According to Antonia Novello, Surgeon General of the United States, in the SIRS Government Reporter, the leading cause of death for people aged 15 to 24 is alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes alcohol (1) . Isn't it logical to focus our efforts on reducing the problem of alcohol abuse? Apparently DISCUS, the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States, doesn't think so. Worsnop states that on 7 November 1996 they removed the voluntary ban on alcohol advertising on television and radio that had been in place since 1936 (219). He then claims that the takedown occurred soon after Seagram's, a liquor company, advertised some of its spirits on KRIS-TV in CorpusChrist, Texas (219). This movement is definitely a step in the wrong direction and actions should be taken to counter it. reinstate this ban, but this time legally. First of all, the removal of the ban gave DISCUS a bad reputation. Already the four major television networks (NBC, ABC, CBS and FOX) have promised not to air alcohol advertisements (Worsnop 219). DISCUS has also lost respect in the field of politics, especially among numerous deputies and the President himself. Worsnop stated that “brewery group representatives believe DISCUS's announcement has undermined its credibility in Washington” (219). Bill Clinton called the decision "simply irresponsible" (qtd in Worsnop 219). Secondly, many of these liquor advertisements are said to target teenagers. However, Seagram's executive vice president of marketing strategy, Arthur Shapiro, said that Seagram took "great care to ensure that our advertising does not address or target children" (qtd in Krantz 1). Not so, according to Katherine Prescott, who emphasized the use of animals and a graduation theme in the Seagram commercial. This appears to associate alcohol use with academic success when the two rarely coexist (Tannert 2). Clinton also expressed concern that the ban would cause an increase in alcohol consumption among minors (Facts on File 492 vol 57). Even if teenagers were not directly targeted in an advertisement, Froehlich states: "Teenagers are three times more likely than adults to respond to advertisements..." This is due to their insecurity (Froehlich 1 Novello in SIRS Researcher 5 ). It has been suggested that to reduce adolescents' response to advertising, counter-advertising should be used, which is when advertisements are shown that discourage the use or abuse of illegal or abusive products. Research projects have shown that while advertising increased consumption, counter-advertising had an opposite and successful effect (Saffer 4).