If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Big Story)   Anheuser-Busch wants all shots of Budweiser removed from new Denzel Washington movie, outraged at the implication that anyone could get drunk off of their product   ( bigstory.ap.org) divider line
    More: Asinine, Denzel Washington, Anheuser-Busch, Budweiser, Loyola Law School, Stanford Law School, Robert Zemeckis, Caterpillar Inc.  
•       •       •

7586 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Nov 2012 at 3:35 AM (5 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2012-11-06 07:00:15 AM  
1 vote:
FTFA: Dougherty and Mark Partridge, a Chicago intellectual property lawyer, also noted that a court rejected an effort to get by Caterpillar Inc. to get its logo removed from tractors driven by the villains in 2003's "George of the Jungle 2." The company had argued its trademark was harmed by having its product associated with the film's villains.

I would bet my life that not one single person who was going to buy a Caterpillar vehicle didn't because of its inclusion in George of the Jungle 2.
2012-11-06 06:53:54 AM  
1 vote:
Seriously, though, why would any street-smart person not think that the beer barons, Anheuser-Busch included, wouldn't spend a lot of money to discourage marijuana legalization?

Alcohol kills about 85-100,000 Americans each year and is implicated in over 50% of violent crime, including murder. All illegal drugs COMBINED maybe kill 15-20,000, and that includes baddies like heroin, meth, and PCP. Since the L/D 50 dosage of pot is something like 20,000 joints, an overdose of THC is very, very unlikely and accidental deaths from herb are infinitesimal compared to those caused by alcohol. Then, of course, there's other negative things about alcohol like hangovers or making a total fool of oneself. And, despite commercials showing eggs in frying pans, the only drug that actually kills brain cells directly is--you guessed it--alcohol.

No wonder the drug peddlers in the booze industry are scared shipless about pot being legalized. On an even playing field, just about any sane person can see which would win in a competition between alcohol and marijuana. I remember reading an article years ago in which bar owners near a college were lamenting the fact that the bars were just about emptied out after herb-smoking became popular on campus.

I also recall an ad in a Playboy back in the 90s from RJ Reynolds in which they portrayed people with vices as martyrs to political correctness by depicting a humorous parade of vices including cigarettes, alcohol, and red meat. Pot, of course, was absent in the parade--funny how those quasi-libertarians who support a person's right to smoke cancer sticks or drink themselves into a coma suddenly get quiet when it comes to the idea of pot legalization. I also recall that ultimately funding for 1930s scare movies like Reefer Madness came indirectly from the recently-legalized booze industry via various won't-somebody-think-of-the-children groups.

Face it, folks, most of the War on Non-Corporate Drugs is a turf war between the legal drug pushers and a potential legal marijuana industry...
2012-11-06 06:34:18 AM  
1 vote:

Haliburton Cummings: (citation needed)

Yes, I know it's Wikipedia, but they echo what I've seen in many other websites.

"PDFA was the subject of criticism when it was revealed by Cynthia Cotts of the Village Voice that their federal tax returns showed that they had received several million dollars worth of funding from major pharmaceutical, tobacco and alcohol corporations including American Brands (Jim Beam whiskey), Philip Morris (Marlboro and Virginia Slims cigarettes, Miller beer), Anheuser Busch (Budweiser, Michelob, Busch beer), R.J. Reynolds (Camel, Salem, Winston cigarettes), as well as pharmaceutical firms Bristol Meyers-Squibb, Merck & Company and Procter & Gamble. From 1997 it has discontinued any direct fiscal association with tobacco and alcohol suppliers, although it still receives donations from pharmaceutical companies.[48] There has been criticism that some of its PSAs have had "little proven effect on drug use."[32]

I have a dial-up that's extremely slooooow, otherwise I'd probably be able to find the actual chart that shows exactly how much the booze, cancer-stick, and pill-pushing industries contributed to the *guffaw* Partnership For a Drug-Free America.

Oh, and here's another link 4 Industries Getting Rich Off the Drug War. If that's not enough, I might Google some more links implicating Anheuser-Busch and others in the never-ending war on non-corporate drugs...
2012-11-06 06:16:22 AM  
1 vote:

Psycat: Considering how much money Anheuser-Busch spent over the years to keep pot illegal, I consider this karmic retribution...

(citation needed)
2012-11-06 05:17:52 AM  
1 vote:
I say you shoot a scene where Denzel refuses a Bud and picks up a Keystone.

Happy now, Mr. Andhowsyer Bush
2012-11-06 05:12:55 AM  
1 vote:
Do not fark with Hollywood. Here's what happens next:

No Budweiser product ever gets into a film for the next 20 years. But tons of placement of their competition does.
2012-11-06 04:36:48 AM  
1 vote:

mikewadestr: My understanding of the film is that the guy would have crashed the plane if he wasn't drunk. Go Budweser! Drink and fly straight.

I haven't seen the film but I sort of watched Denzel Washington on Charlie Rose last week. He related a story of when he was making a film early in his career. He and another cast member had a few drinks before a scene was filmed and they both thought they were brilliant.

The director disagreed with their performance and cancelled filming that night because they were both horrible. The point of that story was that they thought they were doing a good job and apparently the pilot in Flight thinks he's doing a good job too. As long as nobody notices Denzel's character is drunk he thinks he's doing well.

This is a rare case of a movie that I actually want to see (but I don't go to movie theaters so I'll have to wait). Whether or not he could have avoided a crash if he were sober is inconsequential. It certainly didn't help the situation and since he was drunk all of the blame is placed on him.

That's just my understanding - as I said I haven't actually seen the movie.
2012-11-06 04:18:53 AM  
1 vote:

What_Would_Jimi_Do: i havent seen the movie, but doesn't the drunk dude save lives? i say go fark yourselves.

it is fiction.
2012-11-06 03:39:22 AM  
1 vote:
"The lawsuit claimes your product encourages minors to drink alcohol therefor you are responsible for the deaths of 5 minors who who driving intoxicated. We will settle for $25million or we can take this to court where we will doup some jury into awarding us $100million by showing them pictures of dead babies and appealing to their emotions rather than facts."

Yeah, in this day and age I wouldn't want my product promoting anything I specifically endorse
2012-11-06 12:07:51 AM  
1 vote:
Displayed 10 of 10 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.