So? As I said, there’s nothing magical about a medical degree that means one has complete knowledge of pharmacology and need never suffer some insignificant layman and their pathetic requests for more information. Heaven forbid a doctor was his precious time answer patient questions, time that could me more productively spent filling out insurance forms.
I was being accurate. I doubt I could support the claim that the ban on TV ads by itself led to the decline in smoking. The ban on smoking in public places I’m sure had a lot to do with it. I don’t want to oversell the benefits. Yet, the TV ban predated the other ban.
There always have been limits on commercial speech. The TV ads were not their views, they were presented as fact. And of course TV ads do not work ad dispassionate displays of information.
IANAL, but I suspect that someone selling a medicine and making claims that he has never gone to the trouble to test is not committing fraud. Any idiot can design an ad which is not fraudulent but is still misleading. We require a stronger metric in the US to sell prescription drugs than that we don’t know for sure if it will kill you or not.
The amount of information on TV is constant. However, you can only cram so much information into a one minute or even two minute spot. This is nowhere close to the amount of information you can put onto a website.
Both sides are able to speak - just not on TV. I’d be dead set against limiting accurate information placed on the web, in fliers at drug stores, and in magazines.
Lets look at boner pill ads on TV. What information do they provide? That these things exist? The companies hardly need to pay big bucks to get that message out. The side effects? Besides the amusing 4 hour erection one, not much benefit there. How one compares to the other? Beats me. I’d go on the web to find that information.
Things like cholesterol drugs are even worse. You’ll find out you have a problem at your doctors, and there you can ask about a range of remedies. Is thinking Lipitor must be good because it advertises really helpful?
TV is not a medium equally available to all. There is already effective censorship in that public health groups who cannot afford Super Bowl ads are consigned to the 1 am PSA ghetto. Clearly drug companies should not be prohibited from going on health shows or interview shows to give their perspective. Given the lack of benefit of them advertising (except to them, of course) why not have a more level playing field?
Doctors can not keep up with the new drugs. There are more every week. They get their information from drug representatives who are marketing the drug. They often get paid for prescribing it.
It is not as blatant as it once was. They used to invite the doctor to a seminar at a nice resort ,expenses paid.
“Ask your doctor if he has recently gone on a “conference” in the Bahamas sponsored by the Purple Pill Company, and if he therefore feels obliged to prescribe Purple Pills for you!”
Limits on speech can be acceptable (laws against fraud, libel, threats, etc.), but outright prohibition is oppressive. It does not matter if the ads are not factual or dispassionate–free speech protects opinions as well as facts.
Please do not conflate speech with the act of selling. It is quite reasonable for the state to regulate the sales of products. It is not reasonable to, when following all regulations concerning sales, then prohibit speech advocating the sales.
The government should not be making judgements on the content of speech, beyond basic limits against fraud, etc. The proper remedy for non-fraudulent, misleading ads are other messages.
I do not accept that a successful, widespread medium should be singled out.
You’re completely missing the point of free speech. No matter how little we value someone’s contribution, we do not get to use the state’s power to censor them.
Constraints that arise because of market conditions are very different from government censorship.