HOUSE BILL: Truth in Advertising for Medicine Act (Tabled)

[wxtransit]

After seeing two medical commercials that listed the side effects that were less than a millimeter tall and were almost white on a white background, this needs to stop. I'm pretty opposed to the idea of commercials for medicine anyway (medicine is supposed to only be for when you need it when prescribed by a doctor, but that's an argument for another time), but this especially has been getting outrageous lately. This will put an end to the deceptive marketing practices that are employed by medicine manufacturers.

[wxtransit]

That makes sense, the amendment is friendly.

[wxtransit]

Wait, ten seconds is literally a third of the ad time.

Exactly.

[wxtransit]

Wait, ten seconds is literally a third of the ad time.

Exactly.

This seems excessive. All this would end up doing would be discouraging drug companies from doing traditional television advertising.

That wasn't the intent of this bill, it was just to make viewers more aware of the side effects, but now that you bring it up, is that a bad thing? Europe et al. have survived without drug commercials, and they aren't more sick because of it.

[wxtransit]

I still see 1st amdt issues with this bill. We essentially have the sponsor on record admitting that this is an attempt to regulate a certain type of lawful speech out of existence. Constitutionally that is very problematic, as is this proposed bill. And if passed, the bill will likely be struck down by federal courts. See the following cases:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_State_Pharmacy_Board_v._Virginia_Citizens_Consumer_Council

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2001/01-344

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorrell_v._IMS_Health_Inc

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Gas_%26_Electric_Co._v._Public_Utilities_Commission

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Board_of_Trustees_of_State_University_of_New_York_v._Fox

https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20120824144

Well, this isn't a courtroom

What would you propose, then, should be changed?

[wxtransit]

I still see 1st amdt issues with this bill. We essentially have the sponsor on record admitting that this is an attempt to regulate a certain type of lawful speech out of existence. Constitutionally that is very problematic, as is this proposed bill. And if passed, the bill will likely be struck down by federal courts. See the following cases:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_State_Pharmacy_Board_v._Virginia_Citizens_Consumer_Council

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2001/01-344

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorrell_v._IMS_Health_Inc

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Gas_%26_Electric_Co._v._Public_Utilities_Commission

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Board_of_Trustees_of_State_University_of_New_York_v._Fox

https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20120824144

Well, this isn't a courtroom

What would you propose, then, should be changed?

All of it. 

These types of medicine require doctor approval, the warnings are attached to the medicine when given, and usually the voice over presents the warnings in a commercial (admittedly with small accompanying text although thats basically required given the volume of information to present in the brief time limits of tv commercials). Plus the warnings are available online.

Usually compelled speech in a manner such as this is to ensure that information is available. Since warning information is already available at the doctor, attached to the product, in commercials already, and online, I would argue the purpose of this reg compelling speech is not to make otherwise unavailable information available but rather to burden and discourage the particular type of speech.

That probably means any reg needs to be the least restrictive means, and even allowing the voice over, I would argue the reg is not the least restrictive means of achieving the desired information disclosure.

Muh free speech!!!

Alright, I'll motion to table, given the following concerns that I agree with.

[wxtransit]

A Vote to table this bill is now opened, Representatives please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain. THIS IS A 48 HOUR VOTE!!!!


And yes, I purposely waited until "How Was this Missed Resolution" was passed.

Lol.

My vote is Aye.