I can recall when Formula 1 was going to be 'dead and buried' because tobacco advertising was about to get banned..

Can't they just regulate it better? Limits on how many gambling ads per commercial break etc?

18 hours ago, Little Goffy said:

So your saying that these other products are produced in the process of burning the oil for energy?

Sharpen up.

Sure thing Cathy.

Read what I said.  Nowhere do I mention these products being made from burning oil for energy.  Stop projecting your frustrated inability to comprehend information outside your acceptable messaging as other peoples deficiencies.

  

18 hours ago, Little Goffy said:

Also, you've got your figure backwards; 70% is used for fuel.

By fuel, I was referring to gasoline.  Which if you'd bothered to research prior to your 'fact-check' you would have realised. Estimates there range from 30-40%.  

 

18 hours ago, Little Goffy said:

Reduced demand for fuel oil will reduce the price of oil as a petrochemical/hydrocarbon input. So, yeah, it is good luck for all of us who use those products because the transition to renewable energy will make them all cheaper.

Seriously, sharpen up.

I was not responding to pricing, but the elimination of fossil fuel use.  

Seriously, gate-keep elsewhere like Facebook.   

 

23 minutes ago, layzie said:

Can't they just regulate it better? Limits on how many gambling ads per commercial break etc?

sounds reasonable, but then they'd just saturate the web even more than they do now.

might be better under regulation to set a maximum % of turnover allowed for any and all advertising as a license condition.

just thinking out aloud

1 hour ago, layzie said:

Can't they just regulate it better? Limits on how many gambling ads per commercial break etc?

That could be done. That would presumably result in less revenue for the broadcaster which would then translate to lower rights payments to the AFL. 

6 hours ago, Trisul said:

70% of a barrel of oil goes to products other than fuel. Good luck living a modern life without them.

 

Sure thing Cathy.

Read what I said.  Nowhere do I mention these products being made from burning oil for energy.  Stop projecting your frustrated inability to comprehend information outside your acceptable messaging as other peoples deficiencies.

By fuel, I was referring to gasoline.  Which if you'd bothered to research prior to your 'fact-check' you would have realised. Estimates there range from 30-40%. 

I was not responding to pricing, but the elimination of fossil fuel use.  

Seriously, gate-keep elsewhere like Facebook.   

 

You claimed that by ending the consumption of oil for fuel, it would eliminate the availability of the other oil-derived products. The only possibly way that could be true was if somehow the burning-for-energy was a part of it. By asking if you thought that was the case I wasn't 'failing to comprehend' you, I was mocking you.

And right there now you are trying on the old 'I was only referring to gasoline' like you meant it and as if you don't look like an absolute potato for not recognising that diesel and jet fuel are, indeed, fuel.

And then you are doubling down on the 'I am referring to the elimination of fossil fuel use' as something that will eliminate the non-fuel products of oil, because somehow you still haven't grasped that fossil fuel use is not the same as the petrochemical manufacturing supply chain.

Just stop, okay.

A reduction in the use of oil-based fuels (which comprises 70% of consumption of oil) will increase the availability of non-fuel petrochemical products.

It's a pretty straight-forward set of facts.

We should also ban car ads. People die driving. 

Edited July 1, 20232 yr by Ethan Tremblay

39 minutes ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

We should also ban car ads. People die driving. 

I'd like to ban advertising. 

I should start a campaign! Flyers, press releases, radio TV. 

I can see it now, STFU everywhere, Nathan Brown could say STFU responsibly!

2 hours ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

We should also ban car ads. People die driving. 

On that logic we also need to ban procreation because people die during childbirth.  

2 hours ago, Deebymistake said:

On that logic we also need to ban procreation because people die during childbirth.  

Exactly. 

On 6/29/2023 at 10:07 AM, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

 

20%? Compare with this study, which says the prevalence rate of problem gambling in Victoria is 0.81% of all adults. See here: 

https://responsiblegambling.vic.gov.au/resources/publications/study-of-gambling-and-health-in-victoria-findings-from-the-victorian-prevalence-study-2014-72/

Quote: "The prevalence of problem gambling in adult Victorians is 0.81 per cent (35,500 people). While the percentage has not changed significantly since 2008"

Here is a clue.  5 out of 50 is 10%  Yet 5 out of 100 is 0.05%

It comforts me to draw out these points from the discussion above.

The air-time and general promotional opportunities would be taken up by other products albeit for perhaps lesser revenue, mitigating the shortfall.

As many posters have pointed out, tobacco and alcohol promtion were previously banned.  One could still smoke and drink but smoking at least tapered off. 

Hopefully, gambling would similarly decrease or at least people would not be cajoled into starting.  They could if they wanted but would not be cajoled by ads.

 

On 6/28/2023 at 8:37 PM, bandicoot said:

Vices are everywhere.. you can’t ban all of them 

It is not suggested to ban the vice of (problem?) gambling but rather to stop encouraging the audience to take it up.

Where will the revenue come from?

I think the gambling sponsorship/advertising void will be filled by cryptocurrency - an equally sound investment proposition.

8 hours ago, redandbluemakepurple said:

Here is a clue.  5 out of 50 is 10%  Yet 5 out of 100 is 0.05%

5 out of 100 is 5%. 0.05% is 5 out of 10,000

19 hours ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

We should also ban car ads. People die driving. 

17 hours ago, Deebymistake said:

On that logic we also need to ban procreation because people die during childbirth.  

15 hours ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

Exactly. 

For a moment E.T. I thought you thought you were actually making a point, so I'm glad to see you were just  being silly!

These issues can get awkward because there really are some strange people out there who really think sports betting has a useful or positive side which needs to be considered and protected, like driving or... childbirth? Yes, obviously that is just being silly.

we should ban everything including banning!!!

My problem with the online betting platforms is how easy it is to get access to the kids and get them hooked. Walking from the station to the ground on my last trip to the G, my boy and I were behind a group of high school aged kids who were bragging about their status in a 9 leg multi. It was quite alarming. We try to make it hard for kids to access vices that can impact their development until they’re old enough to make responsible decisions, but this for me is a significant gap needing closing.