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...

[x]

It will take a while.

In the meantime Izervay will have RFK going slower ...

[Alberta's Child]

I wish RFK well, but he’s delusional if he thinks this will accomplish anything. If pharmaceutical products are banned from TV ads, I can guarantee you that the industry would work around the ban using very simple strategies. Here’s an obvious one:

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

2. Pfizer buys ten million copies of the book and tosses them in the trash.

3. Hannity spends the next six months babbling on his show every night about how wonderful Pfizer’s 17th-generation COVID booster is. He even gets Lindsey Graham on his show to say the same thing.

THE END.

[Wayne07]

Very important to empower the government to regulate what information is safe for us to see. nothing can go wrong here. /s

[MayflowerMadam]

“If you ban drug ads, my border collie will be out of a job!”

If you ban drug ads, my remotes’ “mute” buttons won’t wear out so fast.

[TalBlack]

I’m absolutely amazed at the side effects for most of these drugs. You gotta really be sweating your skin rash to risk them.

[ConservativeMind]

I really don’t see it as a 1st Amendment issue, as companies are not citizens.

The US citizen owners should be free to say what they want, however.

[bigbob]

If anyone compared the damage done to public health by tobacco that resulted in ads for it being banned vs that caused by Big Pharma this wouldn’t even be a discussion.

[ConservativeMind]

“Uncontrollable greasy discharge”

That was the warning on Ruffles made with Olestra / Olean.

[Republican Wildcat]

I would completely agree with this. Some of these ads can almost convince you that you have the ailment itself.

[CFW]

A lot of deep-state supporting GOP establishment politicians in the leadership positions. I'm afraid that once again the GOP is going to be working harder against Trump than against the Democrats.

[P-Marlowe]

Broadcast TV will go bankrupt without getting revenue from drug companies.

Or maybe they’d have to improve their content.

[ConservativeMind]

On the streaming things we watch, we get a lot of HIV drug ads.

What possible website did we visit to give that an ad preference?

[Republican Wildcat]

Oh, yes. “The Center for Science and the Public Interest.”

And that was back in 1996. I remember because Rush would show those ads and it the last year of his TV show.

Same group that year released what was presented as a bombshell study and had a widely covered, dramatic press conference that donuts and similar foods were loaded with calories and not healthy.

[ConservativeMind]

No, I made no reference to that group.

I was describing my own “uncontrollable greasy discharge,” along with that of others who had more than 8-10 Olestra potato chips.

You seem to not know, so here's something for you to read:

https://www.cracked.com/article_28476_the-potato-chip-that-destroyed-bowels-america.html

[I want the USA back]

Google sez:
The United States and New Zealand are the only countries that legally allow direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising.

I’d like to see it stopped. I doubt it will be. Big Pharma advertises heavily on TV and in the print media. TV and publishers don’t want to lose the revenue, so they will publish only stories favorable to Big Pharma.

[Reily]

I don’t believe it was ever illegal for lawyers to advertise. It was considered unethical by the Bar association. Nowadays what’s ethical vs unethical in regard to lawyers.

[Thank You Rush]

YES! YES! YES! When I’m too tired to read, I watch TV in the evenings and the pharma ads take up more time than an actual movie.

[Thank You Rush]

“”and half of each of those ads is spent listing side effects.””

Half the time we aren’t even told what the drug is for. In addition to: “do not take if you’re allergic”....How would one know?

AND - “call your doctor right away and discuss XXXYYYZZZ.”

Right - will get right on that! Sure would be a surprise to my doctor!

[N. Theknow]

Drug ads:
10 seconds to tell what a drug can do FOR you.
20 seconds to tell you what it can do TO you.
And since it is a new drug, how does a person know if they are allergic to it?

[ConservativeMind]

The warning put on Olestra products was this:

This Product Contains Olestra. Olestra may cause abdominal cramping and loose stools. Olestra inhibits the absorption of some vitamins and other nutrients. Vitamins A, D, E, and K have been added.

Wiping after that first and only time of Olestra chips was like removing a bizarre mixture of buttercream frosting and liquid car wax—you needed a shower or two.