outrageous law suit

**A_DeAngelo** · 01-24-2007, 10:57 AM

Originally Posted by 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

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** · 01-24-2007, 11:14 AM

Originally Posted by A_DeAngelo

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** · 01-24-2007, 11:28 AM

Originally Posted by Lee

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

**Lee** · 01-24-2007, 11:49 AM

Originally Posted by A_DeAngelo

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.

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

**shackzinc** · 01-24-2007, 03:53 PM

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.

**XXXWriterDude** · 01-24-2007, 08:05 PM

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!

**BananaMan** · 01-25-2007, 11:12 AM

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.

**jIgG** · 01-24-2007, 04:13 PM

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