webodec3ARCHIVEPreview
Open in TheBrain

Alcohol

==

see legal but lethal book, in 70's losing white MC white, so shift to women and kids and AA

 ==

On November 18, 2008, the hostile takeover was completed, and the parent corporation was renamed Anheuser-Busch InBev; COORS MOLSDON CDA DIAGEO

==

alcohol sioux

http://www.alternet.org/belief/lakota-leaders-win-battle-against-liquid-genocide

1785 Liquors in Flavored Vodka http://liquorli.st/flavored-vodka  eg glazed donut

==

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/05/ryan-rogers-rehab-alcoholic-drugged

...

At the time of Ryan's death, California's medical board had opened the latest of four cases against Bay Recovery's executive director, Dr. Jerry Rand. Among the concerns that they cited was the death of another patient several years before. And yet the center had been allowed to stay in business, leaving Rand responsible for Ryan and scores of other vulnerable addicts.

Of America's estimated 18.7 million alcoholics, only 1.7 million—8.8 percent—are treated in specialized facilities, according to a 2012 report by Columbia's National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse. That five-year study reviewed more than 7,000 publications, analyzed five national datasets, conducted focus groups and surveys of addicts and treatment professionals, and investigated how rehab centers are licensed. Its conclusion: "Despite the prevalence of these conditions, the enormity of the consequences that result from them, and the availability of effective solutions, screening and early intervention for risky substance use is rare, and the vast majority of people in need of treatment do not receive anything that approximates evidence-based care." Nine out of 10 people with alcohol or drug addiction, it said, get no treatment at all.

Compounding the problem is the fact that treatment is often not covered by insurance, but paid out of pocket by addicts and families. Traditionally, private insurance has covered 54 percent of Americans' health care costs, but only 15 percent of alcohol addiction treatment. Obamacare—which requires manygovernment-subsidized health plans to cover treatment—stands to improve matters, but quality of care remains a serious problem. While residential treatment programs must be licensed at the state level, standards vary widely. "For no other health condition are such exemptions from routine governmental oversight considered acceptable practice," the Columbia report concluded.

A great deal of research supports modern evidence-based approaches to addiction, often involving medically supervised withdrawal, medication to help with withdrawal symptoms, support groups, and cognitive behavioral therapy. But because there are no national standards, the Columbia study notes, "patients face a patchwork of treatment programs with vastly different approaches; many offer unproven therapies and little medical supervision," even at centers pushing "posh residential treatment at astronomical prices."

Part of the problem is that alcohol and drug abuse have been seen less as medical conditions than moral failings requiring self-discipline, according to Scott Walters, a University of North Texas psychologist who has studied addiction treatment. The model popularized by Alcoholics Anonymous, though effective in many cases, is not based on modern science or medical research. One result are clinics staffed by "counselors" who in many states are required to have only minimal training in responding to the serious medical problems that addicts like Ryan often face.

"There's really no quality control," Dr. Mark Willenbring, a former director of treatment and recovery research at the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, told me. "The consumer is hard-pressed to know what's what."...

===

Diageo plc is a global consolidated liquor company that previously owned Burger King.

Formed in 1997 when Guinness merged with food and spirits company Grand Metropolitan, Diageo was the world's largest producer of alcoholic drinks in 2011. When Diageo purchased Seagram's, it obtained the brands Captain Morgan, Crown Royal, and VO Canadian. Based in London, the company sells in 200 countries. For 2010, Diageo had a revenue of $14.6 billion.[1] CEO Paul Walsh received $9.68 million in compensation in 2009 according to the Guardian,[2] but receives $5.09 million annually in 2011, according to Reuters.[3]

Contents[hide]

Ties to the American Legislative Exchange Council

DIAGEO is a member of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).

Kenneth Lane, Vice President of Government & Trade Relations, is Diageo's representative on ALEC's corporate ("Private Enterprise") board as of 2011.[4]

ALEC is not a lobby; it is not a front group. It is much more powerful than that. Through ALEC, behind closed doors, corporations hand state legislators the changes to the law they desire that directly benefit their bottom line. Along with legislators, corporations have membership in ALEC. Corporations sit on all nine ALEC task forces and vote with legislators to approve “model” bills. They have their own corporate governing board which meets jointly with the legislative board. (ALEC says that corporations do not vote on the board.) They fund almost all of ALEC's operations. Participating legislators, overwhelmingly conservative Republicans, then bring those proposals home and introduce them in statehouses across the land as their own brilliant ideas and important public policy innovations—without disclosing that corporations crafted and voted on the bills. ALEC boasts that it has over 1,000 of these bills introduced by legislative members every year, with one in every five of them enacted into law. ALEC describes itself as a “unique,” “unparalleled” and “unmatched” organization. It might be right. It is as if a state legislature had been reconstituted, yet corporations had pushed the people out the door. Learn more at ALECexposed.org.

DIAGEO has also hosted VIP events for legislators at ALEC meetings. Pictures from the 2010 ALEC Annual Meeting, for example, include a set of photographs from the "Diageo Wine and Cheese Reception."[5]

Brands

Brands under Diageo include: Crown Royal, Johnnie Walker, J&B, Windsor Premier, Buchanan's, Bushmills, Smirnoff, Ketel One, Ciroc, Baileys, Captain Morgan, Jose Cuervo, Tanqueray, and Guinness.[6]

Liquor Advertising on TV

In 2002, Diageo and NBC signed a deal to advertise hard liquor, the first instance of hard liquor advertising on TV in 50 years.[1] The deal created a public outcry, particularly from Mothers Against Drunk Driving, that resulted in the deal eventually collapsing.[2]

Political contributions

In 2010, Open Secrets reports that DIAGEO North America spent $208,768 in federal political contributions. House Democrats received $60,483 and Republicans $24,097. Senate Democrats received $23,436 and Republicans $19,736.[7]

Diageo North America gave $61,600 to federal candidates in the 2006 election through its political action committee - 31% to Democrats, 53% to Republicans, and 16% to independent Joseph Lieberman (I-CT). [8]

Lobbying

The most recent lobbying information states that Diageo North America spent $3,220,000 for lobbying in 2006. In-house lobbyists as well as five lobbying firms were used, including DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary and Quinn Gillespie & Associates. [9]

Self-Regulation Questioned

On October 18 2005, Diageo PLC threw its weight behind the Portman Group, the industry's self-appointed regulatory body on alcohol, following moves by the UK government to question its relevance in the light of 24-hour licensing and the high levels of so-called 'binge-drinking' among young adults. [10]

The government's committee on alcohol abuse is understood to be unhappy with the Portman Group's stance on alcohol abuse and some academics are calling for a more independent review body. [10]

Annual Revenue

2010[11]

Operating Revenue: $14.6 billion

Gross Operating Profit: $9.1 billion

Total Net Income: $2.4 billion

2009[12]

Operating Revenue: $15.3 billion

Gross Operating Profit: $9.4 billion

Total Net Income: $2.6 billion

2008[13]

Operating Revenue: $16.1 billion

Gross Operating Profit: $10.1 billion

Total Net Income: $3.2 billion

Personnel

Selected members of the Board of Directors: [14]

Contact Info

Headquarters:

8 Henrietta Place

London

W1G 0NB, United Kingdom

Phone: +44-20-7927-5200

Fax: +44-20-7927-4600

Web: http://www.diageo.co.uk

U.S. office:

801 Main Avenue

Norwalk, CT 06901

USA

Phone: 203-229-2100

Fax: 203-229-8901

Web: http://www.diageo.com

Resources and articles

Related Sourcewatch articles

References

  1. ↑ DEO Annual Financials,"MarketWatch.com"
  2. ↑ Simon Goodley, "Hollick review could boost executive pay at Diageo," Guardian, September 14, 2010
  3. ↑ "Walsh, Paul: Bio & Compensation," Reuters, accessed June 28, 2011
  4. ↑ Private Enterprise Board, ALEC website, accessed July 8, 2011.
  5. ↑ Kurstin Roe Photography ALEC-23 Diageo Wine and Cheese Reception, official photographer's website, accessible via link from alec.org, accessed June 9, 2011
  6. ↑ Strategic Brands,"Diageo.com"
  7. ↑ Federal Contributions, "Open Secrets"
  8. ↑ 2006 PAC Summary Data, Open Secrets, accessed September 2007.
  9. ↑ Diageo North America lobbying expenses, Open Secrets.
  10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 "Diageo backs Portman Group in row over alcohol abuse", Forbes, accessed October 18, 2005.
  11. ↑ DEO Annual Income Statement,"MarketWatch.com"
  12. ↑ DEO Annual Income Statement,"MarketWatch.com"
  13. ↑ DEO Annual Income Statement,"MarketWatch.com"
  14. ↑ Board of Directors, Diageo, accessed September 2007.

Categories: ALEC Exposed | Water | Energy | Corporations | United Kingdom

t h i r t e e n

SPEECH = MONEY

Using the First Amendment to block campaign

finance reform

Money doesn’t talk, it swears.

Bob Dylan

At 6 feet, 3 inches, and 300 pounds, lobbyist Arthur H. Samish cut

an imposing figure, and he had an ego to match. “To hell with the governor

of California,” Samish once told a grand jury, “I’m the governor

of the legislature.”

In 1949, Samish posed for Collier’s magazine cradling a ventriloquist’s

dummy in his arms and saying “This is my legislature. How are

you Mr. Legislature?”

California legislators were not amused. As one commentator

wrote, “Many legislators in the 1930s and 1940s didn’t mind being manipulated

by a powerful lobbyist; they just didn’t like being laughed at

for it.” Enraged, the legislature voted to ban Samish from lobbying in

Sacramento.

By then, Samish had amassed a $10 million fortune representing

liquor, oil, transportation, racing, and other interests. He pretended to

retire, saying, “Thank heavens, it has been proved I do not control the

legislature.”

SPEECH = MONEY 181

Of course, Samish didn’t actually close his lucrative lobbying

business. From a suite at the Senator Hotel, he continued to direct his

“Gestapo” of 17 operatives. The liquor industry was a particularly lucrative

client, and Samish’s successors continued to block any increases in

alcohol taxes. Among Samish’s legacies in California was one of the

lowest alcohol taxes in the country. For decades, the tax on wine remained

a constant 1 cent per gallon.

But California was changing. In the late 1970s, the California

Highway Patrol began pushing the state to see alcohol as a public safety

issue. Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) turned personal grief

into political mobilization. In the 1980s, a broad coalition of groups

organized to pressure the state legislature to impose a nickel-a-drink tax

on bars and restaurants, with revenues earmarked for trauma centers,

law enforcement, alcoholism prevention and treatment, child abuse prevention,

and services for addicted newborns. But despite polls showing

that 73 percent of Californians supported such a tax, the measure went

nowhere in the legislature.

Stymied in the legislature and encouraged by passage of a voter

initiative raising the tobacco tax, the coalition that had backed the

nickel-a-drink bill decided to take the matter directly to the citizens of

California by means of a ballot initiative in 1990. Soon, thousands of

volunteers across the state were setting up tables on sidewalks and in

malls to collect the signatures needed to qualify the initiative, Proposition

134.

Responding immediately, liquor industry leaders held emergency

meetings to plot a counter-strategy. The president of the California

Wine Institute called Propostion 134 “the most serious threat to this

country since Prohibition,” and an industry newsletter reported that the

industry would spend “whatever is necessary” to defeat the tax. Led by

donations from Seagram & Sons and Guinness Corporation, the industry

committed an unprecedented $38 million to oppose the nickel-adrink

tax initiative. National industry groups joined the effort, motivated

by concerns that if the California initiative succeeded, voters in other

states would pass similar measures. A spokesman for the Washington,

182 GANGS OF AMERICA

D.C.-based Beer Institute, which donated $1.8 million, said, “Things

that happen in California have a way of creeping eastward.” Attack ads

were drafted, a one-penny-a-drink counter initiative was launched in

order to muddy the waters, and an industry front group, Taxpayers for

Common Sense, was created in the offices of liquor executives.

The combination of negative advertising, counter-initiatives, front

groups, and an overwhelming financial advantage proved effective. In

the crucial area of broadcast advertising, the balance of resources was

not even close. While the liquor industry spent $18 million on ads that

slammed the nickel-a-drink initiative, proponents had only $40,000 with

which to counter the industry ads. With plenty of funds left over, the

industry iced the cake with a $5.5 million direct mail campaign. On

election day, confused voters rejected both the citizen initiative and the

industry alternative. Andy Legg of the California Highway Patrolman’s

Association, a supporter of the tax, said, “We couldn’t make the public

understand how important the tax was; we were just outshouted.”

Across the country, the industry techniques used to kill Proposition

139 have been honed to perfection. In cases where corporate opponents

of citizen initiatives spend at least twice as much as proponents of such

initiatives, the rate of success by the corporations is approximately 90

percent. As a result, citizen groups have taken the logical next step of

attempting to restrict corporations from pouring massive funds into distorting

the initiative process.  gangs of america