outrageous law suit

[A_DeAngelo]

which is why I said he would "try" to counteract the effects.

I still think that promoting ANY drug as a recreational one is irresponsible.

nobody is promoting Viagra as a promotional drug

[Jasun]

nobody is promoting Viagra as a promotional drug

as a recreational drug?

Those ads sure look like it to me.

[XXXWriterDude]

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.

[Lee]

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

[A_DeAngelo]

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 charge

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...

[Lee]

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?

In which case, i would hardly say the lawsuit was unsubstantiated, or absurd.

Regards,

Lee

[A_DeAngelo]

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?

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!

the point is simple Pfizer is not advertising this medication as a recreational drug

[desslock]

as a recreational drug?

Those ads sure look like it to me.

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.

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

[gaybucks_chip]

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?

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.

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.)