Wouldn't that be a violation of the Pharmaceutical Cos 1st amendment rights though?

If nothing else, we should limit the amount of advertising they can do.

You mean like continually sending bills? Yeah, that's to be expected.

No, I think we should limit the type of advertising they do.

What the drug companies have done is taken the doctor out of a doctor and simply made him a signer of prescriptions. Doctors used to listen, ask really good questions, and take an interest in an illness. Now patients come in, say they have anxiety and want zoloft.

Prescription drugs, in my opinion, are not products, if they were then why don't the drug companies advertise codeine?

We're talking about a fundamental principle our society is founded on. You're only responsible for yourself. Any responsibilities you have which effect others are regulated by the government. Which is why you're required to have auto liability insurance, mortgage insurance when your equity is below X%, flood insurance when you live in a flood plain, etc. These are all factors that effect not just you, but others. Your health and how you maintain it is your choice. If you don't choose to get health insurance, it has zero effect on me. If I don't have auto liability insurance though, and run someone over and injure them, it effects them greatly. Do you see what I'm saying? Yes, people should have health insurance, but should and required to is a very fine line I'd rather the government not cross.

I don't need Hillary to try to be my mommy and make me go to the doctor if I don't want to, or because I'm too stupid not to, or because I'll pay $150/mo for cable/internet but won't pay $60/mo for health insurance. I also don't need Hillary choosing which doctor I go to, or implementing policy that makes it take 10x longer for me to get healthcare if I need it.

The 1st Amendment applies to individuals, not corporations.

Not true. Corporations are considered juristic persons and have some (but not all) constitutional rights protected. They have a right to freedom of speech, but not freedom of religion.

Hrm, I stand corrected.

So what about Winston's or Marlboro's first amendment rights? Once again I think "right to free speech" is being confused with "right to be on broadcast television". Being on TV is not a first amendment right.

You are half right chuck. It only becomes a first amendment issue when the government becomes involved. So, when the government attempts to restrict the advertising rights of any said company, except in the event of protecting the public good, first amendment rights are violated. The real solution is to change the way that corporations are currently viewed as Jason pointed out.

No I was fully right . The FCC regulates a lot more than cigarette companies' advertising rights. Again, TV is not a first amendment right. If it was, I could watch pr0n on the evening news without government interference.

The FCC is frequently criticized for violating first amendment rights.

The FCC has a lot more control over the local stations (CBS NBC FOX ABC) than they do the other stations. I can give a big long answer on why that is, but ill spare everyone the reading

Short answer: local stations are public broadcast televsion.


criticism and court are two different things

Speaking of the topic, that stupid cunt is coming to Houston Feb 28th:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5515009.html


wonder who the hell she'll debate with if obama doesn't come...

all I know is, the last thing in the world that needs to happen is for the mother fucking federal government to get even more of my god damned money than they already do.