1. Bayer Pharmaceuticals sold heroin [1] as an over-the-counter remedy for coughs in the early 1900s.
   
   
2. The US Food and Drug Administration did not begin to regulate prescription drug advertisements until Oct. 10, 1962 with the passage of the Kefauver Harris Amendments (2 KB) . [2]
   
   
3. Every $1.00 spent advertising prescription drugs is estimated to increase their retail sales by $4.20 (193 KB) . [3]
   
   
4. The United States and New Zealand are the only two countries where direct to consumer (DTC) advertising of prescription drugs is legal (932 KB) . [4]
   
   
5. As of May, 2011, the average number of prescriptions for new drugs with DTC advertising is nine times greater (607 KB)  than prescriptions for new drugs without DTC ads. [7]

1. Prescription drug advertisements inform consumers about potential medical conditions they may have and about drugs that could help treat those conditions. A consumer better informed about medical issues is more likely to contact his/her doctor to discuss the condition or related drugs. These ads therefore provide a helpful public health service.
   
   
2. Just because someone sees an ad on television doesn't mean he/she will rush out to take a drug. Prescription drug consumers have access to physicians, pharmacists, product packaging, internet websites, medical literature and more to educate them about prescription products.
   
   
3. Prescription drug advertisements lessen the stigma associated with many health conditions and thus make it easier for patients to acknowledge their potential health issues and reveal and discuss their health problems with physicians and others.
   
   
4. Direct to consumer advertising of prescription drugs is important and profitable for drug makers. They make over $4.00 for every $1.00 spent in direct to consumer advertising of such drugs. Drug makers, like any other legal company, have every right to make profits.
   
   
5. Without the profits drug companies make from advertising prescription drugs to consumers, those companies would have less money to develop life-saving and life-improving medications.
   
   
6. Brand name drug makers invest substantial amounts of money to research, test, acquire FDA approval, manufacture, and develop a market for specific prescription drugs. Generic drug competitors have none of those research and development (R&D) expenses. Advertising prescription drugs is necessary for brand name drug makers to recoup their R&D expenses and remain competitive against generic drug companies.
   
   
7. Prescription drug advertisements are already regulated by the FDA to ensure that they are not false or misleading. Additional regulation is not necessary.
   
   
8. Advertising is a form of speech, and it should be protected under the First Amendment. Any law prohibiting the advertisement of prescription drugs directly to consumers would violate the US constitution.
   
   
9. Advertising prescription drugs uses ad agencies, video/photography equipment, graphic designers, public relations firms, copy editors, and a host of other professional services and equipment makers. Therefore, having such ads keeps people employed and helps the overall economy.
   
   
10. Doctors, hospitals, and health care insurance providers can advertise their services directly to consumers. Fairness dictates that drug companies should be able to advertise their products directly to consumers as well.

1. Direct to consumer prescription drug ads, like most advertisements, are intended to sell the product being advertised. Such ads use marketing tactics that manipulate, create false impressions, and otherwise mislead consumers instead of educating them about the drugs.
   
   
2. Direct to consumer drug ads cause people to pick medicines based on the effectiveness of the advertisement rather than the effectiveness of the medication.
   
   
3. Direct to consumer prescription drug advertisements cause patients to want and request medications that might be unnecessary or even harmful, thus leading to an over-medicated and unhealthy society.
   
   
4. Pharmaceutical companies are for-profit business entities whose purpose is to make money. These companies advertise prescription drugs solely to increase their profits, not to improve public health.
   
   
5. The money spent on advertising prescription drugs is passed on to consumers by raising the price of those drugs.
   
   
6. Potentially harmful side effects and interactions are not sufficiently detailed in the drug advertisements. The average person cannot adequately research all the scientific studies done to evaluate the effectiveness of new drugs. Patients, therefore, find themselves requesting prescription drugs based on advertisements with little knowledge of all the relevant medical information.
   
   
7. Patients seeing prescription drug ads can lose trust in doctors and the medical establishment when it seems that the medical community (including pharmaceutical companies) is more interested in taking their money than improving their health.
   
   
8. Prescription drug ads are not effectively reviewed to insure that they are not false or misleading. The FDA has been criticized by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) for its inability to ensure that all ads are reviewed adequately.
   
   
9. Direct to consumer prescription drug ads harm public health by advocating drug use as a primary response to medical conditions that can often be remedied in other ways such as diet, exercise, stress reduction, and other preventative measures.
   
   
10. Doctors may lose patients if they refuse to prescribe drugs that their patients have seen on television and now want. As a result, some physicians may sign prescription requests just to keep their patients happy and coming back, thereby becoming "rubber stamps" for patient requests.
    
    
11. Patients may hear a prescription drug's numerous side effects in an advertisement and forgo needed treatment out of fear without realizing that all medications have side effects. Patients need a balanced view of risks and benefits which cannot be presented in a short advertisement.

(Click to enlarge image)

Ad for Cocaine Toothache Drops, 1885. Source: http://wings.buffalo.edu/aru/ preprohibition.htm (accessed May 26, 2009)

Many research organizations and pharmaceutical industry groups contend that the ads are educational, provide consumers with important information that may benefit their health, and help generate sales revenue necessary to offset high research and development costs.

Opponents counter that DTC drug ads are often just sales pitches which pressure doctors to provide unnecessary medications and cause patients to seek unhelpful and costly remedies. They say that the FDA does an inadequate job of making sure drug ads are not false or misleading. 

(Click to enlarge image)

Ad for Bayer brand heroin in the New York Medical Journal, circa 1900s. Source: http://web.missouri.edu/ ~sherk/Bayer-heroin.jpg (accessed May 26, 2009)

In 1906 the advertising of drugs was first regulated by the Federal Food and Drug Act (52 KB) . [5]  The Act gave the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the power to regulate drug labeling to prevent companies from making false claims about the contents or effects of medicines.

On December 17, 1914, President Woodrow Wilson signed the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act (5 MB)  into law. [8] The act placed a special tax on opium, cocaine, and their derivatives and required sellers to be licensed by the government.  Prior to the act, these substances were widely available as over-the-counter remedies.  After the act was implemented people could still obtain these substances through registered physicians.

On June 25, 1938, President Franklin Roosevelt signed the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (most recently amended on Dec. 31, 2004). This Act replaced the 1906 Act and brought the regulation of medication (in addition to the regulation of labeling) under the control of the FDA thereby spawning the prescription drug industry.

The government restriction was imposed to protect consumers from drugs considered to be unsafe and to regulate drugs such as barbiturates and amphetamines.

(Click to enlarge image)

Ad for Mrs. Winslows Soothing Syrup for Children Teething, 1887. The syrup's primary active ingredient was morphine. Source: www.cas.umt.edu (accessed May 26, 2009)

The US Food and Drug Administration continues to regulate prescription drug advertisements to ensure that the ads are not false or misleading in any way.

(Click to enlarge image)

Ad for methamphetamine, 1951. The advertisement was published prior to the 1962 Kefauver Harris Amendment which required information on side effects, contraindications and effectiveness. Source: www.bonkersinstitute.org (accessed May 26, 2009)

(Click to enlarge image)

Ad for Ritalin, 1987. Published in a medical journal after the 1962 Kefauver Harris Amendment. Source: www.bonkersinstitute.org (accessed May 26, 2009)

In 2007, the pharmaceutical industry was estimated to be spending $4.8 billion dollars a year advertising prescription drugs directly to the public.

In 2008, the sale of prescription drugs was a $291 billion dollar a year business in the United States.

As of 2009, the United States and New Zealand are the only two countries where direct to consumer (DTC) advertising of prescription drugs is legal (932 KB) . [4]

On May 26, 2011 the Congressional Budget Office released its study, "Potential Effects of a Ban on Direct-To-Consumer Advertising of New Prescription Drugs" (607 KB)  [7], in response to congressional proposals about restricting new prescription drugs from DTC advertising for their first two years.  According to the study the average number of prescriptions for new drugs with DTC advertising is currently nine times greater than prescriptions for new drugs without DTC ads.  The study found that a two year moratorium on DTC advertising could benefit public health by providing "more time for possible safety problems with some drugs to be uncovered," but could also harm public health by delaying the widespread adoption of useful new drugs.