Alcohol and sport make unhappy bedfellows and sports sponsorship by drinks companies should be banned, say a group of public health researchers.
In the latest issue of Addiction (DOI: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2009.02711.x), Kerry O'Brien at the University of Manchester, UK, and his colleagues claim that alcohol sponsorship tarnishes the image of sport and harms athletes' health. They have previously found that such sponsorship – which often includes free drinks – is linked to alcohol problems in athletes.
Instead, O'Brien suggests that governments increase tax on booze and use the proceeds to generate a general sports fund.
The alcohol industry has dismissed his team's research, O'Brien says. The onus should be on the industry to show its sponsorship does not harm health, he adds.
If you would like to reuse any content from New Scientist, either in print or online, please contact the syndication department first for permission. New Scientist does not own rights to photos, but there are a variety of licensing options available for use of articles and graphics we own the copyright to.
Have your say
Sinister Nanny State Coming Up
Wed Nov 11 12:48:37 GMT 2009 by Winston Smith
http://www.capmag.com
When did alcohol start becoming the bogeyman? When the bureaucrat ran out of things to do after banning smoking?
Censorship is the work of the socialist classes.
Did someone have in the Syndicate have a bet as to how much the could control the common man. Take away that which gives him pleasure and eases his pain and you'll control them
There's good reason to go after alcohol. Below is a reference to results of investigation into harm caused by drugs leading to a ranking of these drugs according to harm:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article6899534.ece
Sorry I didn't find original research but only did a quick google sweep. The list order stands, though. Alcohol is more dangerous than amphetamines, cannabis, LSD and ecstasy according to this (unfortunately now sacked) man's work. It deserves efforts to curb its consumption. (Note this is not an argument for prohibition that, if anything, increases consumption and makes it more accessible to all) Also please note the harm caused is not just personal harm.
This comment breached our terms of use and has been removed.
your entire post is nonsensical.
first of all a drugs "legacy" has nothing to do with its harm.
second, alcohol is very powerful as a drug and IS quite easily comparable to other illegal drugs. just think, it was once used as an anesthetic during surgery. cocaine was for toothaches, and morphine is still used as a painkiller. clearly there are similarities.
and third, most of those drugs DO have traditional uses. coca leaves were used by indigenous people, opium was used for pain relief. lsd didnt exist, but mushrooms and cactus were being used and it was thought of very highly by the people using them. you very likely would have the village eating mushrooms for the equivalent of a wedding (or a funeral), so that argument is garbage as well.
the reason you dont see it anymore is because when the missionaries came over they were told they could talk to the gods via hallucinogens. instead they talked to "demons" and decided to outlaw their use. the only reason alcohol is legal is because after we made it illegal (like everything else) there was so much illegal consumption, crime, and impurities that it became obvious that it was better for society if it was just legal (sound familiar?).
thus your comment should be disregarded
1st proper para: Potentially powerful but low potency and addictive potential compared to the others I cited.
2nd para: Not so. We are talking the most influential and biggest societies not some outpost in the pacific or high up (ehem) place in the Andes. Taking religious books as documents of history, just where is that verse about the preparing the fatted calf and then snorting a line?
3rd para: Missionaries did such and such. Sources, proof. Factoid?
Overall I detect an all or nothing type argument: "If I can't do my drugs you can't too hypocrite."
Alcohol in moderation (or occasional comic binges) is and always will be a social norm. The druggy, flunky, nose bleeding, collapsed vein, impulsive, violent, thieving, Hep B/C HIV, death's-door look, not turning up to work or holding down a job drop-out is an outcast in most normal realms of society.
Mention Class A, B or even C to a family member and they will get very concerned for you!
It's just the way it is.
You seem to suggest that the norm with alcohol is a moderate consumption, doing no harm, and the norm with other drugs is rampant overconsumption, destroying all in it's wake.
If that is the case, that is exactly the misinformation Prof Nutt was trying to expose. Your opinion is falsified my almost every piece of research on drugs and harm. It is people like you, that rate tradition over fact, that is the reason we are still haunted by addiction problems.
You are on a science-related website, which implies you have at least a passing interest in science, well then look at the research. You will clearly see that you are wrong.
Personally i think just about anything is fine in moderation, but then that's not the discussion is it? The question is "is alcohol harmful to sports, and those that compete?"
An Ideal World
Wed Nov 11 13:18:21 GMT 2009 by Tom Mcloughlin
http://temcloughlin.wordpress.com/
It's another indication of how large corporations are taking over in many fields, in particular sport, where the actual activity is becoming less important.
It follows the furore over handing over the rights to stadium names to brands. Famous names such as Highbury, Anfield and St James Park being lost to Emirates, sportdirect.com etc.
Unfortunately, money is doing the talking these days more and more and it doesn't look like stopping anytime soon.
This comment breached our terms of use and has been removed.
BAN ALCOHOL ALL TOGETHER...
All comments should respect the New Scientist House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please use the "Report" link in that comment to report it to us.
If you are having a technical problem posting a comment, please contact technical support.
PRINT
SEND
