outrageous law suit

[shackzinc]

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.

[jIgG]

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

[Xstr8guy]

Viagra is sooooo 2003. Cialis kicks Viagra's ass!



Yes. I realize that I missed the whole point of this thread.



.

[gaybucks_chip]

One thing though... if they make it an over-the-counter drug, the levels of spam that everyone receives will drop by about 50%

[A_DeAngelo]

he's not going to win - I can guarantee that!

[XXXWriterDude]

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]

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.

[desslock]

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

[A_DeAngelo]

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?

[desslock]

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

[A_DeAngelo]

...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

you got that one right! and yes, we're working on this one (as if I don't have anything else to do!)
here's an excerpt from the recent issue of POZ Magazine

"Views on Viagra"

What’s this all about? Check out the news and some of the commentary.

Considering that Pfizer is already responsibly including the message that Viagra does not stop HIV or other STDs in their bus shelter ads and on the package insert, which also stresses the need for safer sex, I suspect that the AIDS Healthcare Foundation is campaigning against the company in order to squeeze an educational grant out of them.

In light of the fact that a year-long effort by an NIH panel to determine if Viagra was driving up HIV rates found scant evidence to back up a claim by the San Francisco health department STD chief that it was fueling new infections, it may be time for AHF and the SF DPH director of STD control to end their jihad against the drug and Pfizer.

In fact, the NIH panel found that Viagra and similar drugs are doing much to help people with AIDS have fulfilling, and safe, sex lives, something AHF should keep in mind as it hopefully ends its unnecessary jihad on Pfizer, a jihad, by the way, that contributes significantly to demonizing and stigmatizing gay men living with AIDS.

Michael Petrelis

more on the subject at http://poz.com/articles/776_11166.shtml

[procam]

Watch out Bob you wont be smiling youll prolly be next :cash: