The difficulties in keeping consistent law.

[Ibleedburgundy]

According to a Washington Post article today ('Doctors Influenced by Mention of Drug ads' by Vedantam and Kaufman) they explain the recent success of the pharmaceutical companies through advertising on Television. Before 1997, they were banned, just like the ciggarrette companies. Discussions on capital hill to ban drug advertising on TV are negated by the fact that the supreme court sides with the first amendment and advertising rights. My question is this: If drug companies that sell addictive drugs with side effects have first amendment rights, why don't Phillip Morris and R.J. Reynolds have those same rights?

Ciggarrettes are bad for your health and addictive you say? So are Xanex and Paxil. You could make the argument that drugs are prescribed where as ciggarrettes are accessible to anyone over 18. Well, apparently doctors give patients what ever thay want these days regardless of their symptoms. If a consumer wants Paxil, they need only visit 2 doctors before they are virtually gaurenteed a prescription. In a recent study, more than half of all actors who went into a doctors office showing no signs of depression asked for a Paxil prescription and recieved it.

My point is we need some consistency in law here. If the drug companies have first amendment rights pertaining to advertising on TV, then so do the ciggarrette companies.

I'm sick of Americans taking all these drugs to make life better. I know there are a lot of unnecesary prescriptions out there and I think the drug companies have plenty of money to buy a free pass from congress. I know a girl who went from a mild introvert to an extreme extrovert slut as soon as her paxil kicked in (it takes a month or two).

If anyone has a story of someone they know who had a horrible experience on one of these addictive, harmful, yet legal drugs, please share it on this thread.

[Ibleedburgundy]

Also, if anyone has a story about one of these drugs improving someone's life, I would like to hear those stories as well. I want both sides of this issue.

[lakewinola]

Originally Posted by Ibleedburgandy

According to a Washington Post article today ('Doctors Influenced by Mention of Drug ads' by Vedantam and Kaufman) they explain the recent success of the pharmaceutical companies through advertising on Television. Before 1997, they were banned, just like the ciggarrette companies.

And you wonder why the cost of drugs continue to soar? How much do you think drug companies now spend on advertising? Do you think they eat those costs or you do think they pass them along to the consumer in the form of higher drug prices. The mindblowing increase in the price of drugs is absolutely correlated to the rush to advertising.

[Ibleedburgundy]

Agreed. And the fact that Bush refuses to let our seniors buy generic drugs in Canada allows the drug companies to raise their prices even more to pay for advertising without suffering competitive pricing losses.

[BurgundyNGold]

Originally Posted by Ibleedburgandy

Agreed. And the fact that Bush refuses to let our seniors buy generic drugs in Canada allows the drug companies to raise their prices even more to pay for advertising without suffering competitive pricing losses.

Selective capitalism.

[Ibleedburgundy]

Originally Posted by BurgundyNGold

Selective capitalism.

Exactly. Bush outlaws our seniors from buying drugs in Canada and pretends it's because of his concern that htye might be buying unsafe drugs up there (as if Canada doesn't reulate their drug industry). Now I could possibly see why Bush would want us to stop buying drugs from Mexico because they are notorious for have little to no regulation on their drug industries. Canada is 100% different. The only reason Bush forced our seniors to stop buying Canadian drugs is because he wants to help his corporate buddies turn a profit and on the back end the USA economy gets a tiny bit better thus making him look good.

[RedskinsDave]

Yeah and if it were allowed to buy the drugs from Canada and someone got sick from it, you would come crying that it was Bush's fault too.

[fent]

Originally Posted by Ibleedburgandy

Exactly. Bush outlaws our seniors from buying drugs in Canada and pretends it's because of his concern that htye might be buying unsafe drugs up there (as if Canada doesn't reulate their drug industry). Now I could possibly see why Bush would want us to stop buying drugs from Mexico because they are notorious for have little to no regulation on their drug industries. Canada is 100% different. The only reason Bush forced our seniors to stop buying Canadian drugs is because he wants to help his corporate buddies turn a profit and on the back end the USA economy gets a tiny bit better thus making him look good.

that's actually incorrect. the GAO has found numerous cases of drug companies claiming Canadian roots to be based out of Africa and India. If you're worried about Mexico and their unfettered drug industry, you should be mortified by these guys.

EDIT: Make that the FDA (not the GAO, the agency that investigates how our money is spent)...put in the wrong investigative body...sorry for the confusion.

[Ibleedburgundy]

Originally Posted by RedskinsDave

Yeah and if it were allowed to buy the drugs from Canada and someone got sick from it, you would come crying that it was Bush's fault too.

Consumers are no more likely to get sick from Canadian Drugs as they are American drugs. What you are saying is unrealistic, IT AIN"T GONNA HAPPEN. This is a pattern for Bush, who also banned certain brands of Canadian beef for one freak case of mad cow disease 3 years ago. When American companies had a case of mad cow this year, did he ban THEM? No. -Proof that his motives are financial and his justifications (claims that Canadian Beef was somehow unsafe) are insincere. It's selective capitalism. Bush is perfectly willing to sacrifice your freedoms as a consumer for corporate interests. The only remaining question is: Which CEO's are dictating American policy on Bush's watch?

[Ibleedburgundy]

Originally Posted by fentonator

that's actually incorrect. the GAO has found numerous cases of drug companies claiming Canadian roots to be based out of Africa and India. If you're worried about Mexico and their unfettered drug industry, you should be mortified by these guys.

EDIT: Make that the FDA (not the GAO, the agency that investigates how our money is spent)...put in the wrong investigative body...sorry for the confusion.

Those very FDA findings are widely disputed. Also, it wouldn't be impossible that the FDA was playing politics (they do it all the time).

http://www.aarp.org/bulletin/yourhea...-mclellan.html

[BurgundyNGold]

Originally Posted by RedskinsDave

Yeah and if it were allowed to buy the drugs from Canada and someone got sick from it, you would come crying that it was Bush's fault too.

Not me. Caveat emptor, that's what always say, at least to my latin friends. There is at least some element of risk in everything.

[fent]

Originally Posted by Ibleedburgandy

Those very FDA findings are widely disputed. Also, it wouldn't be impossible that the FDA was playing politics (they do it all the time).

http://www.aarp.org/bulletin/yourhea...-mclellan.html

if we're talking political games, the AARP isn't exactly the group to cite...

[BurgundyNGold]

Originally Posted by fentonator

if we're talking political games, the AARP isn't exactly the group to cite...

Not this week

[fent]

Originally Posted by BurgundyNGold

Not this week

haha...they're a lobbying firm guys...that's what it comes down to. they're good and can sell almost any position they take, but they're still a lobbying firm. when it comes down to it, gov't agency wins over lobbying firm as far as my trust goes.

[Ibleedburgundy]

Fentonator, all I can find is the FDA claiming that they can't vouch for all drugs sold in Canada (with fake lipitor flaoting around the US, apparently they can't vouch for our drugs either they just claim a "high standard" ) but I don't see any specific cases proving that Candaian drugs are of a lower standard than the USA. We have the FDA, they have the CMA and so on. Do you have a source that proves Americans are in more danger buying Canadian drugs?

And yes, I know the AARP is run by Democrats. They are still a reputable source of information.