Teen binge drinking linked to identifying alcohol brands in pop music

slimvictor

slimvictor

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
6,477
Location
"Darkness cannot be dissipated with more darkness.
Every day in the US, the average adolescent is exposed to 2.5 hours of popular music and eight references to alcohol brands. And now, researchers have found a link between binge drinking in teens and liking, owning or correctly recognizing the brand names of alcohol mentioned in songs.

The researchers - from the University of Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania and the Norris Cotton Cancer Center in New Hampshire - have published their results in the journal Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research.

They note that alcohol is the leading cause of mortality in adolescents and young adults.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), excessive alcohol use - as in the case of binge drinking - has immediate effects, including injuries, violence, risky sexual behaviors and alcohol poisoning, which can cause loss of consciousness, low blood pressure and body temperature, coma or even death.

Lead author Dr. Brian A. Primack, associate professor of medicine and pediatrics and director of the Program for Research on Media and Health in Pitt's School of Medicine, says:

"Every year, the average adolescent is exposed to about 3,000 references to alcohol brands while listening to music. It is important that we understand the impact of these references in an age group that can be negatively affected by alcohol consumption."

cont at
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/275448.php
 
slimvictor said:
They note that alcohol is the leading cause of mortality in adolescents and young adults.
Click to expand...
I have not heard this before. Am I reading this correctly?
Alcohol kills more American "adolescents and young adults" than anything else?
Wow.
I suppose if this statement is true, and I am reading it correctly, there are plenty of explanations that come to mind as to why it is not more widely known/publicised (the prohibition industry for a start) - but for some reason I'm surprised to read that.
I suppose if every death recorded - by misadventure, traffic accidents, violence and so on - in which alcohol was present in the toxicology report, a statistic like this makes a lot of sense.

Perhaps it is the lack of emphasis in the media more generally on the many dangers of alcohol that makes this seem a little surprising.
The sentence itself is pretty vague; "the leading cause of mortality in adolescents and young adults" - but all the same, I've never heard such a statement in mainstream media (particularly that which is sponsored by liquor companies).

Sorry if this is a little OT but I find that rather interesting.
The subject of whether or not popular music is to blame for society's ills is a something I'm generally pretty dubious about...but dropping brand names into lyrics is lacking a little in subtlety I think.

I like how English pop groups never used to be able to mention brand names in songs, as the BBC would not play them - as it was construed as endorsing or promoting a product, therefore akin to a commercial - which was forbidden.
I assume that this is no longer the case at the 'beeb' - perhaps I'm wrong?
Seems so quaint nowadays.

Perhaps you statesiders should lobby the FCC to introduce similar regulations to stop this scourge of youth booze tragedies ;)
 
It actually kinda makes sense to do what they did with cigarettes and tobacco in the industry to alcohol too. They certainly are comparable in terms of how much harm they cause. If the media can't promote tobacco, doesn't make sense booze is okay. I'm not sure how I feel about it, but that logic does seem to make sense to me.
 
I wasn't being serious about songs being censored.
There is a bit of a double standard by allowing alcohol adavertising to be as prevalent as it is.
Both are carcinogens; according to this article, at least, alcohol is a lot more dangerous than I ever gave it credit for.

But speaking of censorship...I don't really consider advertising regulation to be 'censorship' in the sense that we usually use it.
You're hardly stifling free expression by saying "you can't advertise [x product] in this time slot/context/broadcast etc"
 
The leading causes of death for 15-24 year olds in the USA are traffic accidents, suicide, and poisoning - to be fair alcohol is often involved in all three of those, I can't confirm the claim but I wouldn't be surprised if the number of alcohol-related accidents, suicides, and poisonings was larger than the number of non-alcohol-related accidents.

according to the NIH:
Today alcohol is involved in 37% of all traffic deaths among persons aged 16 to 20.
Click to expand...
 
^ thanks for that!
I thought that statement seemed a little unusual - but open enough to interpretation to possibly still be correct.
 
Yeah, even if it's not actually in first place I think that as a common cause of death alcohol warrants as much attention as any of the other top contenders.
 
spacejunk said:
But speaking of censorship...I don't really consider advertising regulation to be 'censorship' in the sense that we usually use it.
You're hardly stifling free expression by saying "you can't advertise [x product] in this time slot/context/broadcast etc"
Click to expand...

As a wiser man than I once stated, Well said! ;)

In our extremely consumeristic society, where corporations are afforded the legal rights of an individual, I would not be surprised if alcohol advertisers win a legal battle about whether their advertising alcohol was in fact a form of free speech.

But in truth, and reality, your distinction is absolutely right - and a very important one to make! Regulation of advertising is hardly any kind of encroachment on free speech.
 
Hell yea it does, often in sick twisted ways. One of my favorite movies on this subject is Branded. It's kinda slow sometimes, but absolutely worth every second. You'd like it Capt'n :)
 
toothpastedog said:
As a wiser man than I once stated, Well said! ;)

In our extremely consumeristic society, where corporations are afforded the legal rights of an individual, I would not be surprised if alcohol advertisers win a legal battle about whether their advertising alcohol was in fact a form of free speech.

But in truth, and reality, your distinction is absolutely right - and a very important one to make! Regulation of advertising is hardly any kind of encroachment on free speech.
Click to expand...

I totally agree with you and spacejunk
here. It is ridiculous that a corporation should be treated as a human being in the eyes of the law.
Just incredible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top