Ban the ED ads?

[Chris]

From CNN’s Bob Ruff

You’ve all seen them. Those ubiquitous TV ads where a simple little pill transforms a man suffering from erectile dysfunction, or ED, into a virile tiger who puts a smile on the face of his now beaming wife.

Well, Representative Jim Moran (D-VA) has seen them too, and you’d be hard pressed to see a smile on his face when he talks about the ads.
“A number of people,” he says, “have come up, including colleagues, and said I’m fed up. I don’t want my three or four-year old grandkid asking me what erectile dysfunction is all about. And I don’t blame them.”

Erectile dysfunction ads too hot for TV? - amFIX - CNN.com Blogs

Usually I'm against this kind of litigation, but honestly, I'm fuckin' sick of that creepy looking bastard too.

[noodles]

When the Bob Dole Viagra commercials hit the air, I was ready for the ED ads to go away. Unfortunately, they only got much, much worse.

[ohio_eric]

I'm against any prescription medication advertising. All it does is jack up the price. Since prescription drugs aren't like over the counter and you generally don't get to choose what you go on I see no reason from them to advertise any of it.

[Chris]

Originally Posted by noodles

When the Bob Dole Viagra commercials hit the air, I was ready for the ED ads to go away. Unfortunately, they only got much, much worse.

Seriously. It doesn't help that the chick in the commercial that gets all excited is someone I would have to be bombed to sleep with in the first place.

[noodles]

Originally Posted by ohio_eric

I'm against any prescription medication advertising. All it does is jack up the price. Since prescription drugs aren't like over the counter and you generally don't get to choose what you go on I see no reason from them to advertise any of it.

I've been saying this for years. When you start advertising to the consumer directly, then you are sending in patients with buzzwords to tell their doctors (the ones WITH the medical degree) how they should be treated. That is a dangerous thing.

[The Dark Wolf]

Originally Posted by ohio_eric

I'm against any prescription medication advertising. All it does is jack up the price. Since prescription drugs aren't like over the counter and you generally don't get to choose what you go on I see no reason from them to advertise any of it.

Easy.

$

[ohio_eric]

I should have changed that I see no reason they should be allowed to.

[BigM555]

While I'm not fan of the ads either isn't this a huge step toward the nanny state? I mean, grow a friggin spine!

It's not like I've ever seen these commercials on the Cartoon Network. It is what it is. As long as the ads don't truly show anything indecent the fact that you don't want to explain it to your kid is a piss poor excuse to ban something.

What's next? Why not ban feminine hygiene product advertising? Is there less risk/discomfort in little Jimmy walking up and saying "Mommy, what's a yeast infection?"

Geez, I hate the ads too but do tax payers really need to pay legislators for this?

[Chris]

I could do without the Trojan "stimulator" ad for women that has the old lady talking about how she uses one, to be honest.

[Drew]

Originally Posted by BigM555

While I'm not fan of the ads either isn't this a huge step toward the nanny state? I mean, grow a friggin spine!

It's not like I've ever seen these commercials on the Cartoon Network. It is what it is. As long as the ads don't truly show anything indecent the fact that you don't want to explain it to your kid is a piss poor excuse to ban something.

What's next? Why not ban feminine hygiene product advertising? Is there less risk/discomfort in little Jimmy walking up and saying "Mommy, what's a yeast infection?"

Geez, I hate the ads too but do tax payers really need to pay legislators for this?

I don't agree with this guy's reasoning, exactly, but I do think ED ads should be outlawed, along with every other direct-to-consumer form of medical advertising.

I mean, think about it. The implicit message in any drug ad is that a 30-second TV spot can make a patient more informed about a drug choice than a doctor who spent 4 years in undergrad, 4 years in medical school, and two years in residency preparing to get liscensed, and ever since has been required to spend hundreds of hours in continuing education to remain certified. That's stupid.

Especially when you consider how little pharmecudical revinue is spent on R&D and how much is spent on branding, patent litigation advertizing, etc, you have to wonder why this is even allowed.