Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 54

Thread: RFK Jr wants to ban Big Pharma ads

  1. #1

    RFK Jr wants to ban Big Pharma ads

    I read that RFK Jr wants to ban big pharma ads. It's obviously a clear violation of the 1st amendment.

    Remember the true test of allowing free speech is when it's speech you hate.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    That TikTok ban ain't helping no free speech issues.

  4. #3

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Madison320 View Post
    I read that RFK Jr wants to ban big pharma ads. It's obviously a clear violation of the 1st amendment.

    Remember the true test of allowing free speech is when it's speech you hate.
    Man, a link would really be useful here...
    "And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat

    "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by unknown View Post
    That TikTok ban ain't helping no free speech issues.
    Yeah, most people here are against the tiktok ban. I'm curious to see how many are also against banning pharma ads given how much people hate big pharma.

    I agree that something is out of whack with all these ads. They're annoying as hell. Health care is probably tied with banking as the most regulate industry in the US. I'm sure there's some government interference that is causing things to get out of balance and that's why there's so many ads. The answer is to get the government out, not ban speech.

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptUSA View Post
    Man, a link would really be useful here...

    https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/23/h...g-ads-ban.html

    I think I read it on zerohedge a couple times also

    found it:

    https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2025-...ma-advertising
    Last edited by Madison320; 01-21-2025 at 11:42 AM.

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Madison320 View Post
    I read that RFK Jr wants to ban big pharma ads. It's obviously a clear violation of the 1st amendment.

    Remember the true test of allowing free speech is when it's speech you hate.
    Yes. Bring back cigarette ads, and allow weed ads while we're at it. Prior to the 90's, direct to consumer pharma ads weren't allowed. Your doctor would need to suggest them. Those ads have made big pharma a monster.
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  9. #8
    Supporting Member
    Phoenix, AZ
    Cleaner44's Avatar


    Blog Entries
    4
    Posts
    9,318
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Big pharma TV ads are probably the #1 reason that the public will never hear the truth about mass murders.
    Citizen of Arizona
    @cleaner4d4

    I am a libertarian. I am advocating everyone enjoy maximum freedom on both personal and economic issues as long as they do not bring violence unto others.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Cleaner44 View Post
    Big pharma TV ads are probably the #1 reason that the public will never hear the truth about mass murders.
    So you think Big pharma TV ads should be banned by the state?

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    Yes. Bring back cigarette ads, and allow weed ads while we're at it. Prior to the 90's, direct to consumer pharma ads weren't allowed. Your doctor would need to suggest them. Those ads have made big pharma a monster.
    You think the state should ban them?

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Madison320 View Post
    You think the state should ban them?
    I think it diminishes the importance of doctors' discretion when Big Pharma is allowed to market directly to the patient.

    "Ask your doctor if [insert miraclepill-icillin] is right for you."

    Why do I have to be the one to ask my doctor, and not my doctor recommending it to me? If the medicine works so great, wouldn't my doctor already be aware of it? Maybe my doctor doesn't own a TV. Also, did I go to medical school? I don't remember.

    This is gonna be another one of those hard sells to the broader American public. It's really difficult for people to get animated about the plight of Mega Medicine Corporatocracy. Of all the things I can relate to . . . . yeah that's not one.

    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    Yes. Bring back cigarette ads, and allow weed ads while we're at it. Prior to the 90's, direct to consumer pharma ads weren't allowed. Your doctor would need to suggest them. Those ads have made big pharma a monster.
    Basically this. If things worked better the way they were before, and people are suggesting we go back to that . . . I'd have to strain really hard to get upset. [Do I have to cut up my libertarian certificate of authenticity first, or do I just put it in the deposit slot and someone else takes care of that when it's collected?]
    Last edited by nobody's_hero; 01-21-2025 at 04:26 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by timosman View Post
    This is getting silly.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    It started silly.
    T.S. Eliot's The Hollow Men

    We Are Running Out of Time - Mini Me

    Quote Originally Posted by Philhelm
    I part ways with "libertarianism" when it transitions from ideology grounded in logic into self-defeating autism for the sake of ideological purity.

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Madison320 View Post
    You think the state should ban them?
    Absolutely. This isn't a "free speech" issue. We've debated this for many years here. Corporations aren't "persons".
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  15. #13
    What was Bidens EO supposed to do, price controls?


  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Madison320 View Post
    I read that RFK Jr wants to ban big pharma ads. It's obviously a clear violation of the 1st amendment.

    Remember the true test of allowing free speech is when it's speech you hate.
    Unless someone can persuade me, I think I'm with you.

    Accepting advertising dollars and running ads should be settled between the businesses.

    Let's say hard-core porn on a billboard on route 95, haha.

    If people oppose it, let em boycott the company ala Bud Lite.

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by nobody's_hero View Post
    I think it diminishes the importance of doctors' discretion when Big Pharma is allowed to market directly to the patient.

    "Ask your doctor if [insert miraclepill-icillin] is right for you."

    Why do I have to be the one to ask my doctor, and not my doctor recommending it to me? If the medicine works so great, wouldn't my doctor already be aware of it? Also, did I go to medical school? I don't remember.

    This is gonna be another one of those hard sells to the broader American public. It's really difficult for people to get animated about the plight of Mega Medicine Corporatocracy. Of all the things I can relate to . . . . yeah that's not one.



    Basically this. If things worked better the way they were before, and people are suggesting we go back to that . . . I'd have to strain really hard to get upset. [Do I have to cut up my libertarian certificate of authenticity first, or do I just put it in the deposit slot and someone else takes care of that when it's collected?]
    And we wonder why kids today are pussified. They grew up wondering if they were afflicted with some obscure malady that only effects .01% of the population. Those ads are relentless. The US are a bunch of over-prescribed hypochondriacs. People lined up in droves for the clotshot.

    And tangentially, remember "body positivity"? That being fat was healthy, and skinny people were monsters? Where dat at?
    GONE. Queen Latifah is shilling for Ozimpic, or some other recent miracle obesity script. Big Pharma Uber-Alles.
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    Absolutely. This isn't a "free speech" issue. We've debated this for many years here. Corporations aren't "persons".
    I don't know that I would argue that, specifically. But, for me it's kind of like the Facebook example. Remember when everyone here was sh*tting blood all over themselves because Facebook's "private" free-speech rights were being threatened, and a couple of us were like, but . . . they're in bed with the government? And it turns out, they was indeed.

    Multiply that by 1,000 for Big Pharma.
    Quote Originally Posted by timosman View Post
    This is getting silly.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    It started silly.
    T.S. Eliot's The Hollow Men

    We Are Running Out of Time - Mini Me

    Quote Originally Posted by Philhelm
    I part ways with "libertarianism" when it transitions from ideology grounded in logic into self-defeating autism for the sake of ideological purity.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    Absolutely. This isn't a "free speech" issue. We've debated this for many years here. Corporations aren't "persons".
    The owners are persons.

    If you feel that owners of businesses don't have the same rights you should nationalize the business.

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by nobody's_hero View Post
    I think it diminishes the importance of doctors' discretion when Big Pharma is allowed to market directly to the patient.

    "Ask your doctor if [insert miraclepill-icillin] is right for you."

    Why do I have to be the one to ask my doctor, and not my doctor recommending it to me? If the medicine works so great, wouldn't my doctor already be aware of it? Maybe my doctor doesn't own a TV. Also, did I go to medical school? I don't remember.

    This is gonna be another one of those hard sells to the broader American public. It's really difficult for people to get animated about the plight of Mega Medicine Corporatocracy. Of all the things I can relate to . . . . yeah that's not one.



    Basically this. If things worked better the way they were before, and people are suggesting we go back to that . . . I'd have to strain really hard to get upset. [Do I have to cut up my libertarian certificate of authenticity first, or do I just put it in the deposit slot and someone else takes care of that when it's collected?]
    I try to look at it from an individual rights perspective (as does Ron Paul by the way), not whether it's "for the greater good".

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Madison320 View Post
    The owners are persons.

    If you feel that owners of businesses don't have the same rights you should nationalize the business.
    Sure. Mr. Shlomo Pfizor can say whatever he wants, because he can be held accountable for his actions.
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by nobody's_hero View Post
    I don't know that I would argue that, specifically. But, for me it's kind of like the Facebook example. Remember when everyone here was sh*tting blood all over themselves because Facebook's "private" free-speech rights were being threatened, and a couple of us were like, but . . . they're in bed with the government? And it turns out, they was indeed.

    Multiply that by 1,000 for Big Pharma.
    So you lose your rights if you're forced to do something by the government?

    Back then I was the only one besides occam arguing that the solution is not to nationalize facebook but to stop the government from forcing them to censor. Everyone else wanted to nationalize them or they thought that facebook was just censoring on their own.

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    Sure. Mr. Shlomo Pfizor can say whatever he wants, because he can be held accountable for his actions.
    Do you think we should nationalize all corporations or the just the bad ones?

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Madison320 View Post
    Do you think we should nationalize all corporations or the just the bad ones?
    Weird take.
    Nationalization has nothing to do with it. You're the collectivist here, not me. A corporation is a collection of owners masked as an individual entity. It's a paper fiction. It has no rights. The individual shareholders have rights.
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    Weird take.
    Nationalization has nothing to do with it. You're the collectivist here, not me. A corporation is a collection of owners masked as an individual entity. It's a paper fiction. It has no rights. The individual shareholders have rights.
    The individual shareholders ARE the owners.

    How am I the collectivist? You're the one arguing against individual rights.

    By the way Ron Paul agrees with me:

    "Paul rejects the notion that corporations are people, with collective rights. He says that only individuals have rights; people are individuals, not groups or companies.[107][108] "Corporations don't have rights per se, but the individual who happens to own a corporation or belong to a union does have rights, and these rights are not lost by merely acting through another organization."
    Last edited by Madison320; 01-21-2025 at 05:11 PM.

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Madison320 View Post
    The individual shareholders ARE the owners.

    How am I the collectivist? You're the one arguing against individual rights.
    As an individual, you have rights. As a collective, you do not. Surprised you haven't gone the "corporations are people" route yet.
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    Weird take.
    The individual shareholders have rights.
    And these rights that they have include their right to pool their resources and delegate to a board the allocation of those resources to exercise whatever rights those shareholders delegate, including speech on their behalf.
    There is nothing to fear from globalism, free trade and a single worldwide currency, but a globalism where free trade is competitively subsidized by each nation, a continuous trade war is dictated by the WTO, and the single currency is pure fiat, fear is justified. That type of globalism is destined to collapse into economic despair, inflationism and protectionism and managed by resurgent militant nationalism.
    Ron Paul
    Congressional Record (March 13, 2001)

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Madison320 View Post
    So you lose your rights if you're forced to do something by the government?

    Back then I was the only one besides occam arguing that the solution is not to nationalize facebook but to stop the government from forcing them to censor. Everyone else wanted to nationalize them or they thought that facebook was just censoring on their own.
    Pretty sure the Zuckerbucks pumped into the great ballot harvest of 2020 suspiciously makes it willful cooperation but okay.
    Last edited by nobody's_hero; 01-21-2025 at 05:32 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by timosman View Post
    This is getting silly.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    It started silly.
    T.S. Eliot's The Hollow Men

    We Are Running Out of Time - Mini Me

    Quote Originally Posted by Philhelm
    I part ways with "libertarianism" when it transitions from ideology grounded in logic into self-defeating autism for the sake of ideological purity.

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    As an individual, you have rights. As a collective, you do not. Surprised you haven't gone the "corporations are people" route yet.
    I'm not arguing that "corporations are people". I'm arguing that corporations are merely a group of individual owners and that individual owners should have the same rights as anyone else.

    Ron Paul agrees with me:

    "Paul rejects the notion that corporations are people, with collective rights. He says that only individuals have rights; people are individuals, not groups or companies.[107][108] "Corporations don't have rights per se, but the individual who happens to own a corporation or belong to a union does have rights, and these rights are not lost by merely acting through another organization."

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Invisible Man View Post
    And these rights that they have include their right to pool their resources and delegate to a board the allocation of those resources to exercise whatever rights those shareholders delegate, including speech on their behalf.
    All the while shielding themselves from possible criminal or civil liability for the actions of the corporate person.
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Madison320 View Post
    I try to look at it from an individual rights perspective (as does Ron Paul by the way), not whether it's "for the greater good".
    I look at it from a perspective of RFK,jr making good on his intention to disembowel the corruption that is the revolving door between Big Pharma and the FDA, from within, and at this point, I'm honestly just curious to see what happens. I mean, hopefully I don't end up with poison in my food—oh wait, liability shielding for harmful long-term effects of medicati—already happening you say? Censorship of research that runs contrary to the findings of scientists hired by Big Pharma—d'oh that's already happening too?!

    I know I'm losing all kinds of liberty-credit score for 'principle' at this time but honestly at this point, yeah, f'k it. Have at it, Mr. Kennedy.
    Last edited by nobody's_hero; 01-21-2025 at 05:30 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by timosman View Post
    This is getting silly.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    It started silly.
    T.S. Eliot's The Hollow Men

    We Are Running Out of Time - Mini Me

    Quote Originally Posted by Philhelm
    I part ways with "libertarianism" when it transitions from ideology grounded in logic into self-defeating autism for the sake of ideological purity.

  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    All the while shielding themselves from possible criminal or civil liability for the actions of the corporate person.
    By way of the affected parties entering contracts that agree to that condition.
    There is nothing to fear from globalism, free trade and a single worldwide currency, but a globalism where free trade is competitively subsidized by each nation, a continuous trade war is dictated by the WTO, and the single currency is pure fiat, fear is justified. That type of globalism is destined to collapse into economic despair, inflationism and protectionism and managed by resurgent militant nationalism.
    Ron Paul
    Congressional Record (March 13, 2001)

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-12-2017, 07:00 PM
  2. Eat one meal a day and keep Big Pharma away
    By green73 in forum Health Freedom
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 06-07-2014, 09:48 AM
  3. Big Pharma Is Dangerous
    By donnay in forum Personal Health & Well-Being
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 01-05-2014, 04:01 PM
  4. Little Kid on Big Pharma Drugs
    By dannno in forum Open Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 01-03-2011, 10:46 PM
  5. Big Pharma
    By DarylBurns in forum Ron Paul: On the Issues
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 12-11-2007, 12:13 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •