You’re no longer free in SA

2012-04-24 10:50

David Moseley

I’m intrigued by Health Minister Aaron Motsoaledi’s crusade against alcohol advertising. For those not in the know, the good doctor has hinted that the Department of Health is keen to ban booze ads outright. Naturally, they point to the high levels of alcohol abuse in South Africa, and subsequent consequences of such (domestic violence, sex, babies, death, all that usual stuff that life gives us), as the reasons behind their vision of modern prohibition.

I’ve read before how the Minister was so aghast by the fatties in Parliament that he quit smoking and went on a health kick of note. So maybe this quest to cripple the liquour industry is part of his personal transformation. But I doubt it. To me it sounds far more sinister.

Think about it. As has been pointed out by numerous experts, banning booze ads will do nothing but cost people their jobs and livelihoods. The Health Minister must know this. He’s not a stupid man. Yes, alcohol abuse is a massive problem - in any country, not just here - and leads to all kinds of nastiness. But a 40-foot billboard on the side of a building, promoting an ice-cold Castle Draught does not create wife-beaters and murderers.

Visuals of giddy immigrant beer drinkers on a rooftop in New York, enjoying a beer that reminds them of home, do not lead to deviant children who’d rather stab each other in the head over a game of cards instead of finishing high school. Likewise, some tools walking through the desert, telling me that a Hunter’s Dry will refresh my parched and dehydrated soul more than a glass of cool water will not encourage me to run into the bedroom and engage in risqué sexual acts that could result in an unwanted pregnancy.

We’re watching you

Quite simply, and I don’t care what any experts, lentil soup drinking hippies, or terrified desperate housewife mothers tell me, the booze ads do no create violence, over-population or snotty street kids asking me for R10 at the traffic light.

If ads were that effective, we’d be a nation of cancer ridden smokers, all one breath away from our last gasp. Everyone remembers the Benson & Hedges Night Series, right? It was domestic cricket at its best. Did it kill everyone who attended, did it turn us all into serial smokers, lusting after a cricket ball, fag in hand? Hardly.

For sure, I feel for my cousins in the advertising industry. How will they afford their trendy trilbies, skinny jeans and iPad apps if the alcohol industry isn’t allowed to advertise? Similarly, I feel for the beer, wine and spirit companies. They’re peddling a product, something that some people enjoy responsibly, some loathe and that others can’t quite handle. Why should they be blamed for society’s inability to control itself? Anyone who says the booze companies are to blame should look in the mirror. Because they’re the kind of people who always take the easy way out. Blame someone else for the problems, now there’s no problem.

But back to the Minister of Health’s crusade. Reports suggest that Department of Health has consulted no one but itself on the matter of placing a blanket ban. You know what that says to me? It’s all a test. They’re trying to see how far they can push the people of South Africa before the people push back. If we all give in, then what?

First they take away our beloved beer ads – no more hulking black chaps enjoying a Black Label after constructing a football field. A sad day indeed – then they take away our option to buy the beer. Then they tell you can’t drive to work without paying five times en route. Then the media can’t tell you why JZ’s obese nephew is auctioning off his goods.

Then they tell you what internet sites you can and can’t log on to. Then they tell you how many children you’re allowed to have. Before you know it, you’re not allowed to buy carrots on a Monday, but only a Tuesday. Then they tell you where you can get treated for medical ailments. Then Provinces start changing names, and cities, and more streets. And so it goes.

It’s a stretch. But not a long one on this continent.

- Follow @david_moseley on Twitter.

Send your comments to David

News24 encourages freedom of speech and the expression of diverse views. The views of columnists published on News24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of News24

  • Judith - 2012-04-24 11:17

    A very serious article from you this time David and one which I fully agree with. I think we are being deprived of our need to be accountable for our actions. It demeans each and everyone of us to be faced with this kind of legislation. It also makes the forbidden fruit more tempting - there has been a huge rise in young people smoking as it is seen as risque

      Jason - 2012-04-24 15:10 Another freedom that is being taken away.

      Jason - 2012-04-24 15:11

      If only people knew how important it is for Ron Paul to win the US elections...

      Tony Lapson - 2012-04-24 16:00

      Agree Jason. But charm and brawn will always win over the true ability to govern.

      Buzz - 2012-05-03 14:29

      While I agree with David and Judith in some part, I don't see how prohibiting advertising leads to full prohibition. That's a big jump, especially given the obvious inability to enforce prohibition (Eg 1920'S USA). The current advertising model is however severly skewed towards showing the good times of drinking, with only the occasional negative drinking ad such as those drinking and riving ones. I say, let's keep the advertising folk employed by legislating a 50/50 split in advertising. For every minute/rand spent promoting alchohol, an equal amount should be spent by booze companies showing the harms of alchohol abuse. Reckon that's fair. We could even have it so that it's not a case of booze companies having to show their brand on the booze awareness ads. They could all put their money into a kitty and have their ad companies handle the rest under an neutral brand/banner. Let's see both sides of the coin.... not just one.

  • Pieter - 2012-04-24 11:18

    This is exactly how all the issues around smoking started some years back... Step 1: Stop the advertising.. Step 2: Raise legal age for drinking.. Step 3: Up the tax on alcohol to try and stop just anyone from being able to drink.. Step 4: Limit the number of bars/establishments that can serve alcohol unless they pay an exorbitant "floor space" licence fee.. We have all seen this before with smoking, so it looks like alcohol is going to become the new taboo...

  • Gerdie - 2012-04-24 11:24

    I'll have to kill someone if I can't get carrots on a Monday!

  • Mary-Jean - 2012-04-24 11:45

    Brilliant article David, the same thing is happening here in the UK. We are not allowed to think for ourselves anymore. George Orwell's book "1984" is becoming more and more the truth and it's really scary.....

  • Victor - 2012-04-24 11:53

    That is exactly right big brother is watching you (1984) they faught for freedom but they are not free at all !!!!!!!

  • Hildegarde - 2012-04-24 12:12

    we are drones, clocking in and out at work each day... paying taxes

  • Susan - 2012-04-24 12:13

    I love your articles, excellent forsight as to what's going to happen.

  • bobby.mykonos - 2012-04-24 12:31

    They aren't calling for a ban on alcohol, it's just the advertising of alcohol. Way to over dramatize You're seriously demanding the right to be lied to by big business? "Drink this and you will be cooler" "Drink this and Girls will dig you" "Drink this and you will become a successful businessman with a speedboat" It's not like people don't know the stuff is available or where to get it. Advertise in the shops that sell alcohol that way you only affect the people already looking to buy the stuff. Call me a Hippie but I don't like being lied to and I don't want my fellow Man to get snared by a legal drug just because someone spent a few million R's making a glossy advertising campaign.

      Grant - 2012-04-24 17:53

      Banning alcohol ads will NOT reduce drinking - same as banning smoking ads did NOT reduce smoking. The only thing that ads do is (perhaps) give one BRAND advantage over another. Coco-pops probably out-sells Choc-bits on a massive scale, because Coco-pops advertises regularly. So ban cereal advertising, and Coco-pops will probably lose it's edge, but you can bet your bottom dollar that we arent all of a sudden gonna have kids rocking up for school hungry every morning as a result! Cereal will STILL SELL! The only people the banning of the ads really effects are those involved in advertising, and those who are sponsored by these big organisations... I'd love to know how many people now attend whatever the old Gunston 500 is now called?

      bobby.mykonos - 2012-04-24 18:18

      Please share your evidence Grant, or are you just making these facts up? If this was true then advertising would have disappeared decades ago. Advertising works, which is why companies should not be allowed to indoctrinate the populous into using products that are known to cause harm, particularly when this advertising will be seen by the young and impressionable. There is a massive difference between food (which is vital to life) and alcohol (which is not). The reason you don't think the ban on smoking advertising works is because people are already addicted to the product. The results will hopefully show in future generations that might steer clear of the nicotine habit.

      Grant - 2012-04-24 18:31

      So I must give you evidence of the fact that smoking has not reduced, even though you concede that it has not...whilst making up your OWN excuses with no reliable evidence? Are you suggesting that the teenage "cool-kids" who smoke nowdays were already addicted at the age of 5 or so? Also, you fail to recognise my main point. Advertising can be used to make people aware of a new product, or it can be used to gain competitive advantage within an existing market. Since nobody needs to be TOLD what a cigarette is, advertising in this market mostly gives one brand preference. Currently, electric cars need major advertising to get people to adopt them. If in 10 years time, electric cars are thriving, advertising will get people to switch from Nissan to Toyota...since awareness of electric cars will no longer be an issue! Not very difficult to understand...

      bobby.mykonos - 2012-04-24 20:22

      "Banning alcohol ads will NOT reduce drinking - same as banning smoking ads did NOT reduce smoking" Prove either of these statements. I was conceding that it might be possible that smoking has not gone down in the short term, but in the long term I can almost guarantee that it will go down significantly. The fact is that you are arguing that companies should be allowed to advertise dangerous products as though it was some sort of free speech issue. Advertising cigarettes and alcohol is not in the public interest.

  • Bear - 2012-04-24 12:52

    Ban alcohol and tobacco completely. why not? :P

      sven.gohre - 2012-04-24 15:58

      @Bear, if they did that they would at least be honest, but in so doing they would lose out on Billions of Rands in taxes and therefore they would see their personal fortunes in decline. It is just a sap to the hypocrites out there to seem to take decisive action against a substance that the Bible-punchers consider a sin. Just take a look at history and see what happened when Prohibition was introduced in the USA. Crime up, murders up, prostitution up, corruption up and a dearth of tax to the government to pay for law enforcement. It is just a reflection on how stupid all politicians are.

      Bear - 2012-04-24 18:20

      Suddenly when it comes to alcohol and tobacco prohibition is the worst idea in the world... it's not only the people with the power that are hypocrites ^^ what else is an illegal substance with less harmful effect than tobacco and alcohol? Everyone is a hypocrite.

      ludlowdj - 2012-04-25 09:26

      BEAR, a noble challenge, but one we know will not work, it would simply make more people criminals, that aside a total ban would affect some very wealth peoples bottom line and as we know government love money more than it cares about its citizens so that will never happen.

  • Trinity Thinawanga Tshilande - 2012-04-24 12:52

    Real talk...I couldn't have said it better myself.

  • Mike - 2012-04-24 13:26

    Sorry Dave but I think that you have missed the point a bit on this topic. It was not suggested that the liqour ads have directly caused domestic abuse but rather the products that are being promoted by the ads. By the same token would you then suggest that advertising that glamourises cocaine should be allowed too, as long as the products are controlled? I'm not sure why you called the Hunter's Dry chap a tool, he's just a hired actor in a tv advert. Shallow insults do not improve your case and I think that you have missed the point of this ad too. I don't think that the minister has suggested that this ad will cause random risqué sexual acts - you are making this up. I'm sorry that you will miss your "beloved beer ads", I don't "love" beer ads, so I won't really miss them. Right, having said all that I must state that I agree completely with the principle of what you are saying - if a company is selling a legal, registered product than they should be allowed to advertise it to their target market. But should they be allowed to advertise their products to under-18s when that product is illegal for those teenagers to consume? Do you really think that those teenagers shall ignore ads that glamourise liquor until they turn 18?

      bobby.mykonos - 2012-04-24 13:38

      "But should they be allowed to advertise their products to under-18s when that product is illegal for those teenagers to consume? Do you really think that those teenagers shall ignore ads that glamourise liquor until they turn 18?" +1

      Michele - 2012-04-24 13:57

      Teenagers do not consume alcohol because of an advert. They consume alcohol because they are not allowed to.

      sjmanthey - 2012-04-24 14:29

      Piss off Mike, your whole post irritated me. your old-age home should ban internet use.

      Jack - 2012-04-24 16:01

      Forgot to take our meds today, did we?

      Mike - 2012-04-25 15:21

      @sjmanthey: Good counter argument there mate, well done, food for thought hey?

  • Steve - 2012-04-24 13:49

    Too true David. There are far more pressing problems in the Health Department alone that need urgent attention. Then there is Education, unemployment, etc, etc. The list goes on and on. The minister needs to remove his head from the sand and get some real thinking done and while he is about it, encourage the other ministers to do the same.

      manshil - 2012-04-25 00:16

      Very profound comment Steve. You don't seem to have much insight in the way government conducts business. At any given time there are dozens of activities you will never know about in every department responsible for wellness of the people of South Africa. You will never know about them since there isn't some big corporate machine (i.e. these multinational alcohol companies who are tight with the media and can make a big hoohaa and spin the day's headlines into something that is more controversial than it ought to be). Since your head isn't planted in the sand as Minister Motsoaledi's is as you would suggest, perhaps point your head toward any departmental website and research for yourself if you aren't convinced there are good people in government doing good work everyday

  • manshil - 2012-04-24 14:05

    I can concede this is an opinion piece, and we are all entitled to have them, as ill-informed as some may be… but the problem of alcohol misuse is far more immense and complex as your opinion would suggest. We are talking an estimated 300 young people dying as a result from alcohol every month.  A third of our health budget  will be spent on alcohol related harms this year,  and overall will drain the country of BILLIONS of rands annually. \r\nWhat is your suggestion rather? Just to carry on as usual? Or undermine and diminish the efforts of people who genuinely care about the wellness of South Africans. The Department has, and will continue to base interventions on evidence collected from around the world. Any draft legislation goes through many people from different departments (not just Health) to give their inputs into it. Your myopic view on the situation makes for interesting column fodder, but just incites further apathetic counterproductive inaction. No one believes a ban on alcohol marketing is THE gold standard intervention; it is merely one.

      sven.gohre - 2012-04-24 16:02

      @manshil, and where are they going to find the billions that they lose when alcohol sales go into free fall?

      manshil - 2012-04-25 00:07

      @PeggySven yes. there are billions involved. Being in the top 5 heaviest drinking nations in the world, of course it is. much of that actually makes its way into benefiting our country presently? When you consider the cost / benefit of the nature of the liquor industry presently, the government (i.e. you and I...taxpayers) is actually picking up the tab for trade to be conducted here whilst the harms as a result from alcohol continue at the levels they are now. see:

  • manshil - 2012-04-24 14:07

    Yes it will, in the short run, affect those with the loudest voice at present, a multimillion dollar transnational with strong media ties, for instance. In the long run, it, along with several other interventions, aid in those thousands of voices are not that audible due to their economic standing, who have, are and will be affected by the most dangerous drug we have available in this country. Those billions of rands can be channeled into areas to benefit us all. \r\nAnd further, a ban on marketing alcohol does not equate a ban on sales, or signal an intent to prohibition, you and the rest of you can continue sipping on whatever designer beer or vintage of merlot whilst certain people plod on with the business of improving our country. \r\nRead:\r\

  • Ant - 2012-04-24 14:11

    Free the weed

  • gerry.pelser - 2012-04-24 14:44

    I think a lot of people is actually missing the point. Its not about booze ads being banned or not. Or tobacco ads, for that matter. Its about the principle, and the principle is that “government” is forcing their morality down on its people. They are trying to legislate morality. THIS is the problem. They are telling us what to do. This is unacceptable. Yes, there are problems arising with alcohol abuse, no one denies the social ills, but there is a strong defence against that: alcohol did not cause the social ills. Irresponsible people did. I’d like to know, percentage-wise, how many people who consume alcohol, end up in a situation where they become a “social illness”. This is punishing the 99% for the sake of the 1% that is considered a moral liability by the government. Viva democracy viva. This is not about booze ads, its about our right, as responsible, consensual citizens, to live our lives the way we choose. That right to choose is being taken away from us on a daily basis.

      bobby.mykonos - 2012-04-24 15:14

      Gerry you clearly don't understand the concept of Democracy. and you are wrong. This IS about booze ads. You are tying to make it about something else. It IS about booze ads.

      manshil - 2012-04-24 23:49

      Gerry...are you implying you need an advert to tell you how to live your life and what decisions to make? I challenge you to provide a logical argument about how banning alcohol advertising is really going to affect your life negatively in the long run. This isn't a dictatorship. The government is going through all the right processes to ensure if this legislation is passed, it is done for the right reasons (i.e. evidence based, upon peer reviewed research conducted around the world, on the basis that we have a severe drinking problem as a nation collectively). It isn't a moral issue so much as an ethical one. Morally, I have no objection to alcohol. Myself as a doctor, and those in office serving the nation have an ethical obligation to serve this nation, that is our role, and decisions, which aren't always popular with everyone in the start, have to be made to increase the wellness of our nation.

      gerry.pelser - 2012-04-25 09:09

      Firstly, I disagree that we have a “severe drinking problem as a nation, collectively”. We are a nation who enjoys a tipple, but the “problem” part is a tiny fraction of the total consumer base. Secondly, advertising is my right to choose. Or, to inform. Hypothetically: I start a brewery to compete against SAB/Miller ( a stupid idea, but bear with me), I now do not have the capacity or facility to inform the public that there is a new product on the market. As a consumer, I do not know that there is something other than the SAB horse-urine around. It entrenches a monopoly. I can make a decision without an ad – but ads tells me what my choices are. No ad has ever convinced me to choose brand-z above brand-y, but advertising has informed me that brands x and y exists. Wellness of our nation starts at home, and at school. Wellness does not start with banning communication of legal, taxed, products. The advertising ban is just the start – and THAT is the issue, its not about the advertising per se, but about the slippery slope that leads us on. Already we are back to apartheid-era legislation that says I can’t buy booze on a Sunday afternoon. 13:00 the cages go up around the woollies wine section? Why? Why can I buy beer on a Saturday and not on a Sunday? Whose morality is that? I am no longer allowed to choose when I want to buy a tipple. The right to buy wine on a Sunday afternoon has been removed from me.

      manshil - 2012-04-26 00:18

      Well, I'm so glad now that you've decided we do not have a problem with alcohol as a nation. I was starting to get worried there for a moment...what with South Africa being in the top 5 heaviest drinking nations in the world, drinking 2000 olympic-sized swimming pools worth of booze a year, with us spending one third of our health budget treating people rocking up at emergency departments due to harms caused by alcohol, with 300 young people dying each month due to alcohol, with us being one of the global leaders in terms of alcohol related harms (fetal alcohol syndrom, violence, HIV, TB for instance)...yeah, that sounds like we're doing just swell with how we handle our tipple as a nation. How wonderful for you that you aren't part of that "tiny fraction" of the consumer base that can drink responsibly, and who wasn't swayed by the subversive elements of alcohol marketing that global experts in public health and alcohol agree is linked to people initiating drinking early on in life, and to drink at dangerous levels. I'm not sure what this ban is a start of in your world, apart from the terrible inconvenience of not knowing what booze to buy when you go to a liquor outlet, or not being able to buy wine from Woolies on a Sunday, or possibly wanting to brew some beer in your bath tub one day to take on SABMiller. Tastes are subjective, adverts do not always convey fact. Oh, and I also have an issue with not being able to buy wine on a Sunday...

      manshil - 2012-04-26 00:18

      ...I've come up with an ingenious plan however. I just buy an extra bottle or two during the week if I'm expecting dinner guests on Sunday.

      jason.joao - 2012-04-27 20:59

      manshil, I notice that you emphasise the statistics quite heavily regarding health budget, deaths, and alcohol related harms. I don't have any statistics so I could be wrong, but I imagine that those statistics are heavily influenced by socio-economic problems the majority of our population faces. I don't know if you're suggesting the removal of alcohol advertising is going to make a difference in those statistics, possibly it would if this were a first world country. The ills associated with alcohol don't discriminate, I am aware of that, but the social pressure and education level is higher further up on the scale. On a slightly different note, social pressure is the most effective way to combat the use of smoking, and I would say drinking too. The whole 'live healthy' fad that suddenly made it really cool to eat healthy and live a healthy lifestyle, has a far greater impact on convincing people to stop smoking or avoid taking up the habit. Higher taxes and lack of advertising doesn't.

  • devin.corney - 2012-04-24 15:25

    "We are the Borg. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile..."

      Tony Lapson - 2012-04-24 15:59

      Haha Trekkie

  • Hermann - 2012-04-24 16:47

    Everybody ready for the arrival of the Nanny State?

      manshil - 2012-04-25 00:00

      We already live in a Nanny State. Remember something called The Constitution? Government must govern. That means making proactive and reactive decisions based upon the pressing needs of our country, within the framework of the laws that bind us all. If you are so inclined to live in a state without laws, regulations, rules, perhaps seek some anarchist state to emigrate to?

      gerry.pelser - 2012-04-25 09:11

      manshill - you are a government lackey. And if I could live in an anarchist state (as distinct from anarchy!) I would. There is NO need for government above an administrative function. "Government must govern" is not a license to trample on individual rights.

  • thedobrev - 2012-04-24 19:02

    So serious, but i have the solution. I will invent special "selective vision" contact lenses (iSee) to filter out adverts or any offensive stuff (that's right, it will work on ciggie ads and porn too). But the secrets in the pudding: Who gets to wear these hip new iSee's ... ? Answer: people who have been naughty will simply get them implanted for EVER. Who knows, can even be part of the new NHI plan...

      thedobrev - 2012-04-24 19:03

      what you can't see can't harm you right?

  • gcj.wood - 2012-04-24 20:22

    "Then they tell you what internet sites you can and can’t log on to. Then they tell you how many children you’re allowed to have." Sounds a bit like China! Were not in China are we???

      manshil - 2012-04-25 00:30

      There may well be a large faction of people with paedophilic tendencies who want to watch kiddie porn on the internet. Perhaps they promise they shan't abuse any children if we let them have access...shall we consider making it legal for them to access it?! A bit extreme...but we have laws in place for obvious reasons that to not have those laws will cause overwhelming harm. As is the case with alcohol now.

      gerry.pelser - 2012-04-25 09:21

      manshil, interesting you say that, there has been some remarkably forward-thinking been done on the psychology of paedophiles, and the solutions of a no-harm option.... you should look into that!

  • Jacques - 2012-04-24 21:06

    I like your articles, man, and I must admight, it saddens me that I was still in my prenatal stage of life when the Benson and Hedges Night Series was played here. Anyway. I have a beer to go down before I go stab my girlfriend, because, you know, I just saw that Hunters ad.

      Mike - 2012-04-25 15:29

      No Jacques, it's the Castle Draught ad that makes you abuse your family, Hunters ads make you commit risque sexual acts that may result in unwanted pregnancy :-> ha ha.

  • thechrisberryshow - 2012-04-24 22:01

    awesome article *cracks open castle lite and enjoys the fine brewed original taste....mmmm nothing makes me more satisfied than and extra cold lagered premium beer... the irony is that I'd kill for a ice cold beer sometimes!

  • Hallo - 2012-04-24 22:54

    You have a choice, inside the bottle store where no under 18s will be allowed, chap.

  • Henry - 2012-04-25 00:00

    If they can ban smoking ads ban booze also!

  • Arno - 2012-04-25 08:15

    Government should rather focus on creating profitable institutions that would help eleviate our taxes, toll fees and levies (of whatever nature they are able to think of) instead of looking at battling with their own people. This is a negative outlook they are taking and will only turn us to their own negative state!!!

  • ludlowdj - 2012-04-25 09:20

    I note with humor the outcry against drink advertising, the double standards are so pointedly obvious. When its something like smoking, then well it doesn't effect so many people so yes ban advertising and sponsorship, let people lose their jobs and lets make it very difficult for cigarette manufacturers to make a profit, but because booze it the vice of the vast majority, it is considered sacrosanct. Bottom line, its time to start enforcing a single set of rules instead of making it up as they go along, ban alcohol related advertising and ban sports sponsorship's by alcohol manufacturers, make driving with a blood alcohol content illegal, pass legislation which will allow the state to confiscate vehicles driven by people with a blood alcohol reading etc. and stop allowing doubles standards to exist because of "public opinion"

  • Ewen - 2012-04-25 10:26

    One has to wonder what the Government's ultimate plan actually is? hmmmm here is another oppinion on the E-Tolls:

  • Johnnie - 2012-04-25 11:18

    The ANC is very good at trying to tell the population how to behave and live but when it comes down to brass tacks, the results are always the opposite. He was shaken by the fatties in Parliament - but one of our previous Minister's of Health was anything but, an example of health. They also brought in affirmative action and that was the Utopia, but what it actually told the Black people was that they are not capable of finding work for themselves, the Government will do it, end result, more people out of work.

  • sandy.langenstrass - 2012-04-25 16:14

    Don't mean to be a spoke in the works....but I smoked for 25 years,once they banned adverts and increased the costs (taxes ect;) I had to give up.This could have the same results on drinking, over time. Such a pity that people are not able to drink in avoid the dangers... that can occur when drunk. Someone mentioned that the government would loose out on taxes if they restricted alcohol....actually the stats show that more money is lost through accidents...loss of lives...Then there is the case of divorces...child abuse...and health issues. Honestly smoking only causes a health issue...and yet smokers were targeted.....but boose can cause a lot more sorry guy's I think it's next.

  • Tefo - 2012-04-25 16:43

    One of the most ridiculous articles I've ever read. Someone give this man a Bells and let him shut up.

  • maryjane.mphahlele - 2012-04-26 08:48

    we were never free in this country,not to mention being safe

  • flysouth - 2012-04-27 20:46

    When a previous Minister of Health was on her virulent crusade against smokers you said nothing, didn't you? And when she had managed to enact her draconian anti-smoking laws you still said nothing, didn't you? But you obviously missed the several casual mentions she made during the process, that the government would tackle booze next! Or perhaps you did not believe her? And after booze, then what will they tackle next? "First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me." Pastor Martin Niemoller

  • Richard - 2012-05-03 17:25

    For Christ's sake people wake up!! Do have any idea what we stand to lose if this disgusting piece of legislation gets passed. Quite apart from the entertainment value that these ads provide, you would be crushing the hopes and dreams of millions of South Africans. As a part-time actor myself as well as a graphic designer, I see more opportunities getting snuffed out and as a direct result of this ban I will become poorer. Secondly, if you think the ban on tobacco advertising worked, ask yourself why we no longer enjoy the F1 Grand Prix in this country. Therefore if you want to go ahead with this ban on alcohol, be prepared to go without soccer, cricket, rugby, pop festivals and other trivial pastimes that serve no other purpose other than to give us pleasure, and bring a little enjoyment into our drab, miserable ANC afflicted lives. So rather tell you kid to give up his dreams of one day becoming a professional sportsman, because the ANC nanny state has gone and crushed his dreams into the ground.

  • Silindile - 2012-06-05 18:02

    Actually banning cigarette ads did cause the number of smokers to drop. And ever since that Hunters ad with Jack Parow aired, whenever its a particularly hot day I now crave Hunters :/ and I wasn't a big Hunters drinker b4...

  • pages:
  • 1