Alcohol sponsorship

[Bigcol]

Yesterday DJR , Kelly Racing and Wankinshoddy nearly had to find new sponsors.
The first step would have been banning alcohol sponsorship on daytime TV.
The next would have been the sponsorship of the contestants, namely JBR, JDR and Bundy Red racing.

The clowns in the Family First party wanted to do this.
Steven Feilding nearly got what he wanted in alcopop debate in the senate.
Family First is one step away from One Nation as a political party.
Please , at the next election make sure these loonies never have a say again.

 

[bjr22n]

Ever since Krudd has taken over the leadership this country has all but fallen apart with stupid laws that only satify the minority of the community.

This $900 package is wrong... it should be going to small businesses to help them in creating more jobs, it might help ease the climbing unemployment rate.

Has the banning of cigarette company advertising stopped people from smoking.... no
So banning the advertising of alcohol will acheive nothing... zip...zilch, its not going to make anyone stop drinking. What is needed is more education, more research on why people drink and what makes them drink... like is it a peer presure issue... You can't just stop advertising and expect it to work... cause it won't

I guess DJR are lucky to have Jim Beam, you could change the livery to 'The Team'. if this stupid law was to be past.

 

[DJR-1980]

If Alcohol Sponsorship is Bann could jim Beam/DJR Find Away Around This With The Jim Beam Food Products & keep Jim Beam Sponsorship On The Cars

 

[Timmy]

I couldn't agree with the above comments. All those years ago banning smokes being advertised and look people still smoke. The same with the drinks, it will have no effect at all. Having JB / JD / BR on the side of a car or a shirt does not make me want to go and drink. Pier pressure and self control are some of the reasons which should be looked at. Or do what the government want to do go for the easy way out.

Also having the smokes / alcohol on the side of your die cast car does not make a person want to light up / drink.

 

[Poita]

quote:Originally posted by DJR-1980

If Alcohol Sponsorship is Bann could jim Beam/DJR Find Away Around This With The Jim Beam Food Products & keep Jim Beam Sponsorship On The Cars

You wouldn't have any chance to get around the laws. Back when they banned cigarette advertising, Glenn Seton and Alan Jones tried using Pack Leader on their cars, it was meant to look like a packet of cigarettes. Another driver Tony Longhurst I think and a Sydney to Hobart yacht tried to use Phillip Morris as their sponsor rather than a direct link to a brand of smokes, both were either fined or threatened with court action.

 

[TOWIE]

Yeah, I only started drinking when Dad got the sponsorship & became Jim Beam Racing... Before that I was a morman.... And a liar... lol

 

[Racin Jason]

Sponsorship on a car would never be enough to get me to take up a bad habit. I never felt compelled to take up smoking because it was advertised all over a race car, it may, however, have influenced which brand I smoked if I were a smoker. Seeing Jim Beam on the DJR cars does not make me want to go out and get legless, but if I am in the bottle shop trying to decide whether or not to buy the JB or the Turkey, then it would influence me.

Why do the rest of us have to suffer for the weak minded cockstains in society????

 

[Bigcol]

Thats exactly right Jason.
Minority groups like Family First are always trying to get the majority to see their ways.
Unfortunately the noisy minority nearly always get what they want because the silent majority does nothing

 

[Nascar12]

I might become unpopular here but if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything........

If you grow up in a house or have mates that are into drinking, that will be more of an influence if a kid takes up drinking.
I think that families need to set responsible attitudes when it comes to drinking - not banning it, but have a drink with your kids at dinner, or have a drink without getting smashed. I hate going to a sporting event and seeing stupid drunken behavior by young men and women.

Alcohol sponsorship is a difficult one for me to accept as it is what saved DJR.
Alcohol sponsorship on cars is probably my least favourite form of sponsorship there is since tobacco companies have been pulled out. Its little wonder the Jim Beam merch for the kids have the name removed and swapped for The Team. They are trying to look responsible but they know as well as the tobacco companies that if you can "condition" the kids to the image of their brand when growing up, they might try it and and become Bourbon drinkers as opposed to beer, rum etc...

I'm no fan of any politician, but the $900.00 from KRudd is a big help and will be spent at a small business. That will help the manufacturer of the goods I purchase too, are you starting to get it? So that will help me, businesses, manufacturers, and their employees.
I like the idea to get back a one off bonus after paying tax every week since January 1980.
If people don't like the $900.00 concept, give it all to charity or a small business, no one has to keep it.

KRudd did get it wrong when the $900.00 was also given to prisioners and people the lived in Australia for a few years and have settled else where in the world. That is plain wrong.


Ok, thats it, I'm done.!

 

[ROB17]

If alcohol sponsorship in sport is to be banned (which I hope not for DJR's sake) I hope the respective parties are given plenty of notification so they can make alternate arrangements. Don't want to see DJR in the same position they have just managed to get themselves out of.

 

[Quasi]

In a nutshell, the stupid Alcopop tax only caused the people it was targeted at to buy unmixed bottles.

For example, I used to buy a six pack of premix bourbon and cola, but with the tax it made more sense to buy a 750Ml bottle of bourbon and mix it at home myself, just buying coke as I needed it. If I was doing it so were the teens and early 20s the tax was aimed at. In this instance I can imagine them consuming more as they are likely to be mixing double, or even triple, strength mixes.

The flow on effects of this behaviour are not good.

 

[bjr22n]

quote:Originally posted by nascar12

I'm no fan of any politician, but the $900.00 from KRudd is a big help and will be spent at a small business. That will help the manufacturer of the goods I purchase too, are you starting to get it? So that will help me, businesses, manufacturers, and their employees.
I like the idea to get back a one off bonus after paying tax every week since January 1980.
If people don't like the $900.00 concept, give it all to charity or a small business, no one has to keep it.

KRudd did get it wrong when the $900.00 was also given to prisioners and people the lived in Australia for a few years and have settled else where in the world. That is plain wrong.

Residents of Aust for tax purposes qualify for the payment... so if someone moved overseas since completing their 2008 tax, then yes they still qualify and I don't entirely agree with it either

As a low income tax payer myself ($24K pa), the $900 will help me aswell, however the majority of taxpayers I have spoken to (I work as a tax agent) I ask them, 'Congratulations you qualify for the hand out, what are you going to do with your $900?? they reply 'Great, its going straight onto the credit card/loan or purchasing a TV.' that would be approx 80% of callers. Its about spending money to create jobs... not paying off debt or buying items made overseas... this is the part that I don't agree with and I believe that if small business were to receive something they could employ more people hopefully generate more income, more growth and more jobs which means more taxes collected = more income for gov. I think its just reckless spending by the gov... look at our failing hospitals .. (I could go on all day about it... but I wont [rt]rant over) I do hope you enjoy your $900... I know I will.

[Sorry for the highjacking of thread]

I do agree with you on the social issue and families need to set responsible attitudes towards alcohol and alcoholism. But I do think it goes further than just families, it needs to penetrate social networks, social clubs and through school education.

Myself (24 yrs old now) have seen a social change when it comes to drinking.

Year 10 (2000) you went to a party to have fun. No one cared because everyone was having fun; you were there for the pizza and fizzy drink. Alcohol? what?s that? Oh beer, wine and spirits? I once tried dad?s beer and it was yuck? I am never drinking that?

Year 12 (2002) You went to a party to get drunk?It seemed that the more you were wasted on the weekend, the more friends you had on Monday at school, by Friday only half of the people remember who you were, so you drink to get popular again... [drunk] [iddi] towards the end of the year even towards the end of the school term there were plenty of [bx] and till school ended they were [rt] because it was a competition of popularity by return of school and time apart they would be [ak] then the cycle would return.

Although those years and most of those people are behind me?

Now (2009) you go to a party to have drunken fun? It seems to be game, you drink to have fun... with drinking games and your mates laughing [crackup] at you because you think that the fan motor from the roof is actually spinning the room around and the fan is still... or because of your clumsiness or because you do a nudie run down the street because you have loss all concept of class and your mates think 'your mad' because you can [sc] in 2 seconds flat. You have [pk] and your mates send it in to a men?s mag because they will get a laugh out of it and it has got more extreme, set challenges before you get to drunk, like whilst intoxicated get your ear pierced before the end of the night or you'll have to drink out of the toilet bowl... It?s not till you see someone who is at a sporting event making a complete arse of themselves do you realise how stupid they do look when they are drunk. It is a big deterrent.

In other words advertising of alcohol products does nothing except bringing out awareness of a product, which is the whole point of advertising.
Are we now going to stop advertising of 'oil and mining companies' because of 'global warming'???

 

[bjr22n]

quote:Originally posted by Quasi

In a nutshell, the stupid Alcopop tax only caused the people it was targeted at to buy unmixed bottles.

For example, I used to buy a six pack of premix bourbon and cola, but with the tax it made more sense to buy a 750Ml bottle of bourbon and mix it at home myself, just buying coke as I needed it. If I was doing it so were the teens and early 20s the tax was aimed at. In this instance I can imagine them consuming more as they are likely to be mixing double, or even triple, strength mixes.

The flow on effects of this behaviour are not good.

[iag] they were also drinking quicker so they spent less when they were at the pub