No freedom to advertise pharmaceutical drugs?
We read:
"Google Inc. has agreed to pay $500 million for carrying advertisements by online Canadian pharmacies targeting consumers in the United States, according to the U.S. Justice Department.
The ads resulted in the illegal importation of prescription drugs, the Justice Department said. The $500 million represents the money Google made from selling the drug ads, plus the revenue earned by Canadian pharmacies from sales to American customers."
Source
I think that Google could have beaten the Justice Dept. in SCOTUS over this -- on 1st Amendment grounds. But they must have thought it wiser to settle.
13 comments:
John,
Commercial Speech is not always free speech, and advertising illegal product is one of the exceptions. I can't carry ads for heroin dealers, or pimps, if I know (or should have known) that they are advertising illegal product.
Where in the 1st Amendment does it say that?
I agree, Stan B. This isn't a point about free speech. It is about the promotion of an item that is illegal in the United States.
Are the drugs advertized in any way comparable to heroin, Stan ?!
Advertising (or advocating) a criminal act, is itself a crime.
It's too bad the DOJ doesn't apply the same logic when it comes to the 50+ Million illegal aliens that are draining us.
Actually, I think it was a secret deal to funnel campaign money to Obama.
anonymoose
Stan,
The products are perfectly legal; the govt is merely enforcing a cartel on who can sell them.
Over the next decade or three, people will realize that "intellectual property rights" is merely a a marketing term that really means "govt-enforced monopoly."
What next? A ban on news reporting by commercial networks (e.g. NBC) that describes medical care or drugs available in other countries?
... no one possesses the less because everyone possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me receives [it] without lessening [me], as he who lights his [candle] at mine receives light without darkening me.
--Thomas Jefferson
Jon, I think it really would depend on how the ads were constructed. If they were constructed so that they advertised universally internationally, then I think they would have a case. If it specificlly targeted americans they'd likely lose. It would be similar to the advertising restrictions on tobacco and spirits.
First, the ads are for legal prescriptions. Prices are cheaper in Canada though and the U.S. has made it illegal for that reason alone. Next, for those who saying that advertising illegal products is not covered by the first amendment, have you ever heard of the magazine High Times? It's been out for many years now. Pretty much every drug advocated, pictured, or written about is illegal. And last, why do I keep geting all the spam emails advertising viagra, oxycontin, and various other drugs? I wish the government would stop that, if only to clear my junk mail folder!
Why on earth would anyone support a law that makes it illegal for US citizens to be informed and gain access to such basic necessities of life as MEDICINE for cheaper prices then they otherwise have to pay?
In what crazy parallel universe could that be considered a just law?
Importing pharmaceuticals from abroad without the appropriate licenses is, technically, illegal.
Heroin is only illegal because the government says it is. These drugs are only contraband because the government says they are. Both Governments actually restrict this trade. In that way, they are equivalent to Heroin in every respect of LAW!
And these drugs aren't "cheaper" in Canada, they're simply heavily subsidized. I don't hear anyone complaining that the government of Canada has restricted the profit of these corporations, or forced Americans to subsidize the price of drugs marketed in Canada! Those laws should be seen as just as egregious as import/export laws.
It's also to protect drug company profits which go a long way in financing political campaigns. Then there are the unions which are always protected by the left.
And these drugs aren't "cheaper" in Canada, they're simply heavily subsidized.
As a Canadian, that's news to me. Got a link?
The rule of thumb, afaik, is that generics are cheaper in Canada, brand names are cheaper in the US. Usually.
Post a Comment