Should Pharm Ads Be Outlawed Like Tobacco & Liquor?

[NashVegas]

A spot for some new wonder drug is airing. I forget the name, but it's supposed to be a solution for rheumatoid arthritis, I think.

In the "danger Will Robinson" part of the ad, they announce it could contribute to TB and a host of infections.

TB?!?

WTF? How do these drugs even get allowed on the market, let alone advertise?

[movonne]

1. Yes, yes, yes!!!!

[Renew Deal]

2. Hell yeah.

It's bad enough that the chick on the screen is 1 in 4 that gets herpes with soars. It's even worse that she will have anal leakage if she takes the medicine. And don't get me started with anti-fungal foot stuff.

[girl gone mad]

5. The erectile dysfunction ads..

are by far the worst.

"Erections lasting longer than four hours.."

Hello? I don't want to hear about that!

[TrustingDog]

7. Hell yeah to a googleplex.

I am so SICK of the pharms pushing drugs on us all.

[TrustingDog]

13. that ad, a purple pill....

where a gravy boat pours nails onto his plate....
but yeah, there's a Drug for that instead of freaking common sense of what you should not eat.

maddening, disturbing, profitable.

[Liberal Veteran]

18. Nexium....I despise direct to consumer drug ads for prescription drugs.

The drug industry’s top priority increasingly is advertising and marketing, more than R&D. Increases in drug industry advertising budgets have averaged almost 40 percent a year since the government relaxed rules on direct-to-consumer advertising in 1997. Moreover, the Fortune 500 drug companies dedicated 30 percent of their revenues to marketing and administration in the year 2000, and just 12 percent to R&D.

[Taverner]

3. No - but they should be regulated

No more of this ambiguity...say what the pill is for, what the side effects are and how much it costs.

[Book Lover]

4. No, and here's why

The tv ad must have the serious side effects spoken by the announcer - in print advertising, that info is on the verso side of the two-page ad and is in teensy type.

[Dookus]

6. No

I see no reason to outlaw such advertising.

The law states they have to mention such side effects, no matter how slight the chance of encountering them. Since TB is caused by a virus, I doubt any drug could actually spread it. It likely has some aspect that might weaken some parts of the immune system.

The fact, is ALL drugs, including aspirin, can have negative side effects. We'd have no medications whatsoever if the potential for side effects eliminated any drug from the market.

Penicillin is deadly for a small number of people, but it has saved tens of millions of lives.

[NC_Nurse]

12. There are good drugs

the problem with this advertising wave is that it encourages patients to push their docs for drugs instead of adopting a healthier lifestyle.

All drugs have dangerous side effects as well as benefits, which are always downplayed on the commercials...

[NC_Nurse]

8. Yes -

if I see one more couple looking meaningfully at each other while the narrator goes on about Viagra or Cialis I'm gonna f***ing puke!

It really pisses me off that lots of insurance covers this shit for men and won't cover birth control for women.

F***the Patriarchy!!!:wtf:

[Warpy]

9. The most addlepated, unethical, blinkered pig ignorant

thing that Congress has ever done to the American people is allow drug companies to advertise their crap directly to patients.

You know why they do this, they list a bunch of very general symptoms and hope Joe Doofus says, "Gee, that sounds sorta like me!" and goes to a doctor and clamors for their shit. So far, that seems to be the case, as any drugs that are pushed to Joe Doofus via his TV set are all big sellers. So now Joe Doofus is taking a chemical his body dosen't need to the tune of about $150 a month. Nobody benefits but admen, TV networks and fat cats with lots of drug company stock. Docs are left hoping nobody sues over the unneeded drugs their patients insist on taking, and the patients are taking selective poisons they don't need.

Drug companies now spend two dollers on advertising their shit to every dollar they spend on research.

The sooner this ridiculous legislation is overturned, the better.

[Malva Zebrina]

10. the onus should not be on us to "ask our doctor"

the onus is on the doctor to know about these drugs. The concentration of advertising should be aimed at the professional and not upon us.

The only reason for this si so that people will invest in Pharam companies,imo

I have a neighbor who is wealthy who told me that if it were not for the ads,people would not know about the drugs

Well duh

Is it not up to a doctor to know aobut the drugs? Or are we being shunted to "our pharmacist" in order to know anything about the drugs we take

It is getting absolutely absurd.

and we have not gotten into the costs to the average person and above all the seniors, here.

[TrustingDog]

14. physician, heal thyself of corporate whoredom. n/t

[Hamlette]

11. limit advertising or stop subsidy to drug companies

we allow them to charge outrageous prices in the US because they will use the profits for R&D. Istead they use it for advertising.

Let 'em advertise all they want but tell 'em they have to compete like everyone else including the ability of US residents to buy from overseas. Or, they can have the price protection and the use the money, as intended, for R&D.

I am SO sick of the erectile disfunction commericals. Enough already. (Especially the ones that make it sound like he does it for his woman. Please.)

[TrustingDog]

15. the cover of the widest bases is what they're after...

the pharms. and how wider can it be than something sexual.

the question still remains.... why is Viagra needed? what's so bloodly wrong with something so simply natural? stress, bad food, yada yada...

[Warpy]

23. Impotence and baldness treatments are high priorities for

the drug companies, but did you know that not a single new antibiotic is undergoing tests and trials? These bastards don't care if we die, as long as we do it with a hardon.

New antibiotics should be a priority, since the bugs are fighting back and becoming resistant to the ones we have now. However, antibiotics are typically taken for three weeks or less and there isn't the kind of profit in them that there is in a drug that has to be taken for the rest of one's life.

How do I hate these bastards? Gee, let me count the ways...

[Liberal Veteran]

16. Yes. Pharmaceutical companies spend an inordinate amount of money...

...on advertising their products on radio, TV, and magazines.

Since the restrictions have been lifted, the advertising budgets for drugs now outstrip R&D and we the public end up paying higher prescription prices as a result.

The drug industry’s top priority increasingly is advertising and marketing, more than R&D. Increases in drug industry advertising budgets have averaged almost 40 percent a year since the government relaxed rules on direct-to-consumer advertising in 1997. Moreover, the Fortune 500 drug companies dedicated 30 percent of their revenues to marketing and administration in the year 2000, and just 12 percent to R&D.

[NashVegas]

17. And We're Footing the Bill

to be marketed to.

Arrrrrghhh.

Whomever wrote the "Happy Fun Ball" spot was a prophet.

[lanparty]

20. This is a simplistic analysis.

Just because drug prices started to skyrocket at EXACTLY the same time that Congress lifted the ban on advertising prescription drugs doesn't necessarily mean that one caused the other.

But it's a pretty fucking good indication.

[PA Democrat]

26. And that is exactly why we pay MORE for our drugs

than people in other countries. The US and New Zealand are the ONLY TWO countries in the world that allow direct consumer marketing.

Did you know that Viagra has a special savings plan for frequent users? I can just imagine the next commercial....a bunch of guys sitting around bragging about how many "punches" they have on their Viagra savings club card.:crazy:

[lanparty]

19. Yes ...

Those and feminine hygiene products ...


"There on every station,
A virtual invasion of feminine hygiene ads ....

Why do we have to view,
that stuff that girls go through,
it really gets my stomach reeling.

Let's give those ads we see,
A hys-ter-ec-tomy,
Or at least,
Make them more appealing!!!!

It's feminine hygiene
uh-uh-uh-uh ....."

[napi21]

21. Absolutely! Millions on ad for stuff you can't buy is insane!

If you need a prescription for it, it shouldn't ever hit the airwaves, PERIOD! The drug houses use all kind of BS excuses to justify these ads. They educate the public. They explain to people that there is a cure for thir problem. BS! Are they telling people their Drs don't know how to treat them?

This is one of the reasons drug pricing is what it is.

Go back to 1965 and make it go away.

[MaineDem]

22. Absolutely!

And then lower the cost of meds.

[Neecy]

24. yes, to a lot of crap

Why is Janet Jackson's boob so evil, yet we're deluged with "Smiling Bob" advertising which is filled with innuendo about having a big dick?

Oh...because big corporations don't make *money* off of Janet's boob. If there's a profit, there's no limit to crass and crude garbage that's pushed on the public.

[leftistagitator]

25. Yes.

If you are felling unwell, tell your doctor and s/he will tell you what you should take. That always irks me, "Ask your doctor if Zupriphinol is right for you", no, tell your doctor your problems and they will tell you what drug is right for you. Most of the time these new pills don't work any better than older ones with expired patents, and they're just trying to pressure you into wasting money by asking for the most expensive medicine available. Your doctor is specifically trained on how to cure disease and ease suffering; they don't need their patients to "help them" by looking out for miracle cures they saw on TV.

[KittyWampus]

27. Advertising Works By Brainwashing People

Convincing people that they need this product to function.

It is unethical to "sell" Americans a medicinal product when they have little or no knowledge of medicine.

Since people can't make an informed choice about whether they need a product to function- it is blatant manipulation showing the drug advertisements anyway.

[DrWeird]

28. In the claymation gremlin commercial...

the little gum disease gremlin (or whatever) gets comically and repeatedly run over by a giant pill while the announcer lists the side effects.

It's rather obviously a distraction to keep people from paying attention.

[Liberal Classic]

29. No

And in fact I believe we're wrong to outlaw tobacco and liquor ads.

I honestly believe those so-called Truth (tm) ads are some of the more sanctomonious on television. No one makes you smoke or drink.