[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.

[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: