Advertising isn’t a right. Advertisers, their sponsors, the networks, and the media outlets themselves all have, and exercise, control over what is disseminated to the public for consumption. A person, group, or a company can say whatever they want under the first; that does not mean we have to allow them access to all media formats. Let them advertise in medical journals, trade publications and general consumer magazines where context appropriate.
I do a lot of research on my medical conditions, and come up with questions, comments and will ask about specific meds I want my doctor to investigate the use of in my specific conditions.
Not many generic nonDopers seem to do much research other than seeing a commercial for the newest pill and ask for it.
These types of commercials weren’t allowed in the U.S. until 1997. Of course, advertising and spending have both skyrocketed in that time.
I have. I experienced symptoms of narcolepsy for years and when it finally got to be more than I could handle with massive amounts of caffeine, I went to a doctor about it. When my diagnosis was official I requested specific drugs due to the decreased side effects they had compared to more effective and cheaper drugs. It has worked out quite well.
I’m sure people have asked their doctor about Ambien, for example. It’s suggested on message boards all the time.
This is crap on so many levels. By your standard almost every product would be limited to advertising in specific areas instead of general ones.
The public has every right to know what options there are regarding medications, and the pharmaceutical companies have every right to tell the public what those options are.
What the OP is really all about is class warfare. The pharm companies have products that the public wants and needs, and the sonsabitches have the audacity to make a profit selling it instead of giving it away for the greater good.
And they’re taking some of that profit to advertise so they can (:eek:GASP!:eek:) make more profit! What the OP wants is a thinly veiled form of communistic fascism.
I ask my doctor and he says “yes” or “no,” why is this such a hard thing.
I say “I want some Viagra” he says “Why?” I tell thim and HE decides not me.
So what’s the harm. Is a ten second question gonna hurt?
Personally, I think TV ads for prescription medication should be banned. However, I have no problem with Magazine ads (as long as they keep requiring the prescribing information with it, makes an ad at least 3 pages normally), and advertising to pharmacies and doctor offices. Oh, and bring back my free pens! I miss having all those nice drug company pens.
TV ads have the disadvantage that they don’t actually give you any information on the medication. All they say is “drug blah blah treats blah, and can have these serious side effects (which everyone ignores or makes fun of anyhow), now ask your doctor today about blah blah!”. At least in magazines we can read more if we are interested, especially in the pharmacy magazines I read that have the whole package insert normally.
But, mostly, I want my free pens back! 
I would never ask my doctor about a drug advertised on TV, because I presume that everything they say is a lie. The campaigns to get everyone over the age of 40 on statin drugs when they do very little to reduce heart attack or stroke, convinced me the credibility of big pharma is not much better than the homeopathic hucksters.
They should, however, be banned because their 3D animation sucks.
I bet you figured out that some drugs had fewer side effects than others from research on the net or looking at the PDR, right? I suspect it wasn’t from a TV commercial. If more people did it the way you did it, we’d be in better shape.
The demand should be independent of advertising in a just world, since advertising doesn’t make anyone sick (in that way, at least.) The drug a doctor prescribes should also be independent of TV. Generics don’t advertise, so ads for brand names, and doctors who might prescribe them to shut the patient up drive up the cost of medicine.
And of course there is the goal of creating new diseases. You may have heard the radio ads now running for laser treatment of toenail fungus, which affects someone’s love life supposedly (I guess if he is going out with a foot fetishist.) Admittedly this is not covered by insurance (I hope) but is a good example.
Do you need an ad to tell you to drive, the way ads tell people they are sick and don’t know it? Plus, one car is pretty much like another, unlike medicines. So the two cases aren’t even close to being similar.
So my Mustang GT is just like my Vitara 4x4?
BULLSHIT!!!
I challenge you to prove that in the next snowstorm.
This crap is about class warfare. It pisses you off that some privately funded scientists/chemists discovered some medications for something and dare to want to make a buck (in a free country) for their work, instead of giving it away.
Kumbaya Lord, Kumbaya! Fuck that shit!
Hmm. Guess I learned something. 
Major pharmaceutical companies are screwed in the US. They develop most of the world’s new medicines, but it takes so long to get it to market that the patent doesn’t last long enough for them to make their money back. In the rest of the world, medicine is bought wholesale by governments, and the government experts are aware that a knock-off brand is exactly the same as a name brand, so they buy the version that’s released by a company which didn’t do the R&D – so they can sale it for production cost only. The only way for the people who invented the drug to make their money back is by marking up the price in the US and advertising it to the general populace.
I’ll agree to ban these advertisements, but only if you’ll agree to extend the patent period on pharmaceuticals by another 20 years.
Most pharmaceuticals are developed in medical schools for free. They make a zillion dollars off of the popular ones and then can make minor changed to extend the patent a lot longer.We rush them through to market because if pharms enormous lobbying pressure. Their greed has harmed and killed Americans.
Synthroid Can Cause Allergic Reactions and Sensitivity I could provide cites of pharm illegal and unethical actions forever. That is how they do business.
Synthroid Can Cause Allergic Reactions and Sensitivity
This is the commercial I find hilarious:
Guy walking through the park with his grandkids, all smiling
Then he’s doing some woodwork in his garage, still smiling
Then he’s ballroom dancing with his wife, all smiles
Then the tagline: “Ask your doctor about ‘Happypil’”
Commercial over
It’s nuts. What are you supposed to do with that info?
"Yea, so doc. I want to be generally happy and content with my life. What about “Happypil”?
"Well, are you a senior citizen with hypertension, but can’t take “ABC Drug” because you also have “XYZ” as a complication?
“Well, no.”
“Ok, well, how about I be the doctor, m’kay?”
“Sounds great.”
“Good.”
It’s stupid.
I’ll match Gonzo’s loony blogs with a government study:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/76xx/doc7615/10-02-DrugR-D.pdf
That drug companies also have to toy about with patents on quasi-new medications is also a factor of the basic problem. It’s the only way they can stay in business.
Note that the PDF doesn’t paint the Pharmaceutical industry as a bunch of great and wonderful innovators, it just gives a practical and accurate overview of where things stand and why.
Bolding mine.
Cite?
Also I’m not entirely certain how you are using it, ( I suspect loosely), but “communistic fascism” seems to be an oxymoron.