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

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Atlasian People's House of Representatives
Pending
[/quote]

Sponsor: Wxtransit
House Designation: HB 1205

[Mr. Reactionary]

Wat?

[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.

[fhtagn]

If it's a prescription medication, wouldn't they be receiving reading material with the product if they end up on it anyway? Even if the doctor doesn't give it, it's almost always attached when filled at a pharmacy.

Plus many of them do advise to talk to your doctor about it, so those side affects could be gone over in greater detail during their appointment.

[Mr. Reactionary]

While compelled speech through a disclaimer is generally constitutional for commercial speech, I believe this proposal could be challenged on reasonableness grounds like the proposed cigarette packaging changes 10 yrs ago. Its 1 thing to say report the side effects and another to say you must always pay for 10 confusing seconds of dead air with no voice over which would probably be more likely to confuse channel flippers or the blind. Backdoor methods of banning stuff we dont like is dishonest. And I dont believe the compelled speech as prescribed is reasonable, much in the same way that federal court found the rule that no less than half of cigarette packaging contain pictures of dead babies or black lungs. I dont buy the argument that mandating 10 seconds of silent black text on a white background is more likely to inform a potential drug customer than the current rules. Can you honestly say youd always read rando side effects on the tv screen with no accompanying sounds when you may not even know what medicine its for?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Ironically, the part that typically gets my attention is the side effects listed on current advertisements, because it typically evokes a reaction of cynicism regarding the dangerous of the cure being worse than the disease potentially.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I am not suppose to be the last post in these threads.

[The Govanah Jake]

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.

I agree with this sentiment.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So final vote here?

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

although I do agree with the sentiment, having 10 seconds of no noise whatsoever may be unhelpful, and as some mentioned before, problematic for blind people. I propose this amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Atlasian People's House of Representatives
Pending

Sponsor: Wxtransit
House Designation: HB 1205
[/quote]

[wxtransit]

That makes sense, the amendment is friendly.

[Bidenworth2020]

no, I dont support this, I would like to go all the way and ban all drug commercials. Not everyone is smart enough to read the side effects.

[The Govanah Jake]

no, I dont support this, I would like to go all the way and ban all drug commercials. Not everyone is smart enough to read the side effects.

Surely all that would do is give potentially life-saving information away for the sake of the un-educated (and or illiterate). A Truthful Drug Advertisement would give a citizen options if they need they specific substance. Though i do find friendly agreement with Representative Weatherboy's amendment for the Blind.

[Sestak]

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

[wxtransit]

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

Exactly.

[Sestak]

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.

[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.

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

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.

Yeah, to be honest I don't get why we need drug commercials at all.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Atlasian People's House of Representatives
Pending
[/quote]

Sponsor Feedback: Friendly
Status: Representatives have 24 hours object.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The amendment is adopted.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Are there still more changes required?

[Mr. Reactionary]

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

[Bidenworth2020]

well, Ill support this if banning it altogether is off the table

[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?

[Mr. Reactionary]

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!!!