Remix.run Logo
HenryBemis 12 hours ago

The politicians are getting funded/paid (lobbying/donations) by the very same people/companies that pay the ad revenue to those media. Why on earth would politicians legislate against their actual bosses? (As a real life reminder - a dog that bites the hand that feed him is put down). Courts btw don't make up shit.. they 'judge' (verb) with the criteria of 'what does the law define'. So if politicians legislate wisely, courts will enforce any 'parliamentary' and/or executive order to ban the advertisements of medicine.

But they won't. Not until push-comes-to-shove, and the true bosses will reposition to 'the next thing' (smoking, sugary-foods, medicine) and then they will allow the politicians to finally block meds ads. In which case the 'next wave' will begin. Story as old as time...

alistairSH 6 hours ago | parent [-]

They used to be paid of RJ Reynolds, etc as well.

The problem here is the drugs that are advertised as generally considered "good things". Anybody attempting to regulate the display of these ads would likely need to prove the ads are more harmful than any positive from the ads.

HenryBemis 3 hours ago | parent [-]

The ads (and it's been debated) is (imho as well) a way to 'buy out those who can keep then in check'. Media/journalists are supposed to be doing that. But when your chief editor tells you "hey, 70% of our network's revenue comes from XYZ" even if you don't want to, you self-censor.

Anyway I have commented many times on the 'legalized bribing' called 'lobbying'. The dishonest ones always week because those with $$$ know very well who can they buy and who can they threaten.