4 ms·

I think society would benefit immensely from banning the advertising of drugs. This includes both medicinal and recreational drugs. Make all drugs legal, but m

by umvi 7y ago

I think society would benefit immensely from banning the advertising of drugs. This includes both medicinal and recreational drugs. Make all drugs legal, but mandate they have boring text/information-only labels, put the more dangerous ones behind the counter in smaller quantities, and let the only thing influencing their purchase be doctor recommendations/prescriptions or personal research. It should apply evenly from ibuprofen to allergy pills to marijuana to cocaine to alcohol.

Erik816 7y ago
I think beer should be considered food, but otherwise I can get on board with this.
- cwkoss 7y ago
  Gruits were medicinal herbal meads - funny to think that in not-so-distant history, a doctor may have prescribed one of several "medicinal beers". It's interesting how molecules can be considered 'food', 'medicine' or 'poison' in different contexts.
sokoloff 7y ago
I think that almost immediately ends up in a morass of private information web sites, none of which are as trustworthy as current FDA-regulated labeling. Do you prefer Instagram "influencers" to have more control over what drugs people take than the current regulated advertising? I don't.
- swsieber 7y ago
  I don't think they would. Do they currently have instagram drug influencer in Europe, where direct-to-consumer drug advertising is illegal? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct-to-consumer_advertising https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct-to-consumer_advertising
  - sokoloff 7y ago
    I would think that pharma companies currently instead just advertise in American media and trust that the word will get over to consumers in Europe...
  - markdown 7y ago
    > where direct-to-consumer drug advertising is illegal? The US and New Zealand are the only countries where direct-to-consumer advertising is legal.
  - rasz 7y ago
    No, they send doctors on symposiums to the Caribbean.
cj 7y ago
> I think society would benefit immensely from banning the advertising of drugs. This is already the case in many places outside the USA (Canada, Europe, Brazil, Hong Kong). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct-to-consumer_advertising https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct-to-consumer_advertising
- vonmoltke 7y ago
  GP is talking about all drugs, not just prescription drugs.
- markdown 7y ago
  I believe the list is shorter if you make it about which countries allow direct-to-consumer advertising: USA, New Zealand. That's it.
  - lancewiggs 7y ago
    Indeed. The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) in New Zealand has a code of practice for Therapeutic and Health Advertising (below). My father was running the ASA when this came in, and NZ and the USA were the only 2 countries with D2C ads for pharmaceuticals. The advertising amount and impact in NZ is a lot lower than in the US as our healthcare system is largely public (government funded) with a single buyer (Pharmac) of pharmaceuticals that exercises considerable pricing power, and is unafraid to change brands. Most of us go to the doctor and take what is prescribed. https://www.asa.co.nz/codes/codes/therapeutic-and-health-advertising-code/ https://www.asa.co.nz/codes/codes/therapeutic-and-health-adv...
  - robocat 7y ago
    The marketing is dispicable in NZ. For example, I loath that they advertise paracetamol (acetaminophen) as "better for the stomach" directly targeting Aspirin and other NSAIDS. No mention of how many peoples livers get permanently fucked by paracetamol. Unfortunately the advertising propaganda is successful, and people avoid safe drugs that have side effects that can be managed. Evil.
dmurray 7y ago
Word of mouth or "personal research" is a really ineffective way to discover what drugs are suitable for you. It might be better than TV advertising, but that's a pretty low bar to set. You can understand the desire for a compromise solution like "TV advertising, but you can't lie about it too much and you have to mention side effects". And that is more or less the US status quo.
- harshreality 7y ago
  Nobody needs to discover what drugs are suitable for them. This is medicine, not a restaurant menu. If you're diagnosed with a medical condition or have a specific ailment, then you can investigate potential treatments. The status quo "compromise" solution gets this exactly backwards. "This drug will make your life better. So ask your doctor so they'll comb through your medical records and history looking for something kind of like what we claim to treat[1], so they can prescribe our drug for you." Lies and failure to mention side effects are not the only problem with advertising. The problem with advertising is that it seeks to persuade people, using every trick in the book short of actionable lies and omissions, to buy drugs that even doctors can't properly evaluate because drug research is pathologically flawed. And those advertising tricks are effective at getting people to buy drugs which they don't need and which will do harm, because most drugs do some kind of measurable harm whether it's potential liver or kidney damage or increased risk of dementia or cardiovascular problems or cancer or whatever. Pharma companies that seek to extract rent from your "conditions" are the last entities you want telling you what you might have, and they're the least trustworthy entities to be allowed to get you thinking that their drug might be your best option for treating your "condition" because you heard about theirs first and they made sure their advertisement stuck a bunch of positive associations to it in your mind. "Ask your doctor about our drug instead of asking for advice on whether other things, including exercise, eating better, and getting better sleep might help, because those take time and effort and you have no time and no willpower except when you're dancing in a field of flowers like we showed you doing when our drugs solve all your problems so you should pay us rent for life for your 'medical condition'." [1] Have you noticed most drug advertisements don't even claim to treat anything specific, or are intentionally vague? The charitable explanation is that the condition is often something taboo or embarrassing, but I think a bigger part of the reason is that pharma doesn't want you losing interest in the drug before you ask your doctor about it.
jplayer01 7y ago
Isn't the opioid crisis caused by sales reps directly marketing to doctors and promising benefits that didn't really exist (lower risk of addiction, lower dosis required for certain amounts of time)? Not sure how removing marketing to consumers changes the situation.
- fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
  In my view it is that combined with the welfare reform act. Once welfare was limited to 5 years people moved to SSDI to receive payments, opiate drugs became more popular and now we have a system when the government will pay you and give you heroin if you jump through the right hoops. As we have effectively subsidized addiction it shouldn't be surprising that it has increased dramatically.

by umvi 7y ago

Erik816 7y ago

I think beer should be considered food, but otherwise I can get on board with this.

cwkoss 7y ago
Gruits were medicinal herbal meads - funny to think that in not-so-distant history, a doctor may have prescribed one of several "medicinal beers". It's interesting how molecules can be considered 'food', 'medicine' or 'poison' in different contexts.

sokoloff 7y ago

I think that almost immediately ends up in a morass of private information web sites, none of which are as trustworthy as current FDA-regulated labeling. Do you prefer Instagram "influencers" to have more control over what drugs people take than the current regulated advertising? I don't.

swsieber 7y ago
I don't think they would. Do they currently have instagram drug influencer in Europe, where direct-to-consumer drug advertising is illegal? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct-to-consumer_advertising https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct-to-consumer_advertising
- sokoloff 7y ago
  I would think that pharma companies currently instead just advertise in American media and trust that the word will get over to consumers in Europe...
- markdown 7y ago
  > where direct-to-consumer drug advertising is illegal? The US and New Zealand are the only countries where direct-to-consumer advertising is legal.
- rasz 7y ago
  No, they send doctors on symposiums to the Caribbean.

cj 7y ago

> I think society would benefit immensely from banning the advertising of drugs. This is already the case in many places outside the USA (Canada, Europe, Brazil, Hong Kong). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct-to-consumer_advertising https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct-to-consumer_advertising

vonmoltke 7y ago
GP is talking about all drugs, not just prescription drugs.
markdown 7y ago
I believe the list is shorter if you make it about which countries allow direct-to-consumer advertising: USA, New Zealand. That's it.
- lancewiggs 7y ago
  Indeed. The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) in New Zealand has a code of practice for Therapeutic and Health Advertising (below). My father was running the ASA when this came in, and NZ and the USA were the only 2 countries with D2C ads for pharmaceuticals. The advertising amount and impact in NZ is a lot lower than in the US as our healthcare system is largely public (government funded) with a single buyer (Pharmac) of pharmaceuticals that exercises considerable pricing power, and is unafraid to change brands. Most of us go to the doctor and take what is prescribed. https://www.asa.co.nz/codes/codes/therapeutic-and-health-advertising-code/ https://www.asa.co.nz/codes/codes/therapeutic-and-health-adv...
- robocat 7y ago
  The marketing is dispicable in NZ. For example, I loath that they advertise paracetamol (acetaminophen) as "better for the stomach" directly targeting Aspirin and other NSAIDS. No mention of how many peoples livers get permanently fucked by paracetamol. Unfortunately the advertising propaganda is successful, and people avoid safe drugs that have side effects that can be managed. Evil.

dmurray 7y ago

Word of mouth or "personal research" is a really ineffective way to discover what drugs are suitable for you. It might be better than TV advertising, but that's a pretty low bar to set. You can understand the desire for a compromise solution like "TV advertising, but you can't lie about it too much and you have to mention side effects". And that is more or less the US status quo.

harshreality 7y ago
Nobody needs to discover what drugs are suitable for them. This is medicine, not a restaurant menu. If you're diagnosed with a medical condition or have a specific ailment, then you can investigate potential treatments. The status quo "compromise" solution gets this exactly backwards. "This drug will make your life better. So ask your doctor so they'll comb through your medical records and history looking for something kind of like what we claim to treat[1], so they can prescribe our drug for you." Lies and failure to mention side effects are not the only problem with advertising. The problem with advertising is that it seeks to persuade people, using every trick in the book short of actionable lies and omissions, to buy drugs that even doctors can't properly evaluate because drug research is pathologically flawed. And those advertising tricks are effective at getting people to buy drugs which they don't need and which will do harm, because most drugs do some kind of measurable harm whether it's potential liver or kidney damage or increased risk of dementia or cardiovascular problems or cancer or whatever. Pharma companies that seek to extract rent from your "conditions" are the last entities you want telling you what you might have, and they're the least trustworthy entities to be allowed to get you thinking that their drug might be your best option for treating your "condition" because you heard about theirs first and they made sure their advertisement stuck a bunch of positive associations to it in your mind. "Ask your doctor about our drug instead of asking for advice on whether other things, including exercise, eating better, and getting better sleep might help, because those take time and effort and you have no time and no willpower except when you're dancing in a field of flowers like we showed you doing when our drugs solve all your problems so you should pay us rent for life for your 'medical condition'." [1] Have you noticed most drug advertisements don't even claim to treat anything specific, or are intentionally vague? The charitable explanation is that the condition is often something taboo or embarrassing, but I think a bigger part of the reason is that pharma doesn't want you losing interest in the drug before you ask your doctor about it.

jplayer01 7y ago

Isn't the opioid crisis caused by sales reps directly marketing to doctors and promising benefits that didn't really exist (lower risk of addiction, lower dosis required for certain amounts of time)? Not sure how removing marketing to consumers changes the situation.

fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
In my view it is that combined with the welfare reform act. Once welfare was limited to 5 years people moved to SSDI to receive payments, opiate drugs became more popular and now we have a system when the government will pay you and give you heroin if you jump through the right hoops. As we have effectively subsidized addiction it shouldn't be surprising that it has increased dramatically.