The battle over Utah's ban on alcohol advertising heated up Tuesday when the Utah Alcohol Policy Commission - a group that has lobbied for tougher Utah alcohol laws - released a study on teen drinking that indicates alcohol advertising influenced the decisions of 50 percent of those teens who drink.
"We are now seeing an increase in kids in grade-school drinking," said coalition director Dr. George Van Komen. "Advertising sets the stage for them."The Alcohol Policy Commission study, conducted by Insight Research, would appear to contradict studies by the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C., that indicated that parents and peers have more influence than advertising as it relates to when teens start drinking.
"Contrary to what is often assumed, advertising is a very weak influence in the lives of people; other social factors such as the example of parents and siblings and the pressure of peers are the main influences on decisions of whether and how to drink," said resident scholar John E. Calfee in written comments submitted to the Utah Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission last month.
The dueling studies may seem like quibbling between temperance advocates and those representing the alcohol industry. But there is considerably more at stake. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a Rhode Island case that states cannot ban commercial free speech.
However, the court might make an exception if the state has a compelling public interest in establishing the ban and the state can convincingly demonstrate that the ban accomplished the stated policy objectives.
In the Rhode Island case, the justices ruled that Rhode Island had not proven that its ban on liquor price advertising had promoted temperance, certainly not to the extent of justifying violation of First Amendment free speech rights. Utah's law, which bans all forms of liquor advertising, has a similar temperance objective, as well as an objective that non-drinkers have a right not be subjected to offensive liquor advertising.
The Utah Licensed Beverage Association has filed suit in U.S. District Court arguing that Utah's law, like the Rhode Island law, violates free speech provisions in the U.S. Constitution. Civil rights attorney Brian Barnard argues that both of Utah's stated policy objectives are constitutionally flawed.
"You may be offended by what someone says, but they still have a right to say it," Barnard said.
Both sides of the debate will be parading expert witnesses to bolster their arguments, one that advertising causes more consumption of alcohol and the other that advertising has little effect.
If the Rhode Island case is a barometer of what the court will demand in the Utah lawsuit, attorneys for the state must prove conclusively, through studies and statistics, that Utah's ban has accomplished its stated objectives and that those objectives justify a restriction on free speech.
The Alcohol Policy Commission study offers the state some statistical evidence. The study involved a random survey of 638 teens about whether or not they drink, how they get alcohol and whether advertising prompts their decision to drink.
It found that 59 percent of teens 14 to 19 years old had never had a drink. The number of teens who consume alcohol regularly fell from 24 percent in 1984 to 19 percent in 1994 (no surveys have been conducted since that time because of a state law that now bans researchers from questioning students without parental permission).
The survey also reported that 10 percent of the teens often drink enough to get drunk. Fifteen percent said they were 12 years old or younger when they had their first drink.
The liquor commission will announce Monday its own decision on whether to change Utah's ban on liquor advertising. A hearing will be held Sept. 27 in U.S. District Court on a motion for a preliminary injunction against state enforcement of the law.