ADVERTISEMENT

9th Circuit finally issues a ruling I agree with....

The Tradition

HR King
Apr 23, 2002
123,737
97,508
113
SAN FRANCISCO (CBS / AP) — A federal appeals court on Thursday blocked a San Francisco law requiring health warnings on advertisements for soda and other sugary drinks in a victory for beverage and retail groups that sued to block the ordinance.

The law violates constitutionally protected commercial speech, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said in a unanimous ruling.

The judges granted a preliminary injunction that prevents the ordinance from taking effect and kicked the case back to a lower court.

The required warnings “offend plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights by chilling protected speech,” the judges wrote.

The American Beverage Association joined retail and advertising organizations to argue in court that the rules should be blocked. The groups didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment on the ruling.

The law passed by San Francisco in 2015 required beverage advertisements within city limits to include warnings that drinking sugary drinks contribute to health problems.

The judges agreed that beverage companies were likely to suffer irreparable harm if the law went into effect because the warnings would drown out the ads’ other visual elements.

A three-judge panel of the circuit court blocked the law in 2017. The entire 11-judge panel said last year it would rehear the case.

The law is part of an effort to reduce consumption of sweet beverages as a way to combat obesity, diabetes, heart disease and tooth decay. Cities in California and across the nation have imposed taxes on sodas and other sugary drinks.

The San Francisco city attorney’s office, which argued for the law in court, didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2019/01/31/sf-soda-ad-warning-labels-blocked-9th-circuit-court/
 
  • Like
Reactions: mstp1992
Health warnings on soda? That would pretty much mean that 1/2 the foods in 'Merica would need warning labels. :rolleyes:
 
Although, I do wonder how this ruling squares with the regulations on pharma ads, where they are required to read the looooong list of possible side effects in their ads. Doesn't that dilute their freedom of speech? Why can't the doctor tell them about all that?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 86Hawkeye
Although, I do wonder how this ruling squares with the regulations on pharma ads, where they are required to read the looooong list of possible side effects in their ads. Doesn't that dilute their freedom of speech? Why can't the doctor tell them about all that?

If everyone was a self-prescriber, I could see the need for all the side-effect mentions. But everyone in the US is supposed to obtain Rx pharmaceuticals via an Rx, so doctors should ne able to counsel on side-effects.

Maybe the FDA thinks doctors aren't smart enough to remember to tell patients about side-effects.

It's even worse in Europe, where pharmaceutical TV advertising is not allowed. Since the government is the payor in most of those countries, they have a financial interest in patients not learning about new, expensive, and potentially life enhancing medications. It saves government money.
 
Surprised Trump's fatass hasn't tweeted about this.
Dude is getting seriously fat. I saw some clips today of him, all since late Summer, and his ass is getting huge. They are clearly trying to hide it with coats, and blazers, but it's YUGE!
 
When I saw the headline, and who the poster was I assumed this was weed related.
 
Question: Why is it ok for the government to do this with cigarettes but not soda?

Now I sort of agree that the idea is silly because as @Hawk_4shur pointed out if you are doing it with soda than you can justify doing it with all sorts of foods and beverages.

But unconstitutional? Why can they do it with tobacco products?

Although, I do wonder how this ruling squares with the regulations on pharma ads, where they are required to read the looooong list of possible side effects in their ads. Doesn't that dilute their freedom of speech? Why can't the doctor tell them about all that?

First they need to get rid of ads for prescriptions period. Let doctors make these decisions without pressure from patients to give them the drug they saw on TV.
 
Question: Why is it ok for the government to do this with cigarettes but not soda?

Now I sort of agree that the idea is silly because as @Hawk_4shur pointed out if you are doing it with soda than you can justify doing it with all sorts of foods and beverages.

But unconstitutional? Why can they do it with tobacco products?



First they need to get rid of ads for prescriptions period. Let doctors make these decisions without pressure from patients to give them the drug they saw on TV.

Right. Can't have those pesky patients being informed about what drugs might be out there to help them. Must save the government and insurance companies' money!
 
Right. Can't have those pesky patients being informed about what drugs might be out there to help them. Must save the government and insurance companies' money!

A doctor has to prescribe these. Why shouldn't they give their patients what they feel is best without being pressured to give them the drug that their patient saw on TV??

I really detest the attitude that people often think they know more about the topic than the doctor because they saw something on TV and can do a google search.

The I know more than doctors because I can do a google search attitude is precisely why we have anti-vaxxers.
 
"Ask your doctor if FlimFlam is right for you!"

So... shouldn't that be when your doctor tells you about the side effects?
 
If everyone was a self-prescriber, I could see the need for all the side-effect mentions. But everyone in the US is supposed to obtain Rx pharmaceuticals via an Rx, so doctors should ne able to counsel on side-effects.

Maybe the FDA thinks doctors aren't smart enough to remember to tell patients about side-effects.

It's even worse in Europe, where pharmaceutical TV advertising is not allowed. Since the government is the payor in most of those countries, they have a financial interest in patients not learning about new, expensive, and potentially life enhancing medications. It saves government money.

It was not allowed in the US for a long time. Prescription meds weren't advertised on TV when I was a kid.

When you read about the death of magazines, it's one the the things they rarely mention, but along with the internet and changing habits etc etc, when the law changed to allow pharmaceutical ads on TV, that was likely devastating to magazines, which was the recipient of probably 95% of pharma ad spend. If you're old enough, you'll remember when a magazine was 70% pharma ads.
 
A doctor has to prescribe these. Why shouldn't they give their patients what they feel is best without being pressured to give them the drug that their patient saw on TV??

I really detest the attitude that people often think they know more about the topic than the doctor because they saw something on TV and can do a google search.

The I know more than doctors because I can do a google search attitude is precisely why we have anti-vaxxers.

If my doctor feels “pressure” to give me something simply because I mentioned I saw an ad on TV that might improve my condition, that doctor should not be practicing medicine.
And if you can’t have a candid conversation about available treatment options based on information that is readily available, regardless if it’s on the internet or TV, you should change your physician. That doesn’t mean I know more than my doc, but God forbid I or my family gets sick, I also won’t pretend that my doc knows every new treatment that might be available. Doctors routinely refer patients to other physicians for exactly that reason.
I realize there are a few bad apples in every bunch, but I have to believe the vast majority of doctors will do what’s right for the patient based on their experience and education, and not because they don’t have the stones to say no.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mstp1992
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT