| Author
|
Post |
 
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Different groups have complained about the number of signs on stores and even fences that promote alcohol use. The sheer number and volume of these signs often make a store look junky and are signs of blight.
To be fair sometimes the criticism takes a racist bent and focuses on "arab" party store owners. The conversation revolves around supposedly negative attributes and the supposed lack of contribution to the community of these owners. Any advancement towards a solution has to eliminate a desire to punish these store owners for their ethnicity. |
|
|
Sun Jan 05, 2014 7:01 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
|
|
Sun Jan 05, 2014 7:02 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Pages 7 through 9
4. Restrict Outdoor Alcohol Advertising in Locations Where Children Are Likely to Be Present
Outdoor advertising includes all forms of print advertising placed in locations where the general public can view it. Billboards, paintings, banners, posters, and the like are all included in this category. Legal provisions draw a distinction between outdoor
advertising associated with alcohol retail outlets and that in other locations, a distinction maintained in this report (see subsection
5 below).
There are two types of provisions included in this category:
1. Restrictions or prohibitions on outdoor advertising without regard to advertising content; and
2. Restrictions on outdoor alcohol advertising in locations where youth are likely to be present.
Clearly, the first type is the most effective means for reducing youth exposure to outdoor alcohol advertising. Four states (Alaska, Hawaii, Maine, and Vermont) strictly limit outdoor advertising without reference to ad content. These states received a BP ratingon this basis. No other states had provisions of this type.
The second type of restriction focuses on alcohol advertising specifically. Constitutional issues that do not apply to other forms of commercial speech arise when restrictions are placed on advertising of particular products, including alcohol. Careful drafting is required to establish that the purpose of the regulation is to limit youth exposure (referred to as youth presence restrictions) to
avoid having the statute invalidated.
Baltimore City was the first jurisdiction to enact a youth presence outdoor alcohol advertising ordinance. It provided that, with certain exceptions, billboards could not be placed in residential areas of the city. The ordinance made a sharp distinction between locations where children are routinely present and those where children are less likely to congregate, and it allowed billboards in numerous locations where adult consumers could be reached by the advertisers. Several cities followed suit after a federal appellate court held that the Baltimore ordinance was constitutional (Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Schmoke, 101 F.3d 325 [4th Cir., 1996]).
That opinion, as well as the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision Lorillard v. Reilly, establishes that to be constitutional, a law restricting outdoor alcohol advertising must be tailored in this manner so that its purpose is clearly to reduce youth exposure without unduly restricting adult viewing.
Two states (New Hampshire and South Carolina) have statutes that are probably unconstitutional because their provisions are too broad, prohibiting all, or most, forms of outdoor alcohol advertising. For example, the New Hampshire statute says that “all advertising of liquor and [alcoholic] beverages within the state through the medium of billboards is hereby prohibited” (N.H. Rev. Stat.
§ 175:4). These two states received a -- rating because their laws are probably unenforceable.
A narrow exception to this general rule involves prohibitions of outdoor alcohol advertising in dry counties. Three states (Alabama, Mississippi, and Tennessee) have this type of provision and received an I rating. Their laws are likely to be found constitutional since there is no commercial free speech right to advertise an illegal product.
States with valid youth presence laws prohibit alcohol advertising within close proximity to youth-oriented locations including schools, playgrounds, and churches. Requirements may vary by the distance requirements and the types of alcoholic beverage advertising and youth venues specified. Distances greater than 500 feet may raise constitutional problems, depending on the impact such a provision has on adult viewing. Shorter distances, on the other hand, severely restrict the impact of the provision.
A best practices rating for a youth presence law requires:
1. a distance threshold of 500 feet;
2. inclusion of all types of alcoholic beverage advertising; and
3. inclusion of schools, public playgrounds, and churches as youth venues.
Virginia received a BP rating as its law meets all three of these criteria. Five states received an I rating. Ohio’s statute states that no billboard advertising of “any brand of alcoholic beverage” is permitted within 500 feet of any church, school, or public playground.
However, it is limited to billboards that are “visible” to the specified youth venues and appears to allow nonbranded alcohol advertising. Three states have statutes with distance requirements of under 500 feet (Indiana, 200 feet; Kentucky, 100 feet; Pennsylvania, 300 feet). Pennsylvania includes public playgrounds in its provisions, and Indiana and Kentucky do not. Kentucky’s provisions relate only to malt beverages. Washington has a unique statute that creates implementation challenges. It bans outdoor alcohol advertising within 500 feet of “schools, places of worship, public playgrounds, or athletic fields used primarily by minors where the administrative body of said schools, churches, public playgrounds, or athletic fields object to such placement,” as well as in any “place which the board in its discretion finds contrary to the public interest.”
Virginia’s experience with this policy is instructive. It had an overly broad statute, which an outdoor advertising company challenged in 2011. The state attorney general and state ABC agency declined to defend the law owing to the constitutional issues involved, and they settled the case by agreeing to rescind the relevant regulations.20 In response, the Virginia Legislature enacted a youth-presence law with a 500-foot distance requirement, shifting its coding from a -- to a BP.
States can also prohibit outdoor advertising in any public venue, e.g., buses, public buildings, and stadiums, without raising constitutional issues. In this case, the state (or municipality affected) constitutes the advertiser and has the authority to determine ad content. Several municipalities have enacted such restrictions, e.g., on public transit or in public parks. No state laws were found with this type of restriction, however, and it was not used as a coding criterion.
In summary, five states received a BP rating, four based on their restrictions on all forms of outdoor advertising without regard to ad content and one state with a well-crafted youth presence law. Eight states received an I rating, three because of their bans on alcohol advertising in dry counties and five because of their youth presence laws that met some but not all of the BP criteria.
The remaining 37 states and DC received a -- rating.
5. Restrict Alcohol Advertising on Alcohol Retail Outlet Windows and in Outside Areas
Most states have extensive regulation of print advertising used at retail alcohol outlets. Most of the provisions relate to how distributorsand producers provide promotional materials to the retailers, a part of the states’ overall goal of restricting the influence of distributors and producers over retailers. These provisions, termed tied house laws, are highly complex and varied across jurisdictions.
Since they do not directly address youth targeting, they were not included in this analysis. Also omitted were sign regulations related exclusively to the inside of an establishment (except signs placed on the inside of windows and visible from the outside).
Although such restrictions can reduce youth exposure to alcohol advertising, particularly in grocery and convenience stores where children are likely to be present, their complexity and entanglement with tied house provisions placed them beyond the scope of this analysis.
This analysis has examined specifically the provisions that restrict print advertising on windows that are viewable from outside the establishment, a significant public health concern particularly in many inner-city communities. Alcohol outlets requently dominatethe retail landscape in these neighborhoods and windows often constitute the bulk of the buildings’ outside space, so that the outlets can become a large outdoor advertisement for alcohol. This situation can constitute a blight and unduly expose high numbers of young people who reside there to alcohol and tobacco advertising. Restrictions are therefore permissible as a means both to reduce youth exposure and to address a public nuisance problem.
8
Coding for this policy relied on one key criterion: The regulation must significantly limit the amount of advertising placed on both the inside and outside of windows. To be effective, the regulation should establish a specific, strict limitation. Restrictions that only apply to alcohol advertising (without restricting advertising of other products such as tobacco and soft drinks) or only apply to state stores were not included in coding decisions.
California has a statute that establishes a regulatory strategy that meets the general criterion. It reads as follows:
No more than 33 percent of the square footage of the windows and clear doors of an off-sale premises shall bear advertising or signs of any sort, and all advertising and signage shall be placed and maintained in a manner that ensures that law enforcement personnel have a clear and unobstructed view of the interior of the premises, including the area in which the cash registersare maintained, from the exterior public sidewalk or entrance to the premises. However, this latter requirement shall not apply to premises where there are no windows, or where existing windows are located at a height that precludes a view of the
interior of the premises to a person standing outside the premises. (CA. Bus. & Prof. Code § 25612.5[c][7])
Vallejo, California was dissatisfied with the 33 percent limitation and enacted its own ordinance that restricted window coverage
to 15 percent with some exceptions (City of Vallejo, CA Zoning Code § 16.64.040[B][1]).** A lower limit is preferable in reaching
the goals of this policy.
A best practices rating required strict limitations on advertising on the inside or outside of retail outlet windows (no more than
15 percent of the space or a functional equivalent).
Only Virginia received a BP rating. Its statute does not limit window advertising to a particular percentage of window space, but it establishes a functional equivalent by limiting the number of signs (no more than two, unless at an intersection, then three), the size of the advertisements (limited to 12 inches height/width), and the content of the signs (not animated and limited to the terms appearing on the face of the license describing the privileges of the license). It also prohibits interior advertising that can be viewed from the outside.
Four states (California, Kansas, Missouri, and Texas) are classified as I, with significant variation among the relevant provisions.
As noted above, California is the only state that limits window advertising to a particular percentage of window space, but its 33percent requirement is greater than the 15 percent threshold. The remaining three states vary in their regulation of the number, size, and placement of signs, none of which rose to the equivalent of a 15 percent restriction. Oklahoma’s statute is probably unconstitutional because it is overly broad (Oklahoma Broadcasters Assn. v. Crisp, 636 F. Supp. 978 [W.D. Okl. 1985]). The remaining 45 states, and the District of Columbia received a -- rating. |
|
|
|
Sun Jan 05, 2014 7:23 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
I believe the City of Flint tried limiting signage on windows. The outcome was the party store owners boarded their windows up, thus circumventing any effect the ordinance had.
Store owners are often paid to permit the various alcohol ads to be placed on their premises. That payment contributes to the blight and explains why liquor and beer distributors were the ones to fight such limits to signage. |
|
|
|
Sun Jan 05, 2014 7:27 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Maine prohibits the payment for placing alcohol ads on the premises.
State Police Liquor Licensing and Compliance Division ... - Maine.gov http://www.maine.gov/dps/liqr/regulations.html - 43k - Cached - Similar pages Violation of any Commission rule and regulation, State law or municipal ...
Chapter 7: ADVERTISING AND SIGNS APPLICABLE TO ALL LICENSE HOLDERS
1.All liquor advertising, or any claims for liquor advertised, shall conform with the standards set forth in regulations under the provisions of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act as well as the Maine State Liquor Laws and the Commission Rules and Regulations.
2.No descriptive matter in liquor advertising shall be inconsistent with the description of the contents as listed on the labels of such liquor.
3.Advertisements of liquor shall not contain any undignified or improper illustration.
4.No advertisement of liquor shall contain either subject matter or illustrations inducing minors or immature persons to drink, nor shall depict any person in the act of drinking liquor.
5.No liquor advertising shall suggest any beneficial or tonic effect from drinking thereof.
6.The use of radio or loud speaker equipment in or on any licensed premises for the purpose of attracting attention to the interior of the said premises is forbidden, except radio programs originating from the licensed premise.
7.(Repealed.)
8.No licensee shall display more than one liquor sign and from only one window.
(APA Office Note: information received indicates that the provisions of Section 7.8 have been repealed and replaced by statute, Title 28-A Section 710.)
9.No advertising of liquor shall contain any subject matter relating to contests or prizes that require the purchase of or the awarding of any alcoholic beverage.
10.Signs, posters, placards, or other items bearing advertising matter for use inside a retail premise may be furnished, given, rented, loaned or sold to a licensee if they have no value to the licensee except as advertisements, and if the total value of all such materials furnished by any manufacturer or wholesaler and in use at any one time in any licensed premises does not exceed $1000; provided, that the manufacturer or wholesaler does not directly or indirectly pay a licensee for displaying such materials or for any expense due to their operation. The value of such materials shall include all expenses incurred directly or indirectly by the manufacturer or wholesaler in connection with the purchase, manufacture, transportation, assembly and installation of such materials and all additions thereto, and further provided that any manufacturer or wholesaler may furnish, give, rent, loan, or sell one malt and one vinous inside electric sign to each licensee which shall not be included in the $1000 maximum for all materials furnished in this rule.
11.No licensee, except wholesalers, shall have malt or vinous liquor advertisements
or signs on or attached to delivery vehicles owned or controlled by them which advertise by brand name.
12.No licensee, except a wholesale licensee, shall advertise liquor by any lighted sign visible from the exterior of a licensed premise during the hours that liquor is prohibited for sale. All outside and window signs bearing advertising must be approved for use by the bureau. Signs not approved must be removed within 60 days of notification by the bureau.
13.Consumer specialties such as ash trays and corkscrew and other merchandise bearing advertising may be given or sold as long as a retail licensee is not paid to distribute such material.
14.Advertising specialties such as trays, coasters, menu cards, wine list, meal checks, napkins, bar mats, tap markers, thermometers, clocks may be furnished given or sold as long as the cost of such items does not exceed $300 annually.
Back to Chapter Selection |
|
|
|
Sun Jan 05, 2014 7:29 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Iowa ABD || Promoting Alcoholic Beverages http://iowaabd.com/alcohol/features/alcohol_laws/liquor_laws/promoting_alcoholic_beverages - 19k - Cached - Similar pages Licensees may not advertise specific brand names on signs located on the ... All
Promoting Alcoholic Beverages
Advertising
Licensees may advertise price and brand names of liquor, wine and beer in the following manner:
•Media (newspapers, radio, television, etc.).
•Inside signs (neon signs, mirrors, etc.).
•Outside signs (billboards, reader boards, etc.) which are not located on the licensed premises.
•Licensees may not advertise specific brand names on signs located on the outside of their licensed premises (in the parking lot, on the outside of the building, etc.).
Exception: Outside signs with specific brand names of liquor, wine and beer are legal when located in enclosed or partially enclosed areas (patio umbrellas with specific name brands in a fenced outdoor beer garden, etc.).
Iowa Code section §123.51 |
|
|
|
Sun Jan 05, 2014 7:40 am |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
FlintTalk.com Forum Index
> Political Talk
