Strict restrictions on alcohol advertising have been based in plethora of countries. I strongly agree that this limitation is justified because it protects public health, also provides serve as a distraction against underage drinking.
The most crucial problem is fostering a culture of drinking, as advertising exerts a strong influence on people. Many alcohol companies employ attractive advertising, as it is one of the easiest methods to increase sales and to create illusions among teenagers. Owing to this fact, the restriction of advertising leads to a mitigation of harmful dependency. For example, alcohol purchases in Lithuania declined following the introduction of a ban on the advertising of alcoholic products
Following the ban on alcohol advertising, a likely consequence is that alcohol purchases will decline, and the interest of those who drink will also decrease. As the purchase of and interest in alcohol decline, social health will improve, because many people who currently drink will give up the habit. This condition will decrease the rate of diseases and will have a more positive influence on public health.For example, in Norway, where alcohol advertising has been strictly prohibited for decades, alcohol consumption per capita remains one of the lowest in Europe, and alcohol-related hospital admissions are significantly lower than in countries without such a ban. This demonstrates that when people see less advertising, they are less tempted to drink, which directly leads to a healthier society
In conclusion, banning alcohol advertising is an effective and necessary measure. Not only does it prevent the formation of a drinking culture, but it also reduces consumption and improves public health. Therefore, governments should maintain these strict restrictions for the benefit of society.