Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Wants to Ban Drug Ads on TV. It Wouldn’t Be Easy.

The New York Times ^ | Dec. 23, 2024, 5:00 a.m. ET | Rebecca Robbins

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Since the late 1990s, drug companies have spent tens of billions of dollars on television ads, drumming up demand for their products with cheerful jingles and scenes of dancing patients.

Now, some people up for top jobs in the incoming Trump administration are attacking such ads, setting up a clash with a powerful industry that has long had the courts on its side.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., President-elect Donald J. Trump’s choice for health secretary, is a longtime critic of pharmaceutical advertising on TV, arguing that it leads broadcasters to more favorable coverage of the industry and does not improve Americans’ health. He has repeatedly and enthusiastically called for a ban on such ads.

Elon Musk, who is spearheading a government cost-cutting effort, last month wrote on X, his social-media site, “No advertising for pharma.”

And Brendan Carr, Mr. Trump’s pick to lead the Federal Communications Commission, said that his agency could enforce any ban that is enacted. “I think we’re way, way too overmedicated as a country,” he said.

The push against TV drug ads threatens to dent the revenues of pharmaceutical companies, which can make back in sales five times as much as they spend on commercials, according to some analysts. It could also create uncertainty for major television networks, which bring in substantial revenue from pharmaceutical advertisers trying to reach older viewers, who tend to take more medications.

Though it’s not clear how such a ban might happen — Mr. Kennedy has called for an executive order — any attempt would face an uphill battle. Efforts to modestly restrict drug ads have repeatedly been defeated in the courts, often on First Amendment grounds. The first Trump administration tried to require...

[Freee-dame]

Cigarette advertising ended on TV and radio. AFAIK other advertisers took their place.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Americans are addicted to their health and to having others pay to maintain it.

Health care costs were 5% of GDP in 1960.

Then government got involved.

Health care costs are now approaching 20% of GDP.

Government is addicted to turning everything it touches into an extortion racket.

[Freee-dame]

Most people do not realize that only two countries in the entire world allow TV advertisements of pharmaceuticals. The legacy media which depends on these ads is happy to keep Americans unaware of that.

Far too many Americans think that they can be obese and take drugs to make themselves feel better. Every drug has side effects which do not enhance one’s health and quality of living. Sometimes drugs are valuable and necessary but sometimes healthy living practices would be better all around.

[ronniesgal]

more like an STI!!!

[mass55th]

Those drug ads are hilarious. The possible side-effects list is longer than the advantages given to take the damn things.

[gitmo]

They’re some of the worst ads on TV ... and half of each of those ads is spent listing side effects.

Or disclaimers spoken so fast they are impossible to understand.

[silent_jonny]

[silent_jonny]

1. Sean Hannity writes a book (obviously with the help of a ghostwriter, since a publisher won’t accept a manuscript written in crayon).

Ha!

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Two Freepers rightfully pointed out it was a 1st Amendment issue, and...I had to reluctantly agree.

The purpose of drug advertising is not to sell drugs.

The purpose of drug advertising is to become the primary source of "brought to you by Pfizer" advertising revenue for the antique gaslight "news" media so they will never publish anything negative about the pharmaceutical industry.

It appears to me that drug ads themselves are an offense to the first amendment because the drug companies use them as blackmail to suppress negative news about themselves.

[Truthsearcher]

So I pay some to talk about how great a medication if for him personally.

Can I do that.

I’m against all government attempt to censor speech, because all it does is empower the government to pick which speech they like.

[murron]

A lot of drugs advertised on TV list a bevy of side effects. I have a friend whose son took Tylenol on a regular basis for years for back pain. He now has liver damage caus3d by the Tylenol so bad that he’s been given 5 years to live and he is in constant pain. I have recently seen ads for Tylenol on TV and nowhere does it mention that it can cause liver damage.

[erlayman]

Any product that is truthful and legal can potentially be advertised. The FDA could require oversight, however, rather than allowing the pharma industry to regulate itself.

[rlmorel]

I agree, but...the same can be said about many corporate "things" and I have never, ever agreed with the campaigns against alcohol and tobacco, since I view them as nanny-statist movements.

What you are referring to is a form of "regulatory capture" of the media as a result of their pharmaceutical ad revenues, which are huge...and passed on to us.

I am no libertarian, and I have never smoked cigarettes, but I have always deeply resented government forays into those two areas, not to mention ten thousand other areas, how much water my toilet is allowed to flush, what kind of light bulbs I will be able to buy, what "safety options" are made "mandatory", etc.

I have read enough of your posts over the years to know you know where I am coming from on this...we may differ, and that is fine. It is where I stand.

It is better to be right than consistent, IMO, but sometimes it is difficult to determine which horn I want to get gored by, and if they forced them to stop advertising, it would be like this in some corner of my brain if I hear they banned them:

[E. Pluribus Unum]

...we may differ, and that is fine. It is where I stand.

If censoring big alcohol and big tobacco advertising is a good thing, then so is censoring big pharma advertising.

If big pharma advertising should not be censored, then neither should big alcohol or big tobacco advertising.

[rlmorel]

Yes. I think you might see my dilemma.

Being right and consistent are at odds here.

I think alcohol and tobacco should be able to advertise. And if that is the case, I would have to allow Pharm, even though I find their advertising much more grating and, as you point out, carrying more political baggage to me.

But then I am one of those people who thinks we should be able to carry firearms and weapons (all kinds) openly and without a specific license.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

But then I am one of those people who thinks we should be able to carry firearms and weapons (all kinds) openly and without a specific license.

...shall not be infringed...

[rlmorel]

Yep. We wish...

[NorthMountain]

Six months ago: “Do you have the ailment du jour? Ask your doctor if Slithytoveral is right for you. May cause all these side effects”.

Today: “Did you or a loved one take Slithytoveral and suffer horribly or die? Call 1-800-BAD-DRUG ...”

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Sounds like an SNL skit before they went woke.

[mowowie]

ohhh that would be soooo nice not seeing a dancing pill commercial with its own theme song ever again.