[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I agree, that's all they need to do. In practice however people pester their doctors for specific medications that they've seen advertised - if they didn't then the ads wouldn't be there - and this leads to worse health outcomes and increased costs. There have been studies in New Zealand showing the contrast with and without DTC advertising.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a separate issue from my OP (I don't think it's a "bad" adverstisement, I think it's a "bad thing" that consumers have an attitude that makes the OP ad effective).

But as to your post here, I know what you're getting at but what it really boils down to is:

- You don't want those people to buy the drugs because you think they don't need them.
- You want to solve this "problem".
- One way to solve this problem is to make sure they don't know the product exists, therefore if we force people to be denied access to information then they can't hurt themselves with that information.

It doesn't sound so pretty when you phrase it that way, does it?

[ QUOTE ]
It's a minor imposition on economic freedom, but I think it's worth it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think control of information, and in particular restricting the dissemination of information, so that you can prevent social outcomes you don't like is more than a "minor imposition on economic freedom".

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent post.