Spring Break
Just say no to drug advertising
Issue date: 9/10/08 Section: Opinions
|
It's a nasty way to start an advertisement, or a column for that matter, but that's what's on TV these days.
So I have to ask, is anybody else tired of this?
I can be watching anything from "The Fresh Prince" to the Biography channel, and I'll be sure to get an update on the progress we've made in urine control.
They'll show me a smiling older man relieving himself on a road trip, and remind me to watch out for that unfortunate side effect, a decrease in semen.
I guess I should be used to the fact that people just seem to be happier once they've contracted genital herpes. The thing is, I can't seem to get past how ridiculous the actors in these commercials look, from smilin' Bob, the personal enhancement man, to the tidal wave of 65-year-old surfers.
The one that really kills me, and not just because I'm a huge Elvis fan, is the new Viagra slogan. Now I'm sure nobody on the college level needs Viagra, but I'm a little confused here.
My first reaction to loss of function in my sexual organs would not be to organize a singing party with friends - as in one particularly irritating commercial - so we could laugh together and happily rewrite an Elvis song, as they did in the commercial, to fit the occasion. Shame on the Presley estate for permitting this.
And shame on us, too, for watching.
The downhill slide picked up speed when a Republican-controlled Congress relaxed the Food and Drug Administration's restrictions on Direct to Consumer drug advertising.
Spending on advertising led to inflated drug costs and, eventually, Viva Viagra ads.
In the past 10 years, more than $1 billion has been given to political candidates by drug companies.
If you think your party is better than the other one about taking drug money, you're wrong.
During the 2007-08 election cycle, the $18 million donated was split 50/50 between Democrats and Republicans.
It's a little different in the presidential race, in which Barack Obama has received about $800,000 to John McCain's $300,000.
Now here's a puzzle: a new study by the Harvard Medical School says there is strong evidence over the past decade that direct-to-consumer ads do very little to increase the sales of drugs they push. Why the wasted money?
I'm glad this study came out because I think it's pretty sad for these drug companies to suggest happiness comes from a pill bottle.
I'm proud to say there were about 120 years of collective marriage between both sets of my grandparents, until death did they part.
I'm not convinced they kept it going with continual trips to the medicine cabinet. I can't ask them, but I do know one thing: I never saw pictures of them in a cow pasture sitting in matching bathtubs while watching a sunset.
The happy couples in these drug commercials look like they're on a totally different type of drug than the one being advertised.
Now, I don't necessarily have a problem with taking a pill to get better, and I know I don't want to die from the flu.
I'm just tired of hearing about constipation, vomiting and four-hour erections every time I turn on the TV.
Prescription decisions should be made through doctors' advice, not commercial suggestion.
So no, don't ask your doctor about ColonClearer No Spew Formula.
And remember - when it comes to drug ads, just say no.
- Marc McAfee is a senior from Kennesaw majoring in broadcast news.
Be the first to comment on this story