this is an outrage! - what an enormous waste of time and energy not to mention resources... Weinstein needs to be stopped - he has gone too far this time!
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/070121/lasu002.html?.v=2
Printable View
this is an outrage! - what an enormous waste of time and energy not to mention resources... Weinstein needs to be stopped - he has gone too far this time!
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/070121/lasu002.html?.v=2
Which ads are they talking about, and how specifically have they led to the spread of HIV and other STDs? Weird...
This isnt the first time, i beleive the same group sued a year or two back also for a similar thing although the name of the company they sued escapes me at the present time.
Regards,
Lee
in short, Mr. Weinstein argues that the use of erectile enhancement drugs, such as viagra, stimulate promiscuity among men who have sex with men, which leads to crystal meth thus leading to HIV infection, etc. etc....
The man is off target and has launched several negative ad campaigns throughout the country that have enraged various HIV/AIDS groups and medical professionals
our group has been fighting to stop is rant from the position of power he has assumed through the AHF or AIDS HEALTHCARE FOUNDATION
He is wasting valuable non-profit assets
I saw that yesterday and wasn't sure whether to laugh or shake my head. :rolleyes:
it's mindboggling. i keep typing things and then starting over because it's so insane.
Well, I don't know about all this, but I do know this: Viagra makes me REALLY horny! LOL! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by A_DeAngelo
If I understand correctly, the argument is that Pfizer is, through these ads, marketing Viagra as a "lifestyle" drug, in a class similar to illegal drugs, rather than a drug to treat a medical condition.
Which, Pfizer's denials to the contrary, is absolutely true. Viagra when it was first introduced was sold as an "erectile dysfunction" (another name for impotence) treatment. My guess is that Pfizer figured out that there weren't enough impotent people around to make the sales numbers they wanted, so they repositioned their marketing to sell it as something that will make sex better.
Now... I think that the argument being made is pretty thin. Essentially, I think they're arguing that encouraging people to use Viagra to enhance sex is encouraging sexual behavior, which inherently encourages unsafe sexual behavior. THAT argument is bullshit.
Some of our models, none of whom have erectile dysfunction, have told us that Viagra and Cialis do give them more intense erections, and do enhance sexual pleasure, so it's obvious that the drug has a place as a sexual enhancement. But FDA hasn't approved its sale for that purpose, and I think that's the argument that AHF is using.
I agree with Tony, it's a huge waste of nonprofit resources. If they really want to do something to curb HIV, they need to decrease the availability of crystal meth. I've heard from a lot of people that Tina does, in fact, cause or encourage you to throw your responsibility out the window and just have sex, and it seems a lot of the guys with HIV claim to have done meth and then gone on a sexual frenzy. No firsthand experience, so I can't say, but I've heard that enough times to assume there must be some truth.
all but one of my friends who are positive were doing crystal when they decided to have unprotected sex :(
However....Quote:
Originally Posted by gaybucks_chip
Viagra and Cialis commercials on TV that i have seen do in fact allude to the fact that men with ED can have a more 'active' sex life and i would presume that these ads dont state they shouldnt be used as a stimulant for non-medical purposes so im guessing, even though this case is BS, this is where the case will be won.
Remember a few years back...
McDonalds didnt have a label on their coffee cups 'waring contents may be hot' these cups were ONLY used for hot coffee, they lost the lawsuit and now all coffee cups have a 'hot' warning on them.
Regards,
Lee
I'll say this...
I've known a few guys who have been on every recreational drug going and it kills their boner. they take Viagra to try to coounteract that.
They then have had unprotected sex because of their drug induced state
Now, having bareback sex with people you don't know is stupid... it's their problem.
But I think that promoting Viagra as a recreational drug is pretty irresponsible.
yeah? and good luck with Viagra working to counter most party drugs - can't do - doesn't work to counter the negative effects of crystal...Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasun
this story is truly amazing and is unfolding as I write - woah! this is BIG and ultra stupid (in my opinion - which of course, I reserve the right to change at any time!) - this has really ruffled a lot of feathers and should be interesting to see how it all plays out - is most definately not going over well in NY, SF and LA
which is why I said he would "try" to counteract the effects.Quote:
Originally Posted by A_DeAngelo
I still think that promoting ANY drug as a recreational one is irresponsible.
nobody is promoting Viagra as a promotional drugQuote:
Originally Posted by Jasun
as a recreational drug?Quote:
Originally Posted by A_DeAngelo
Those ads sure look like it to me.
I think it should be interesting to see what happens as Viagra becomes easier to get. I just saw an item on the news the other day that says that it may become available without a prescription soon. If that happens, it will definitely be interesting to see how that plays out in the gay community. Still, Viagra does not impede one's judgment. I know; I take it on occasion. Prescription drugs are not in the same class as street drugs. Viagra doesn't make anyone bareback. Crystal, on the other hand, might.
As IFQuote:
Originally Posted by XXXWriterDude
fill in the blank
AS IF men NEEDED a lil blue pill to get horny!
$0.02
OK. This is true. Men are always "horny." But there is sometimes a disconnect between wanting to have sex and being able to perform. I know lots of gay men who have trouble sustaining erections during sex. Not all the time, but here and there. There are a lot of issues surrounding sexuality in the gay male community that prevent gay men from performing to the best of their abilities. It's happened to me on occasion; mostly it's been nerves. Like if I'm dating someone new who I really like and want to impress. I get way anxious over the sex. Just the way I'm wired, I guess. Shit happens. Thank God for Viagra! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Madame0120
an excerpt from our stand against Weinstein...
"Many more Gay men’s sexual functioning is affected by HIV medication, HIV illnesses and by anti-Gay stigma them by meth use. Weinstein knows this but doesn’t care because he also knows that in the current sexually repressive climate he can get mileage and money by raising the demons of Gay men having sex and spreading AIDS. So Weinstein feels that his anti-Viagra campaign will create a perfect storm for his aggrandizement and enrichment. He will find that this perfect storm will engulf him in ways that has not anticipated."
Al Benson
for RealPrevention
and now, Weinstein is getting the attention he wants...the evening news is airing the story
Am I missing something here....of course it makes them horny and the whole purpose of Viagra is for recreational purposes...and, well, porn models.Quote:
Originally Posted by XXXWriterDude
Those jerks over at the AHCF are a bunch of publicity seeking nuts. Someone needs to straighten them out.
As Tony said, the cost of such a lawsuit takes money out of the pockets of the guys living with HIV/AIDS which is where the money donated to AHCF is supposed to be going. But they would rather pay big salaries to themselves and garner publicity.
Bill
Should caffeinated beverages like coffee be promoted recreationally? Or sugar? Those are extremely addictive drugs. And they cause all kinds of health problems like diabetes, obesity, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasun
I think it is fascinating - people critical of the Religious Right certainly are free to suggest their opinion of correct or incorrect behaviour.
And how important is the First Amendment to you? Why can't Pfizer talk about their legal products in these kinds of ways. It's honest. Viagra is a pretty darn good recreational drug. Or is Pfizer just different because they have a pot of money?
If you ran a pay porn site and one of your members decided to break their relationship, dump their boyfirend and have lots of risky, promiscuous sex, would you be equally liable as Pfizer is alleged to be in this case?
Steve
Welllll... there is a very long, established history about limiting medical and marketing claims, and as far as I know, this was pretty much put to bed years ago as far as First Amendment issues go.Quote:
Originally Posted by desslock
If an item is a prescription drug, and it is marketed for recreational uses, that is a violation of FTC regulations. Without those limitations in effect, you can bet that the makers of Oxycontin, Adderal, and Ritalin (among many others) would be marketing them "for a good time" and encouraging addicts.
I'm not against capitalism -- since I am essentially one -- but I do think that certain curbs and restrictions are appropriate. Limiting the claims made by drugs and supplements is one area that I don't have a problem with the restriction of speech, because it's a pretty well carved out exclusion that has not led to further erosions of the first amendment (at least, as far as I know.)
Oh boy! Am I ever glad I married a straight guy! :innocent:Quote:
Originally Posted by XXXWriterDude
Ya me too :humble:Quote:
Originally Posted by Madame0120
I just want to check something here...
This is a thread about Viagra being sued because their product is being used as a recreational drug, even though, the contention of this thread is that Viagra isnt being used as a recreational drug and this lawsuit is frivolous.
But right now we're saying that Viagra is being and should be, used as a recreational drug and they shouldnt be sued because of that?
Yep, that pretty much sums it up, only on GWW could we have people arguing that both sides of a lawsuit wrong, whilst also admitting that both sides of the lawsuit are right LOL
Regards,
Lee
Actually Lee, Weinstein has brought this suit upon Pfizer claiming that the drug company is contributing to the spread of HIV - this is a serious chargeQuote:
Originally Posted by Lee
Weinstein argues that the drug (that his clinic prescribes and dispenses) is used for recreational purposes which leads to the spread of HIV
If he (Weinstein) feels so strongly about this, then he should stop having his physicians prescribe the meds and he should stop his pharmacy from dispensing it before he goes as far as to spend tax payers money (yes, we all are supporting this cause) and our valuable time to argue this absurd and unsubstantiated charge... that's all...
Perhaps you missed the replies above where people have actually stated they know for a fact that Viagra is being used as a recreational drug?Quote:
Originally Posted by A_DeAngelo
In which case, i would hardly say the lawsuit was unsubstantiated, or absurd.
Regards,
Lee
no Lee, I have missed nothing... don't be so RUDE!Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee
the point is simple Pfizer is not advertising this medication as a recreational drug
As i stated above, they are also not, not advertising it as a recreational drug.Quote:
Originally Posted by A_DeAngelo
Dont forget, most Americans are dumb, unless they are told not to do something (like the 'warning this cup is hot, dont spill it on yourself' lawsuit several years ago) then they will do it.
The fact that anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that a coffee is hot is neither here nor there, one of the dumb Americans burnt themselves, sued, and McDonalds learnt the hard way that they should have been telling people that coffee was hot.... Even though for most of us, common sense dictates that yes, coffee is in fact hot LOL
Just like common sense tells most of us that prescription drugs shouldnt be abused, or used recreationally, its the dumb ones that dont have common sense we need to watch out for.
We live in a society where anyone can sue anyone, for anything they like, with or without merit to the lawsuit, this guy is just taking advantage of that, in a case which for all intents and purposes, he'll most likely win because Pfizer hasnt been telling people NOT to use Viagra for recreational uses.
Regards,
Lee
Viagra makes it easier for a lot of guys to wear / keep it up while wearing condoms, so maybe you could argue the converse of their claim.
it is a fact Viagra is used as recreational drug at gay parties/clubs
I know people who tend to go into the trashier side of the gay lifestyle and have said that guys first get high on meth /insert any hardcore drug name here you want/ then because they can't keep it up, or get it up at all, load up on Viagra so they can fuck.
Viagra getting passed around in clubs or being bought by the pill, at parties, etc etc etc
It's the new fad drug and my guess is it has to do with the changed ads which is around the time when it became more and more popular with the druggies and even easier to buy online and elsewhere
Viagra is sooooo 2003. Cialis kicks Viagra's ass!
Yes. I realize that I missed the whole point of this thread. :D
.
One thing though... if they make it an over-the-counter drug, the levels of spam that everyone receives will drop by about 50% :)
he's not going to win - I can guarantee that!
If people can get and sustain erections, why would they have any need to take Viagra recreationally? I suppose if they just wanted to fuck all night long, but honestly, Viagra doesn't have that effect on me. I wish! :)
This is a multi-faceted issue. Here's my two bits:
1. Viagra a Ciailis ARE used by men - gay and straight - who are not impotent so they can get and keep a boner. I would venture to say that the most common anti-boner drug is alcohol and that plenty of guys have experimented with popping a Viagra/Ciailis to counter "beer-dick".
2. I don't think there's anything "wrong" with taking a boner-enhancing drug per se.
3. The suit is misguided because (and I have no proof of this but) for every guy who takes a Viagra and fucks bareback while on some heavy duty drug, there is another who takes it so he can still fuck with a condom while he's drunk or high.
4. Pfizer may not be BLATANTLY marketing Viagra as a recreational drug but it is very obvious that it is marketing it to men who are not impotent (for instance urinal ads in bars catering to 20-somethings) Is this wrong? I'm not sure, but it is breaking the FTCs regulations just as marketing a painkiller as a good time drug would be.
5. The lawsuit has already succeeded because it has started this debate.
One key problem, which is made by the litigants, and this problem also applies to government regulation is that these people just look at things in terms of categorical imperitives.
Is Viagra good? Or is it bad? Is driving an SUV good or bad? Should porn be regulated or not? Is porn good or bad?
When a politician announces a goal, he or she is making a statement that boils down to these two things. UNfortunately, this runs afoul with life, as products and the countless ways people use them run in many possible gradations.
For example, when alcohol is consumed is large quantites for years it leads to health problems, car accidents, etc. However, alcohol consumed in moderate amounts has health benefits.
But when Ontario chooses to own all the liquor stores or if Texas imposes a "sin tax" on it.... the government deems it either Good or Bad.
It's an imprecise exercize, which is one reason why a lawsuit like this is silly. If 2 million people purchase and use viagra, they are going to use it in 2 million unique ways.
Per Chip's remarks earlier - the Supreme Court has held for a long time that business does not possess the same first amendment protections as individual citizens. I think this is a great example of something that ought to be reconsidered by the S.C. If Pfizer has a legal, approved drug, why can't they talk about their product in these kinds of ways? Why shouldn't Hustler or other porn companies ought to have a freedom of speech like all of us do individually? Certainly makes for a constitutional argument against 2257 regulations.
I'm not saying Pfizer has the right to be a lying snake oil salesman.... but asking a court to make a sweeping absolute judgement on a product is dubious and potentially threatening to rights of free speech and association.
Steve
of course Steve, you are absolutely right...
and Michael Weinstein would like to stamp out internet porn - bareback web sites in particular - which he feels contributes to the spread of HIV and AIDS - this is when I start getting pissed -
what will be next on his agenda? - condom porn sites? - all porn sites? all porn? and all of this on public money and private donations?
I still can't figure why he continues to allow his doctors to prescribe viagra in the AHF clinics and dispense it from their pharmacies if he feels so strongly about this issue - is he testing the patients for crystal meth use? - what are their screening methods?
Well you can spend as much time as you want trying to guess Michael Weinstein's motives. I, for one, had never heard of him before this thread. It's easy for people to demonize those who they dislike or oppose (whether that be Michael Weinstein, Bush 43, Hillary Clinton).
I can only assume that this guy honestly believes in what he is doing, and he thinks he's doing the public a sincere benefit. But he also would have to believe that people are inherently uneducated and unable to make their own decisions, and therefore require protection from public authorities, who know better than they do about pursuing their own happiness.
There's a lot of people comfortable with that, who carry all political stripes. Fortunately, its 2007. You can confront people online using forums, blogs and publications in ways never before so widely available.
I wish people would be more agressive in confronting today's fashion to deem heath issues "potential pandemics" therefore requiring hysterical and unauditable public policy initiatives.
Steve