Last week, the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board released — and quickly pulled — an ad from a new online campaign aimed at preventing binge drinking in young adults.
This particular ad, one of six in the “Control Tonight” campaign, showed a woman’s bare legs on a bathroom floor, with her underwear around her ankles and the text “She didn’t want to do it, but she couldn’t say no.”
The small print continues: “When your friends drink, they can end up making bad decisions. Like going home with someone they don’t know very well. Decisions like that leave them vulnerable to dangers like date rape. Help your friends stay in control and stay safe.”
The subtext is that if the woman didn’t drink too much, she wouldn’t have gotten into a dangerous situation. And that her friends shouldn’t let her drink that much and get into a dangerous situation.
In addition to the one-page ad, the campaign includes a website with interactive scenarios showing what could result from drinking too much, as well as more detailed alcohol education information.
After LCB released the campaign, critics spoke out, calling the ad a scare tactic that blames the victim (and her friends). This particular ad doesn’t address the fact that alcohol can also impair the decision-making of the rapist — nor does it encourage men to be accountable for their own behavior.
While the ads don’t specifically reference the LGBT community, some of the messages they are trying to convey apply: Binge drinking can impair one’s judgment and the ability to make sound decisions. The message would certainly be valuable for education about safer-sex practices such as condom use for prevention of transmission of STIs/STDs.
The controversy has cast a fresh light on the LCB, and may shore up support for Republican efforts to privatize the LCB.
Pennsylvania is one of only two states in the nation that has state-controlled liquor sales: The other state is Utah.
The controversy over this ad also calls into question the LCB’s dual — and conflicting — role: to both promote drinking and curb it. (The campaign reportedly cost the LCB $600,000.)
One argument for state control of liquor sales is that it allows for data collection opportunities, which would enable the state to focus its alcohol-education efforts.
Though the data may be outdated, it had been reported that a Gayborhood bar had the highest liquor sales in the state. That information might be good to have, but it doesn’t do any good if the LCB doesn’t do anything useful with it.