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...

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

I still remember when whiskey adds were banned on TV. Beer OK and wine, maybe.

[Reily]

Agree!
Heard the same thing from late uncle who was a federal judge.

[Dr. Sivana]

There were no law firm or prescription drug ads on TV when I was a kid. Over the Air advertising is largely superfluous now, but all advertising for scripts could easily fall under FDA. I don’t think we can do much about the law firms. SCOTUS decision)

[Mashood]

Talk to your doctor about CRAPINO. You may feel a little pressure but, then again, it might feel good.

[PeterPrinciple]

Anyone remember what big pharma did before advertising? They would hire a very pretty girl to teach doctors about their product and give free samples to doctors for their clients.

It worked better than now.

[Track9]

Some of the side effects are worse than smoking cigarette.

[erlayman]

Hard liquor is/was a voluntary ban by the industry.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Anyone remember what big pharma did before advertising? They would hire a very pretty girl to teach doctors about their product and give free samples to doctors for their clients. It worked better than now.

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.

[Cobra64]

Like everyone else except crooked big pharma, and the FDA, I hate those ads.

However, the ban would be chipping away at the First Amendment. Just as gun bans are chipping away at the Second Amendment.

[subterfuge]

The drug commercials on TV in Florida are relentless. And they are beyond annoying. Television commercials in Florida are basically:

Drugs
Injury attorneys
Insurance
Car sales

I say ban the first 3.

[subterfuge]

1st ammendment issue? How is it cigarettes are banned and alcohol consumption is banned on TV?

[rlmorel]

I believe the Citizen's United decision by the USSC disagrees to some extent, and grants that in some ways, corporations DO have protections on 1st Amendment rights.

Thomas Sowell has, I believe, also commented on the positive aspects of Corporations and how they benefit commerce in a free society and economy along those same lines.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Like everyone else except crooked big pharma, and the FDA, I hate those ads. However, the ban would be chipping away at the First Amendment.

Alcohol and cigarette advertising is already banned, so it's already been chipped away at.

Additionally, 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.

[castlebrew]

“Sounds great ... until you realize that if we give the govt the ability to block ads we don’t like, then we give the govt the ability to block other speech, including what we do like.”

That horse is out of the barn.

They did that with tobacco products.

[rlmorel]

I attribute that to Leftism.

In their cases, defending alcohol and cigarettes have been rendered the moral equivalent by the Left to defending child molesters, and the crusades against those things are universally Leftist nanny-state endeavors.

[laplata]

For sure. And difficult breathing, blurry eyes, bad itches, heart palpitations and more.

And some are extremely expensive.

PT Barnum was right. I think it was him that said, “There’s a fool born every minute”.

[packrat35]

Lawyers should be advertising on TV either. I remember when it was illegal.

Drug ads make not be on TV either.

[bigdaddy45]

Or bent dicks.

[Cobra64]

I hate them too. It’s a good thing I gave up smoking because ashtrays would be thrown at the tv on a regular basis when pharma ads appear.

[cymbeline]

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