enough to satisfy the First Amendment. The

favor banning all billboard advertisements of

U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an

alcohol.74 The billboard ban idea in particular

appeal from Anheuser-Busch.82

has found resonance in cities across the coun-

However, in the 1996 case 44 Liquormart,

Inc. v. Rhode Island,83 the Supreme Court over-

try and has been the subject of several court

battles. On its website, the Alcohol Epide-

turned a Rhode Island law banning offsite

miology Program recommends that propo-

advertising of alcohol prices. Rhode Island

nents of billboard bans cite poll statistics to

officials maintained that the ads would drive

get around objections from detractors.75

down the price of alcohol and that there was a

compelling state interest in preventing

Not surprisingly, several cities have con-

increased consumption. Hence, the state con-

verted those recommendations and survey

ceded that the chief aim of the ad moratorium

results into policy.

was not to address any "externality" related to

· In 1998 the city of Oakland, California,

alcohol abuse. Rather, the chief aim was to

diminish the lawful consumption of alcohol.

adopted an ordinance prohibiting alco-

The Supreme Court held that a state must

hol advertising within three blocks of

meet a heavy burden in prohibiting commer-

any recreation center, church, or day care

cial speech relating to a legal activity and that

facility. The ordinance left only 70 of the

the state's interest in limiting alcohol con-

city's 1,450 billboards available for alco-

hol advertising.76

sumption wasn't sufficient to justify an out-

8