SENATE BILL: No ads for Prescription Drugs Act (Passed)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

A BILL
To stop the proliferation of dangerous presicription drug ads

Be it resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives, in Congress assembled:

Section 1: Name
1. This bill may be cited as the "No ads for Prescription Drugs Act"

Section 2: The Drug Ad ban
1. Starting on July 1st, 2020; the advertising of drugs for human consumption in media intended for the general public may only be allowed for drugs that fulfill all of the following requirements:

a) Are designed and conceived for their usage without the intervention of a doctor that performs their prescription and diagnostic
b) Do not constitute psychotropic substances in accordance to international treaties

2. All other forms of drug advertising intended for usage by sanitary professionals, in particular the advertising of prescription drugs, is hereby banned in the Republic of Atlasia.

3. This ban shall not apply for professional magazines intended targeted towards doctors, scientists or other healthcare professionals. Companies wanting to advertise in these publications shall obtain a binding report from the office of the Attorney General.

Section 3: The ads themselves

1. Advertisements that do comply with the requirements established in Section 2.1 must follow the following guidelines about their messages:

a) The advertising nature of the message must be clear and it must be clearly specified that the product in question is a drug
b) The scientific denomination(s) of the drug in question shall be included in the advertisement
c) All information necessary for the correct usage of the drug, as well as an invitation to read the drug's instructions shall be provided in the advertisement
d) Advertisements must not include expressions that provide certainty of healing or testimony about the product's virtues from professionals or people whose notoriety could induce to consumption
e) Advertisements must not use as an argument the fact that they have obtained a sanitary authorization in a foreign country, nor any other sort of sanitary authorization or certification that is mandatory by law
f) Adverstisements in audiovisual media must comply with the guidelines for accessibility for disabled people covered in the relevant guidelines for government publicity

2. Contests, raffles, bonifications and similar methods are banned to be used as linked to the advertisement of drugs

Section 4. Enactment
1. This bill shall be enacted immediately after passage

Sponsor: Tack50
Senate Designation: SB23:10

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Sponsor better start talking....

[Former President tack50]

Thank you Mr. PPT.

This bill seeks to regulate the adverstisement of drugs, and in particular to ban the advertisement of prescription drugs. Prescription drugs are meant to be dispensed at the doctor's will, and therefore patients should have little to no input into what doctors prescribe them; which should be whichever drug is the best for the patient's illness and nothing else.

Section 2 bans the advertisement of prescription drugs, except in magazines whose target audience is doctors and other healthcare professionals. Maybe it could use a bit of cleanup (particularly 2.2) but it is ok.

Section 3 establishes a set of guidelines for advertisements for non-prescription drugs, ie the ones any consumer can buy at any pharmacy for no reason.

I modeled this bill after a random article from a random Spanish Law (RDL 1/2015; article 80), as while I was researching the regulations on prescription drugs I happened to stumble across the law itself and it was fairly simple so here we are.

I could see some freedom of speech problems, but I think this should be more than compatible with freedom of speech in general.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I don't fully agree with the notion that patients shouldn't have input on what drugs they're prescribed, or that they at least shouldn't be allowed to at least ask their doctor's opinion of them.  I take Lyrica for my depression, which is an anticonvulsant that's typically prescribed for physical pain in the US but I asked my psychiatrist to be put on that drug because it's also helped my mother with her anxiety and depression as well as seizures and physical pain.

Also, as a clinical depression patient and person with a sleep disorder, I have been placed on a number of different drugs since I was a child, so occasionally I will ask to try a specific drug that I haven't yet tried or is new on the market.

And if a patient requests a drug that the doctor does not feel is appropriate, then he or she can always say no.

For those reasons, I lean against this bill.

[Former President tack50]

I don't fully agree with the notion that patients shouldn't have input on what drugs they're prescribed, or that they at least shouldn't be allowed to at least ask their doctor's opinion of them.  I take Lyrica for my depression, which is an anticonvulsant that's typically prescribed for physical pain in the US but I asked my psychiatrist to be put on that drug because it's also helped my mother with her anxiety and depression as well as seizures and physical pain.

Also, as a clinical depression patient and person with a sleep disorder, I have been placed on a number of different drugs since I was a child, so occasionally I will ask to try a specific drug that I haven't yet tried or is new on the market.

And if a patient requests a drug that the doctor does not feel is appropriate, then he or she can always say no.

For those reasons, I lean against this bill.

Well, I do agree patients do have the right to speak with their doctors about the drugs they take; though at the end of the day I do think doctors are the most qualified to prescribe stuff (with patient input of course, especially regarding the effects; if you aren't feeling anything you should be put on different medication).

However given that I have thankfully never been on prescription medication for extended periods of time; especially not for anything serious, I am leaning on deferring to your judgement here.

I assume you would be ok with striking down Section 2 and that Section 3 is fine? (making it apply to all drug commercials of course)

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I don't fully agree with the notion that patients shouldn't have input on what drugs they're prescribed, or that they at least shouldn't be allowed to at least ask their doctor's opinion of them.  I take Lyrica for my depression, which is an anticonvulsant that's typically prescribed for physical pain in the US but I asked my psychiatrist to be put on that drug because it's also helped my mother with her anxiety and depression as well as seizures and physical pain.

Also, as a clinical depression patient and person with a sleep disorder, I have been placed on a number of different drugs since I was a child, so occasionally I will ask to try a specific drug that I haven't yet tried or is new on the market.

And if a patient requests a drug that the doctor does not feel is appropriate, then he or she can always say no.

For those reasons, I lean against this bill.

Well, I do agree patients do have the right to speak with their doctors about the drugs they take; though at the end of the day I do think doctors are the most qualified to prescribe stuff (with patient input of course, especially regarding the effects; if you aren't feeling anything you should be put on different medication).

However given that I have thankfully never been on prescription medication for extended periods of time; especially not for anything serious, I am leaning on deferring to your judgement here.

I assume you would be ok with striking down Section 2 and that Section 3 is fine? (making it apply to all drug commercials of course)

Yeah, I think section three is fine.

[Dr. MB]

One of the problems with prescription drug ads is they usually hire paid actors instead of actual patients who took the drug. I'd also probably want to address this in section 3.

[Former President tack50]

Introducing the following amendment, to try and cover Scott's concerns as well as deal with MB's suggestion. This amendment also renames the bill.

A BILL
To stop the proliferation of dangerous presicription drug ads

Be it resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives, in Congress assembled:

Section 1: Name
1. This bill may be cited as the "No ads for Prescription Drugs Drug advertisements regulation Act"

Section 2: The Drug Ad ban
1. Starting on July 1st, 2020; the advertising of drugs for human consumption in media intended for the general public may only be allowed for drugs that fulfill all of the following requirements:

a) Are designed and conceived for their usage without the intervention of a doctor that performs their prescription and diagnostic
b) Do not constitute psychotropic substances in accordance to international treaties

2. All other forms of drug advertising intended for usage by sanitary professionals, in particular the advertising of prescription drugs, is hereby banned in the Republic of Atlasia.

3. This ban shall not apply for professional magazines intended targeted towards doctors, scientists or other healthcare professionals. Companies wanting to advertise in these publications shall obtain a binding report from the office of the Attorney General.

Section 2: The ads themselves

1. Advertisements that do comply with the requirements established in Section 2.1 must follow the following guidelines about their messages:

a) The advertising nature of the message must be clear and it must be clearly specified that the product in question is a drug
b) The scientific denomination(s) of the drug in question shall be included in the advertisement
c) All information necessary for the correct usage of the drug, as well as an invitation to read the drug's instructions shall be provided in the advertisement
d) Advertisements must not include expressions that provide certainty of healing or testimony about the product's virtues from professionals or people whose notoriety could induce to consumption. Any actors that appear in the advertisements must be either licensed sanitary professionals or people who have consumed the drug by themselves under medical suggestions
e) Advertisements must not use as an argument the fact that they have obtained a sanitary authorization in a foreign country, nor any other sort of sanitary authorization or certification that is mandatory by law
f) Adverstisements in audiovisual media must comply with the guidelines for accessibility for disabled people covered in the relevant guidelines for government publicity

2. Contests, raffles, bonifications and similar methods are banned to be used as linked to the advertisement of drugs

Section 3. Enactment
1. This bill shall be enacted immediately after passage

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Senators have 24 hours to object to the amendment, which is as of yet not numbered.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I don't fully agree with the notion that patients shouldn't have input on what drugs they're prescribed, or that they at least shouldn't be allowed to at least ask their doctor's opinion of them.  I take Lyrica for my depression, which is an anticonvulsant that's typically prescribed for physical pain in the US but I asked my psychiatrist to be put on that drug because it's also helped my mother with her anxiety and depression as well as seizures and physical pain.

Also, as a clinical depression patient and person with a sleep disorder, I have been placed on a number of different drugs since I was a child, so occasionally I will ask to try a specific drug that I haven't yet tried or is new on the market.

And if a patient requests a drug that the doctor does not feel is appropriate, then he or she can always say no.

For those reasons, I lean against this bill.

Well, I do agree patients do have the right to speak with their doctors about the drugs they take; though at the end of the day I do think doctors are the most qualified to prescribe stuff (with patient input of course, especially regarding the effects; if you aren't feeling anything you should be put on different medication).

However given that I have thankfully never been on prescription medication for extended periods of time; especially not for anything serious, I am leaning on deferring to your judgement here.

I assume you would be ok with striking down Section 2 and that Section 3 is fine? (making it apply to all drug commercials of course)

To add to what Scott has said, it is worth remembering that the opiate crisis started largely because of the over prescription of opioid pain medication in the 2000s, that then led to addiction and then the demand moving to illicit drugs to satisfy the addictions.

Putting yourself completely in the hands of a doctor is a recipe for disaster and some times you have to do that by necessity, but you should also be informed and knowledgeable about what is going on. There have been times that I was proscribed opioids and I decided it wasn't worth the risk and never got it filled.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The Amendment has been adopted.


Any further actions here?

[Former President tack50]

Well I guess this seems like a reasonable compromise bill now?

I don't fully agree with the notion that patients shouldn't have input on what drugs they're prescribed, or that they at least shouldn't be allowed to at least ask their doctor's opinion of them.  I take Lyrica for my depression, which is an anticonvulsant that's typically prescribed for physical pain in the US but I asked my psychiatrist to be put on that drug because it's also helped my mother with her anxiety and depression as well as seizures and physical pain.

Also, as a clinical depression patient and person with a sleep disorder, I have been placed on a number of different drugs since I was a child, so occasionally I will ask to try a specific drug that I haven't yet tried or is new on the market.

And if a patient requests a drug that the doctor does not feel is appropriate, then he or she can always say no.

For those reasons, I lean against this bill.

Well, I do agree patients do have the right to speak with their doctors about the drugs they take; though at the end of the day I do think doctors are the most qualified to prescribe stuff (with patient input of course, especially regarding the effects; if you aren't feeling anything you should be put on different medication).

However given that I have thankfully never been on prescription medication for extended periods of time; especially not for anything serious, I am leaning on deferring to your judgement here.

I assume you would be ok with striking down Section 2 and that Section 3 is fine? (making it apply to all drug commercials of course)

To add to what Scott has said, it is worth remembering that the opiate crisis started largely because of the over prescription of opioid pain medication in the 2000s, that then led to addiction and then the demand moving to illicit drugs to satisfy the addictions.

Putting yourself completely in the hands of a doctor is a recipe for disaster and some times you have to do that by necessity, but you should also be informed and knowledgeable about what is going on. There have been times that I was proscribed opioids and I decided it wasn't worth the risk and never got it filled.

To be honest I still find the concept of telling my doctor to prescribe me something based on a commercial weird and probably bad (telling him based on prior experiences or those from family members seems fine though) but I fully agree doctors are not perfect either.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I will vote for the bill in its present form.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Well I guess this seems like a reasonable compromise bill now?

I don't fully agree with the notion that patients shouldn't have input on what drugs they're prescribed, or that they at least shouldn't be allowed to at least ask their doctor's opinion of them.  I take Lyrica for my depression, which is an anticonvulsant that's typically prescribed for physical pain in the US but I asked my psychiatrist to be put on that drug because it's also helped my mother with her anxiety and depression as well as seizures and physical pain.

Also, as a clinical depression patient and person with a sleep disorder, I have been placed on a number of different drugs since I was a child, so occasionally I will ask to try a specific drug that I haven't yet tried or is new on the market.

And if a patient requests a drug that the doctor does not feel is appropriate, then he or she can always say no.

For those reasons, I lean against this bill.

Well, I do agree patients do have the right to speak with their doctors about the drugs they take; though at the end of the day I do think doctors are the most qualified to prescribe stuff (with patient input of course, especially regarding the effects; if you aren't feeling anything you should be put on different medication).

However given that I have thankfully never been on prescription medication for extended periods of time; especially not for anything serious, I am leaning on deferring to your judgement here.

I assume you would be ok with striking down Section 2 and that Section 3 is fine? (making it apply to all drug commercials of course)

To add to what Scott has said, it is worth remembering that the opiate crisis started largely because of the over prescription of opioid pain medication in the 2000s, that then led to addiction and then the demand moving to illicit drugs to satisfy the addictions.

Putting yourself completely in the hands of a doctor is a recipe for disaster and some times you have to do that by necessity, but you should also be informed and knowledgeable about what is going on. There have been times that I was proscribed opioids and I decided it wasn't worth the risk and never got it filled.

To be honest I still find the concept of telling my doctor to prescribe me something based on a commercial weird and probably bad (telling him based on prior experiences or those from family members seems fine though) but I fully agree doctors are not perfect either.

I agree when it comes to "telling" them but in terms of "asking about" or "discussing the merits of", that is a far more reasonable a dynamic obviously.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I will vote for the bill in its present form.

Based on this, I will motion for a final vote, Senators have 24 hours to object.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

A final vote is now open on this legislation, Senators please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

[Former President tack50]

Aye

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Aye

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Abstain

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

This is a suitable compromise.

Aye

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Vote on No Ads for Prescription Drugs Act:

Aye (3): LT, Scott, Tack
Nay (0):
Abstain (1): NC Yankee

Didn't Vote (2): Devout Centrist and Pyro

This has passed the Senate and is sent to the VP for House action.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

A BILL
To stop the proliferation of dangerous prescription drug ads

Be it resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives, in Congress assembled:

Section 1: Name
1. This bill may be cited as the "Drug Advertisements Regulation Act"

Section 2: The ads themselves

1. Advertisements that do comply with the requirements established in Section 2.1 must follow the following guidelines about their messages:

a) The advertising nature of the message must be clear and it must be clearly specified that the product in question is a drug
b) The scientific denomination(s) of the drug in question shall be included in the advertisement
c) All information necessary for the correct usage of the drug, as well as an invitation to read the drug's instructions shall be provided in the advertisement
d) Advertisements must not include expressions that provide certainty of healing or testimony about the product's virtues from professionals or people whose notoriety could induce to consumption. Any actors that appear in the advertisements must be either licensed sanitary professionals or people who have consumed the drug by themselves under medical suggestions.=
e) Advertisements must not use as an argument the fact that they have obtained a sanitary authorization in a foreign country, nor any other sort of sanitary authorization or certification that is mandatory by law
f) Advertisements in audiovisual media must comply with the guidelines for accessibility for disabled people covered in the relevant guidelines for government publicity

2. Contests, raffles, bonifications and similar methods are banned to be used as linked to the advertisement of drugs

Section 3. Enactment
1. This bill shall be enacted immediately after passage

People's Regional Senate
Passed 3-0-1 in the Atlasian Senate Assembled,