Too bad. News broadcasts are full of those ads, and hence TV journalists are loath to investigate the people that pay their salaries.
But they won't. Not until push-comes-to-shove, and the true bosses will reposition to 'the next thing' (smoking, sugary-foods, medicine) and then they will allow the politicians to finally block meds ads. In which case the 'next wave' will begin. Story as old as time...
The problem here is the drugs that are advertised as generally considered "good things". Anybody attempting to regulate the display of these ads would likely need to prove the ads are more harmful than any positive from the ads.
Anyway I have commented many times on the 'legalized bribing' called 'lobbying'. The dishonest ones always week because those with $$$ know very well who can they buy and who can they threaten.
Clearly the pharmaceutical companies think there's a strong reason to directly market these drugs to consumers even if they can't directly purchase these drugs. The ads almost always say "ask your doctor about..." not "think about prescribing x to your patients..." If these ads didn't do much the industry wouldn't be spending billions of dollars on them.
Thats speculative. Companies spend exorbitant amounts of money on things they lose money on all the time. What's not speculative is consumers cant buy the drugs themselves. They might ask doctors about it, but if the doctors are misprescribing that's on them or their training and not the consumer.
What's not speculative is consumers will find a way to buy the things they want to buy, and advertising has some amount of influence on purchasing decisions of most consumers.
Either way, can you draw this back to allowing or disallowing direct to consumer prescription drug advertising? Are you honestly suggesting the billions spent on drug advertising has no impact on drug sales?
It doesn't matter if the adverts have an impact on sales, if it does then doctors are to blame, tv adverts cant prescribe people medication.
If consumers didn't have in your face advertising about how this new magical wonderdrug will solve all your life problems and you'll be happy again just like all these paid actors, you think they'd still be shopping around doctors as hard? You think they'd even know to shop around for that wonderdrug or pressure their doctor to try it?
Do you think people's decisions to shop around for doctors has zero relation to the drug advertisements they see on TV, on billboards, on the side of busses, in magazines, on the radio, on websites, etc?
Do you think people would still buy as much Coca Cola if they stopped advertising?
With your logic we might as well allow marketing of tobacco to minors again. After all, stores aren't legally allowed to sell it to the minors, so it's just a fault of the stores and the kids.
Do you think we as a society are better off or worse off having pharmeceuticals directly advertised to consumers?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct-to-consumer_advertising
> Merck published the first print DTC ad for a pneumonia vaccine targeting those aged 65 years and older, and Boots Pharmaceuticals aired the first DTC television commercial in 1983 for the prescription ibuprofen Rufen.
But that sentence was worded weirdly, so I checked the sources. This is one of the two for that part:
https://web.archive.org/web/20250114005757/https://adage.com...
> While 2006 marks the 10-year anniversary of the Claritin ad, it was actually 24 years ago that the FDA unwittingly opened the door to DTC. Speaking at the American Advertising Federation conference and addressing the Pharmaceutical Advertising Council, then-FDA Commissioner Arthur Hull Hayes Jr. summarized the state of drug advertising, saying it "may be on the brink of the exponential-growth phase of direct-to-consumer promotion of prescription products."
> Drug companies jumped on the phrase "exponential growth" and took it to mean the FDA, however tacitly, supported DTC.
> 'Opening a closed door'
> "It was viewed by the industry as FDA opening a closed door," said Kenneth R. Feather, a former associate FDA commissioner.
> A year later, in 1983, Boots Pharmaceuticals aired the first direct-to-consumer TV ad when it promoted its prescription ibuprofen medication, Rufen. The company also ran newspaper ads at the same time. That was in May; by September, the FDA asked the industry for a voluntary moratorium on drug advertisements. (Ibuprofen actually went over the counter a year later.)
> In 1984, Upjohn sponsored a major conference on DTC advertising in Washington, D.C., where it made no bones about expressing its opposition to the practice. But less than five years later, Upjohn was touting the merits of DTC after its hair-restoration medication, Rogaine, was approved by the FDA and needed to be marketed.
Convincing people to buy things they don’t want or need shouldn’t be protected speech. Convincing people to take medication they don’t need is the pinnacle of idiocratic capitalist absurdity.