On the website they cite a number of research projects that suggest that advertising has little effect on the rate of alcohol abuse and alcoholism. They go on to say that "all evaluations suggest that advertising is not a contributory force influencing the overall level of alcohol consumption."
The deduction they therefore make is that placing restrictions or bans on advertising as an "instrument of public policy with respect to the prevention of alcohol-related damage is highly questionable."
On the subject of warning labels I found the following paragraph very interesting: "The weight of evidence suggests that warning labels are not an effective instrument to achieve these goals. In addition, in South Africa the industry has a voluntary restraint on drawing the attention of the public, through its product advertisements, to scientifically established health benefits of moderate alcohol consumption. The imposition of warning labels on the industry runs the risk of the voluntary restraint being abandoned. In such an eventuality, a health warning and a health benefit message could well appear on the same label!"
They also propose that the imposition of an alcohol ad ban could have an opposite effect to that intended with regard to underage drinking, suggesting that it would add to the mystique or engender the “forbidden fruit syndrome” and would have the counter productive effect of enticing young people to experiment with alcohol.
Perhaps Bizcommunity readers could visit the website to get the background on the association and read about the various research projects before offering on opinion here on how compelling the ARA's argument is.
