Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: E. Pluribus Unum
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:


113 posted on 12/23/2024 2:21:46 PM PST by rlmorel ("A people that elect corrupt politicians are not victims...but accomplices." George Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies ]


To: rlmorel
...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.

114 posted on 12/23/2024 2:30:16 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum (The worst thing about censorship is █████ ██ ████ ████ ████ █ ███████ ████. FJB.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson