They are, but that legislation made it into law back in the 70s when the tobacco companies chose to stop fighting the legislation--they ran a cost-benefit analysis and figured that by not advertising on TV they also were getting anti-smoking ads off of TV, and they merely plowed the TV ad dollars into other marketing campaigns.
It would be another 20 years before class action litigation succeeded in meaningfully constraining Big Tobacco.
What an excellent deep-dive into the legalities of this issue! As I’ve said before, you would have made a great jurist, Mr. Kust.
Any corporation advertising a product must be held to whatever ‘truth in advertising’ laws apply to its product. If a pharmaceutical company states flat-out that their drug is ‘safe and effective’, when their own written internal documents show otherwise, then they should be convicted of criminal fraud. And I don’t mean the corporation gets a fine - I want to see actual corporate officials held criminally liable. If you looked at proof of *harm* then signed off on the safety of the product anyway, you have committed a crime, buddy and you’re going to prison for it! It’s the only deterrent against physical harm to consumers that’s going to work.
Furthermore, I’d love to see the public schools spend more resources on teaching kids to think critically and learn to judge the safety and efficacy of products themselves. Show the kids old television commercials of doctors smoking cigarettes, endorsing them, and then show the kids the lung cancer statistics through the decades. Teach the kids to ‘buyer beware’ and be skeptical of advertising claims. A society of people who can think for themselves would prevent a great deal of harm!
Product safety is an aspect of pharmaceutical products that gets far too little attention. As it is roughly two FDA approved products PER YEAR get pulled over safety concerns.
One thing I definitely would like to see is more disclosure. Pharmaceutical companies should publish all clinical trial data BEFORE submitting a product for approval. Give us the data before giving us the med. What we have now, as we see with the mRNA inoculations, is that information coming out in drips and drabs, and even that due more to FOIA requests than routine corporate processes.
Refusal to publish would mean the pill could not be sold, period.
As we're seeing with the mRNA inoculations, there are innumerable independent researchers and commentators able to contextualize the research data and foster informed debate of a medicine's safety and efficacy.
While I agree broadly with RFK's goal of greater accountability for Big Pharma, I am of the belief that the solution is to engender more speech, not less. Push for putting the facts out there and trust people to make their own decisions about their own health.
If you consider the anti-distortion arguments that prevailed in Austin v Michigan Chamber of Commerce, his proposal is not at all delusional. Extend Austin into the realm of commercial speech and bans on Big Pharma ads are not only reasonable but arguably desirable, by virtue of that same anti-distortion logic. The problem, or course, is that Austin's logic was deemed unreasonable and the opinion was therefore overturned.
That anti-distortion logic was the controlling precedent at the Supreme Court for 20 years before Citizens United rejected it.
There is a paradox in our political system in that we expect our politicians to eschew efforts to increase their own power while giving preeminence to the ambitious politicians who wish to wield power. The resolution of that inherent conflict is always to push for exercises of power that conform to the Constitution.
We'd have a lot fewer things wrong in this country if politicians would simply be mindful of what "The Law" actually is and says. The most fanatic progressive is not going to be a political disaster if he or she will simply stay within the confines of the Constitution.
.
Dear Vaccine Injured Deniers
You Will Have To Forgive Me
For Not Completely Trusting Your Assesment.
.
Aren’t tobacco companies prohibited from advertising on tv?
They are, but that legislation made it into law back in the 70s when the tobacco companies chose to stop fighting the legislation--they ran a cost-benefit analysis and figured that by not advertising on TV they also were getting anti-smoking ads off of TV, and they merely plowed the TV ad dollars into other marketing campaigns.
It would be another 20 years before class action litigation succeeded in meaningfully constraining Big Tobacco.
.
The Vaccinated Are To Be Judged By The Sickness
Of Their Behavior In Society Among Us.
Their Physical Suffering Is Not The Issue.
Their Own Government
Used Their Own Minds Against Them.
If You're Not On That
Your Own Government
Will Continue To Use Them Against You.
.
What an excellent deep-dive into the legalities of this issue! As I’ve said before, you would have made a great jurist, Mr. Kust.
Any corporation advertising a product must be held to whatever ‘truth in advertising’ laws apply to its product. If a pharmaceutical company states flat-out that their drug is ‘safe and effective’, when their own written internal documents show otherwise, then they should be convicted of criminal fraud. And I don’t mean the corporation gets a fine - I want to see actual corporate officials held criminally liable. If you looked at proof of *harm* then signed off on the safety of the product anyway, you have committed a crime, buddy and you’re going to prison for it! It’s the only deterrent against physical harm to consumers that’s going to work.
Furthermore, I’d love to see the public schools spend more resources on teaching kids to think critically and learn to judge the safety and efficacy of products themselves. Show the kids old television commercials of doctors smoking cigarettes, endorsing them, and then show the kids the lung cancer statistics through the decades. Teach the kids to ‘buyer beware’ and be skeptical of advertising claims. A society of people who can think for themselves would prevent a great deal of harm!
Thank you for the kind words.
Product safety is an aspect of pharmaceutical products that gets far too little attention. As it is roughly two FDA approved products PER YEAR get pulled over safety concerns.
One thing I definitely would like to see is more disclosure. Pharmaceutical companies should publish all clinical trial data BEFORE submitting a product for approval. Give us the data before giving us the med. What we have now, as we see with the mRNA inoculations, is that information coming out in drips and drabs, and even that due more to FOIA requests than routine corporate processes.
Refusal to publish would mean the pill could not be sold, period.
As we're seeing with the mRNA inoculations, there are innumerable independent researchers and commentators able to contextualize the research data and foster informed debate of a medicine's safety and efficacy.
While I agree broadly with RFK's goal of greater accountability for Big Pharma, I am of the belief that the solution is to engender more speech, not less. Push for putting the facts out there and trust people to make their own decisions about their own health.
Yes! Free speech, full disclosure, full accountability!
Well, was he delusional, or what. Ban Big Pharma ads. What next, ban this, ban that, even ban Crispy Creme, oh wait, I don't think they advertise.
The real objective is to ban us, the people, if we say something they don't like.
Turns out he is just like the rest of them, whether he knows it or not.
If you consider the anti-distortion arguments that prevailed in Austin v Michigan Chamber of Commerce, his proposal is not at all delusional. Extend Austin into the realm of commercial speech and bans on Big Pharma ads are not only reasonable but arguably desirable, by virtue of that same anti-distortion logic. The problem, or course, is that Austin's logic was deemed unreasonable and the opinion was therefore overturned.
That anti-distortion logic was the controlling precedent at the Supreme Court for 20 years before Citizens United rejected it.
There is a paradox in our political system in that we expect our politicians to eschew efforts to increase their own power while giving preeminence to the ambitious politicians who wish to wield power. The resolution of that inherent conflict is always to push for exercises of power that conform to the Constitution.
We'd have a lot fewer things wrong in this country if politicians would simply be mindful of what "The Law" actually is and says. The most fanatic progressive is not going to be a political disaster if he or she will simply stay within the confines of the Constitution.
Yep, they're always trying to muck it up. Usually do too.
You are a real treasure here, Substack is lucky to have you.