Sooner or later, it was bound to happen. In television’s pursuit of massive profit margins and wide advertising revenues, alcohol was bound to start advertising. It began quietly on NBC over Christmas break, as they began airing ads for alcohol in addition to beer during Saturday Night Live.

Meanwhile, CBS head Leo Moonves told the Television Critics Association that “We don’t think [advertising alcohol] is the right thing to do.” Conservatives and Tipper Gore fans across the country have gone into action as well, working to have the FCC terminate the advertising.

Say what you will about the value of alcohol, but there simply isn’t sufficient reasoning to keep companies from advertising it on television. First off, the revenues for alcohol producers are clearly not suffering, even though they aren’t advertising. Secondly, from my own sociological research, it appears that a main cause of binge drinking is attending college, though I use the word “attending” loosely for all you binge-drinkers out there. At the very least, it seems college creates more binge drinkers than advertising does.

Should we outlaw higher education in the effort to stop people from getting plastered or getting higher, so to speak? Is it possible to end better living through chemistry by just not teaching people chemistry? Even if it is, it’s a pyrrhic victory at best.

The important question is – why is anyone upset by alcohol ads on television? Compared to the average items advertised on television, alcohol ranks pretty low on the potential for instantaneous-death-through-misuse list. People sniff cleaning products, choke to death on pretzels and commit suicide by drinking bleach. Simply because the potential for misuse exists does not override a company’s right to advertise.

A far more dangerous precedent is showing its ugly head in every time slot and on every network – advertising for prescription drugs.

This seems to be a recent development, starting with drugs like Viagra and Claritin, but now it’s spread to nearly every kind of prescription drugs, regardless of whether they address post-chemotherapy fatigue or acid-reflux disease, which didn’t even exist before drugs started curing it. As the more grizzled of us will recall, it used to just be called heartburn.

Advertising for prescription drugs and telling every person to ask their doctor about prescriptions that they probably don’t even need is far more destructive than advertising for vodka.

Odds are, you can figure out if you want tequila, and you don’t need anyone’s advice. But when it comes to treating your arthritis, nephritis, or bursitis, you and the advertisers are not the ultimate authority.

At the very least, the government should be opposed to such advertising because it could cost Medicare or the consumer public millions to pay for drugs that have sufficient generic equivalents.

Simply by advertising on television a drug that has moderately changed from the original, which is no longer protected by patent, a certain purple pill keeps people asking for it by name and color, while generics are available for far less.

Companies have a right to advertise, until there’s some amazing evidence that they shouldn’t be allowed to have that right. The Supreme Court has said that much, and I’m glad NBC agrees.

If Nickelodeon chooses not to show ads for vodka, that’s their choice.

But when it comes to those who are unduly influenced by the alcohol advertising on television at 2 a.m., they aren’t likely to be on the path to greatness, booze or no booze.

Considering the limitations already placed on prescription drugs, a lot could be said for ending their reign of pseudo-information on American televisions.

If you honestly want to get your prescriptions recommended to you by the media, I’ve got a great new drug for you to try. I call it Placebo-X. It doesn’t do anything, but it doesn’t have any bad side effects either. Enjoy.

Tim Kearns is a senior in political science from Bellevue, Neb.