Would you like to see prescription drug commercials not allowed on TV?

works for me.

I listen to BOB. he plays everything...

(and NPR of course)

I'm personally offended by any time/money spent by our legislative bodies on anything so trivial as whether or not the pharmaceutical industry can/should be allowed to market to individuals. If they have time to waste on this **** we should call them all home.

And PBS, supported as it is by "the best cancer care anywhere" - if cancer hospitals can advertise, why not the drugmakers?!

Yeah, they banned advertising on wine, cigarettes, coffee - and it turns out all of these are better for your health than any of the cancer drugs or the cancer hospitals that administer them: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=prescription-coffee-and-cigarettes

That's another reason for the opposition to "health care reform" - the state will pay (it says, using our money, of course) and therefore it has the right to interfere in what it thinks is prevailing medical wisdom. So much of that "medical wisdom" has turned out to be wrong and made people sicker.

I'm generally offended by all nanny state legislation - be it about seatbelts, handguns, drinking, smoking, eating fatty foods, whatever.

of course you know Helen, I will never agree with you but yes you are right.

I'm conflicted. Usually, these commercials do not contain enough information for patients to understand the trade-offs between existing medications and the advertised ones. That's what the doctors hate. The other side is that all doctors are not current with all the new medications on the market and I don't have any issues with the patient being an active advocate on his own behalf when it comes to his medical care. The same doctors who dislike medical advertisments probably hate the Internet because it allows people to research their symptoms and possibly come to the wrong conclusions, but I think the Internet is an amazing resource when you have medical questions. Advertising may be annoying, but it is often informative and the more information people have, the better end result they get from their doctor visits. As annoying as it is, I think many people who were suffering in silence have seen the light about their erectile dysfunction.

As has been pointed out, congress should focus on more important issues - ( like finding out if Roger Clemens took steroids).

Clemens has only himself to blame - Congress wasn't planning on a hearing but he foolishly insisted he wanted to "clear his name". Very, very stupid:
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/08/19/clemens-insisted-on-hearing-that-led-to-indictment.html

Like congress should be engaged in the situation.

They're innocent on that particular issue - once Clemens started insisting on a hearing, Congress couldn't deny him one.

Bull hockey.

Your opinion on Clemens v US Congress is a wonderful example of free speech. Never let demonstrable facts interfere with it

Really?

When do I get my hearing?

I'm willing to wear some revealing clothing and I can be very humorous.

I am quite willing to engage in witty banter with Mitch McConnell or Jim DeMint. I think I could hold my own with those two.

High Seas,

I agree. I am generally offended by many of your comments, but don't think they should be illegal.

With the unemployment rate alarmingly high already, I'm concerned about the impact banning these commercials will have on square-jawed, lush-eyebrowed, 50-something actors with perfectly symmetrical teeth and their silverhaired female counterparts in their flowing white beach gowns.

not to mention matching bathtub sales...

I hope you understand your point. I certainly don't.

I find those ads pretty funny; they describe all the possible side affects that can be worse than what the drug claims to cure.

I agree, of course. But wouldn't this be an FCC matter?

I really hate disagreeing with Dys, but I do not think drugs that require a prescription should be marketed to an uneducated public. It is inappropriate and potentially dangerous.