In the first instance, doctors should always act to keep a patient alive  Medical ethics say that a doctor has a responsibility to keep the patient alive to administer treatment. In the UK Diana Pretty was denied the right to die by the House of Lords even though she consistently requested it. The Israeli Courts ordered the force- feeding of political hunger strikers arguing that in a conflict between life and dignity, life wins. India prosecuted a physician who allowed a hunger striker to die. The medical profession take their responsibility for life very seriously on a global level.


Yes there will be negative consequences to such a step as force feeding however this is only done when it is absolutely necessary and the negative consequences of not doing so are much worse. Doctors will only force feed if they are convinced that doing so is for the good of the patient, indeed they are prohibited from taking such a step if it is not absolutely necessary.


Short term success is all that is necessary to save a life. Once the anorectic patient is out of danger then more long term treatments can be explored. This means working out how to reduce the fear of food and of weight and if the patient has become worried about going to hospital then at least there is time to sort that out as well. While emergency force feeding has to be within a hospital not all treatment has to take place in such an environment and ongoing psychological treatment can take place elsewhere.


Anorexics need to be able to trust their doctors.  The most successful policies are where anorectic patients feel safe and trust their doctors so are willing to go to clinics voluntarily as they feel that they are in control of the situation. [1] Conversely an anorectic patient’s fear of weight gain, especially forced weight gain in hospital is an obstacle to treatment. If an anorexia nervosa sufferer thinks that they will be force- fed they may be less likely to seek treatment or advice.  [1] Susic, Paul, ‘Anorexia Treatment and the Unwilling Patient’,  , accessed 07/21/2011


The focus should be on palliative care.  Some doctors advocate focusing on palliative care (relief of pain but not treatment of cause) due to the low full recovery rates of anorexia sufferers. Research Studies show that over 10 years only approximately 20% of patients recover. Those patients who are sufferers for more than 12 years are unlikely to ever recover.


Force feeding strategies may cause physical harm  Force-feeding has negative consequences. If the patient is dangerously thin and is then force-fed, it can led to Hypophosphataemia (reduction of phosphates in the blood) which causes heart failure. Anorexics are characterised by self-denial and often do not come forward voluntarily. Indeed it according to Dr Sacker anorexia is often not even about food rather "By stopping food from going into the body, what they really feel is they can be in control of their body.” [1] This desire is actively harmed by force feeding as a result they are even less likely to come forward voluntarily if they are faced with the possibility of force- feeding.  [1] CBS, ‘A very thin line’, 02/11/2009,  , accessed 07/22/2011


Compulsory treatment is not a long term solution.  Compulsory treatment may only be successful in the short term. In the long term it does nothing to reduce the fear of food, weight and hospital felt by the patient and is a barrier to treatment. Hospital admission often has a worse outcome for the patient; there are increased mortality rates which are then even higher for those who are admitted against their will. [1] Suicide accounts for 27% of anorexia deaths. [2] Compulsory treatment may make the patient more depressed and at greater risk from harm.  [1] Fedyszyn & Sullivan, ‘Ethical re-evaluation of contemporary treatments for anorexia nervosa’, 2007,  , p.201  [2] BBC News, ‘Compulsory treatment ‘helps anorexics’’, 1999


Palliative care is defeatist and does not attempt to cure the problem. Recovery is always a possibility and that is what doctors should be striving for “In a 10 year follow up of 76 severely ill women with anorexia, Eckert et al found that 18 (24%) had fully recovered, about half had a benign outcome, and only five (7%) had died.” [1] Doctors do not often have to deal with severe or chronic anorexia. Just because it is a very long treatment schedule that can be harrowing for a doctor, this not a reason to settle for palliative care. Better support structures ought to be put in place to enable the doctor to fulfil their obligation to the patient.  [1] Williams, Christopher J. et al., ‘We should strive to keep patients alive’, 1998,


In 1997 the Mental Health Act Commission opened the door to allowing force feeding of anorexic patients in the UK by allowing the compulsory admission of anorexics to hospital. This change of policy did not reduce the number of patients being admitted for treatment which has gone up from 419 in 1996-7 to 620 in 2005-6. [1]  [1] Disordered eating, Anorexia Nervosa Statistics (Uk),  , accessed 07/22/2011


A range of health programs are already available. Many employers offer health insurance and some people deliberately choose to work for such companies for these benefits, even if the pay is a little lower. Other plans can be purchased by individuals with no need to rely on an employer. This means they are free to choose the level of care which is most appropriate to their needs. For other people it can be perfectly reasonable to decide to go without health insurance. Healthy younger adults will on average save money by choosing not to pay high insurance premiums, covering any necessary treatment out of their own pockets from time to time. Why should the state take away all these people’s freedom of choice by imposing a one-size-fits-all socialist system of health care?  Human resources professionals will still be needed to deal with the very many other employment regulations put in place by the federal government. Instead of employees being able to exercise control over their health care choices and work with people in their company, patients will be forced to deal with the nameless, faceless members of the government bureaucracy.


Current health care systems are not sustainable  American health insurance payments are very high and rising rapidly. Even employer-subsidised programs are very expensive for many Americans, because they often require co-payments or high deductibles (payment for the first part of any treatment). In any case employee health benefits are being withdrawn by many companies as a way of cutting costs. For those without insurance, a relatively minor illness or injury can be a financial disaster. It is unfair that many ordinary hard-working Americans can no longer afford decent medical treatment.  Moving to a system of universal health care would reduce the burden on human resources personnel in companies. At present they must make sure the company is obeying the very many federal laws about the provision of health insurance. With a universal system where the government was the single-payer, these regulations would not apply and the costs of American businesses would be much reduced.


The United States government cannot afford to fund universal health care. Other universal social welfare policies such as Social Security and Medicare have run into major problems with funding. Costs are rising at the same time that the baby boomer generation are growing old and retiring. Soon tens of millions of boomers will stop contributing much tax and start demanding much more in benefits than before. In such a situation we cannot afford to burden the nation with another huge government spending program. Nations that provide universal health care coverage spend a substantial amount of their national wealth on the service.  With government control of all health care, caps will be placed on costs. As a result many doctors would not be rewarded for their long hours and important roles in our lives. The road to becoming a doctor is long and hard; without the present financial rewards many young people will not choose to study medicine. Current doctors may find that they do not want to continue their careers in a government-controlled market. The American Medical Association does not back a government-controlled, single-payer universal health care system.  The current system of offering group insurance through employers covers many Americans with good quality health insurance. The group plan concept enables insurance companies to insure people who are high risk and low risk by mixing them in the same pool. Issues over losing or leaving a job with health benefits are dealt with by federal laws which require companies to continue to offer workers cover for at least 18 months after they leave employment.


Health care would substantially reduce overall costs  With universal health care, people are able to seek preventive treatment. This means having tests and check-ups before they feel ill, so that conditions can be picked up in their early stages when they are easy to treat. For example in a recent study 70% of women with health insurance knew their cholesterol level, while only 50% of uninsured women did. In the end, people who do not get preventive health care will get treatment only when their disease is more advanced. As a result their care will cost more and the outcomes are likely to be much worse. Preventative care, made more accessible, can function the same way, reducing the costs further. [1]  In addition, a single-payer system reduces the administrative costs. A different way of charging for the care, not by individual services but by outcomes, as proposed by Obama’s bill, also changes incentives from as many tests and procedures as possible to as many patients treated and healed as possible. [2]  We thus see that not only does universal health coverage inherently decrease costs because of preventative care, much of the cost can be avoided if implemented wisely and incentivized properly.  [1] Cutler, D. M., Health System Modernization Will Reduce the Deficit, published 5/11/2009,  , accessed 9/17/2011  [2] Wirzibicki, A., With health costs rising, Vermont moves toward a single-payer system, published 4/7/2011,  , accessed 9/17/2011


While the idea that better access to preventative medicine will quickly and drastically lower general medical care costs is an incredible notion, it sadly is just that – a notion.  As an aside, the same argument – lowered costs – could be made for simply improving the existing tactics of preventative medicine without the need to invest into universal coverage.  Returning to this proposition though, while it might be realistic to expect some reduction in costs from improved prevention, those would very unlikely ever amount to a significant amount – and certainly not an amount that would make introducing universal health coverage a feasible strategy. [1]  Universal health care will cause people to use the health care system more. If they are covered, they will go to the doctor when they do not really need to, and will become heavy users of the system. We can see in other countries that this heavier use leads to delays in treatment and constant demands for more resources. As a result care is rationed and taxes keep going up.  [1] Leonhardt, D., Free Lunch on Health? Think Again, published 8/8/2007,  , accessed 9/18/2011


There are several reasons why health care should not be considered a universal human right.  The first issue is one of definition – how do we define the services that need to be rendered in order for them to qualify as adequate health care? Where do we draw the line? Emergency surgery, sure, but how about cosmetic surgery?  The second is that all human rights have a clear addressee, an entity that needs to protect this right. But who is targeted here? The government? What if we opt for a private yet universal health coverage – is this any less moral? Let’s forget the institutions for a second, should this moral duty of health care fall solely on the doctors perhaps? [1]  In essence, viewing health care as a right robs us of another, much more essential one – that of the right to one’s own life and one’s livelihood. If it is not considered a service to be rendered, than how could a doctor charge for it? She couldn’t! If it were a right, than each of us would own it, it would have to be inseparable from us. Yet, we don’t and we can’t. [2]  We can see that considering health care as a basic human right has profound philosophical problems, not the least of them the fact that it infringes on the rights of others.  [1] Barlow, P., Health care is not a human right, published 7/31/1999,  , accessed 9/18/2011  [2] Sade, R., The Political Fallacy that Medical Care is a Right, published 12/2/1971,  , accessed 9/18/2011


Health care programmes currently do not offer equality of care  The United States as a whole spends 14% of GDP (total income) on health care. This includes the amount spent by the federal government, state governments, employers and private citizens. Many studies have found that a single-payer system would cut costs enough to allow everyone in the USA to have access to good health care without the nation as a whole spending more than it does at the moment. Medicare, a government-run health care program, has administrative costs of less than 2% of its total budget.  The current system of health maintenance organisations (HMOs) has destroyed the doctor-patient relationship and removed patients’ ability to choose between health care providers. Patients find that their doctors are not on their new plan and are forced to leave doctors with whom they have established a trusting relationship. Also, patients must get approval to see specialists and then are allowed to see only selected doctors. Doctors usually can’t spend enough time with patients in the HMO plans. By contrast a universal health system would give patients many more choices.  In the current system the employee and the employee’s family often depend on the employer for affordable health insurance. If the worker loses their job, the cost of new health insurance can be high and is often unaffordable. Even with current federal laws making insurance more movable, the costs to the employee are too high. With a single-payer, universal health care system, health insurance would no longer be tied to the employer and employees would not have to consider health insurance as a reason to stay with a given employer. This would also be good for the economy as a whole as it would make the labour market more flexible than it has become in recent years.


Healthcare has been recognised as a right  The two crucial dimensions of the topic of introducing universal health care are morality and the affordability.  Paragraph 1 of Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states the following: “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.” [1]  Analyzing the text, we see that medical care, in so far, as it provides adequate health and well-being is considered a human right by the international community. In addition, it also states, that this right extends also to periods of unemployment, sickness, disability, and so forth.  Despite this, why should we consider health care a human right? Because health is an essential prerequisite for a functional individual – one that is capable of free expression for instance – and a functional society – one capable of holding elections, not hampered by communicable diseases, to point to just one example.  Universal health care provided by the state to all its citizens is the only form of health care that can provide what is outlined in the Declaration.  In the US the only conditions truly universally covered are medical emergencies. [2] But life without the immediate danger of death hardly constitutes an adequate standard of health and well-being. Additionally, programs such as Medicaid and Medicare do the same, yet again, only for certain parts of the population, not really providing the necessary care for the entire society.  Further, the current system of health care actively removes health insurance from the unemployed, since most (61%) of Americans are insured through their employers – thus not respecting the provision that demands care also in the case of unemployment. [3]  But does insurance equal health care? In a word: yes. Given the incredible cost of modern and sophisticated medical care – a colonoscopy can cost more than 3000 dollars – in practice, those who are not insured are also not treated. [4]  [1] UN General Assembly, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, published 12/10/1948,  , accessed 9/17/2011  [2] Barrett, M., The US Universal Health Care System-Emergency Rooms, published 3/2/2009,  , accessed 9/17/2011  [3] Smith, D., U.S. healthcare law seen aiding employer coverage, published 6/21/2011,  , accessed 9/17/2011  [4] Mantone, J., Even With Insurance, Hospital Stay Can Cost a Million, published 11/29/2007,  , accessed 9/17/2011


Profits do drive innovation. But there is nothing out there that would make us believes that the profits stemming from the health care industry are going to taper off or even decrease in a universal coverage system. In short in a single-payer system, it’s just the government that’ll be picking up the tab and not the private companies. But the money will still be there.  An expert on the issue from the Brigham and Women’s Hospital opined that this lack of innovation crops up every time there is talk of a health care reform, usually from the pharmaceutical industry, and usually for reasons completely unrelated to the policy proposed. [1]  Whereas the opposition fears new research into efficiency of medical practice and procedures, we, on the other hand, feel that’s exactly what the doctor ordered – and doctors do too. [2]  [1] Klein, E., Will Health-Care Reform Save Medical Innovation?, published 8/3/2009,  , accessed 9/18/2011  [2] Brown, D., ‘Comparative effectiveness research’ tackles medicine’s unanswered questions, published 8/15/2011,  , accessed 9/18/2011


It is not, in fact, universal health care itself, that’s inefficient, but specific adaptations of it. Often, even those shortcomings are so blown out of proportion that it’s very difficult to get the whole story.  Universal health care can come in many shapes and sizes, meant to fit all kinds of countries and societies. When judging them it’s often useful to turn to those societies for critiques of their coverage systems.  Despite the horror stories about the British NHS, it costs 60% less per person than the current US system. Despite the haunting depictions of decades long waiting lists, Canadians with chronic conditions are much more satisfied with the treatment received than their US counterparts. [1]  We should not let hysterical reporting to divert us from the truth – universal health care makes a lot of economic, and, more importantly, moral sense.  [1] Krugman, P., The Swiss Menace, published 8/16/2009,  , accessed 9/18/2011


Universal healthcare is not affordable  No policy is created, debated or implemented in a vacuum. The backdrop of implementing universal health coverage now is, unfortunately, the greatest economic downturn of the last 80 years. Although the National Bureau of Economic Research declared the recession to be over, we are not out of the woods yet. [1] Is it really the time to be considering a costly investment?  With estimates that the cost of this investment might reach 1.5 trillion dollars in the next decade, the answer is a resounding no. Even the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities – a left leaning think tank – opined that the Congress could not come up with the necessary funding to go ahead with the health reform without introducing some very unpopular policies. [2]  Does this mean universal health care should be introduced at one time in the future? Not likely. Given that there are no realistic policies in place to substantially reduce the “riot inducing” US public debt [3] and the trend of always increasing health care costs [4] the time when introducing universal health care affordably and responsibly will seem ever further away.  [1] New York Times, Recession, published 9/20/2010,  , accessed 9/18/2011  [2] New York Times, Paying for Universal Health Coverage, published 6/6/2009,  , accessed 9/18/2011  [3] Taylor, K., Bloomberg, on Radio, Raises Specter of Riots by Jobless, published 9/16/2011,  , accessed 9/18/2011  [4] Gawande, A., The cost conondrum, published 6/1/2009,  , accessed 9/18/2011


Universal healthcare stifles innovation  Profits drive innovation. That’s the long and short of it. Medical care is not exception, albeit the situation is a bit more complicated in this case.  The US’s current system has a marketplace of different private insurers capable of making individual and often different decisions on how and which procedures they’ll choose to cover. Their decisions are something that helps shape and drive new and different practices in hospitals. A simple example is one of virtual colonoscopies. Without getting into the nitty gritty, they often require follow up procedures, yet are very popular with patients. Some insurers value the first, some the other, but none have the power to force the health care providers to choose one or the other. They’re free to decide for themselves, innovate with guidelines, even new procedures. Those are then communicated back to insurers, influencing them in turn and completing the cycle.  What introducing a single-payer universal health coverage would do is introduce a single overwhelming player into this field – the government. Since we have seen how the insurer can often shape the care, what such a monopoly does is opens up the possibility of top-down mandates as to what this care should be. With talk of “comparative effectiveness research”, tasked with finding optimal cost-effective methods of treatment, the process has already begun. [1]  [1] Wall Street Journal, How Washington Rations, published 5/19/2009,  , accessed 9/18/2011


Universal healthcare systems are inefficient  One of the countries lauded for its universal health care is France. So what has the introduction of universal coverage brought the French? Costs and waiting lists.  France’s system of single-payer health coverage goes like this: the taxpayers fund a state insurer called Assurance Maladie, so that even patients who cannot afford treatment can get it. Now although, at face value, France spends less on healthcare and achieves better public health metrics (such as infant mortality), it has a big problem. The state insurer has been deep in debt since 1989, which has now reached 15 billion euros. [1]  Another major problem with universal health care efficiency is waiting lists. In 2006 in Britain it was reported that almost a million Britons were waiting for admission to hospitals for procedures. In Sweden the lists for heart surgery are 25 weeks long and hip replacements take a year. Very telling is a ruling by the Canadian Supreme Court, another champion of universal health care: “access to a waiting list is not access to health care”. [2]  Universal health coverage does sound nice in theory, but the dual cancers of costs and waiting lists make it a subpar option when looking for a solution to offer Americans efficient, affordable and accessible health care.  [1] Gauthier-Villars, D., France Fights Universal Care's High Cost, published 8/7/2009,  , accessed 9/17/2011  [2] Tanner, M., Cannon, M., Universal healthcare's dirty little secrets, published 4/5/2007,  , accessed 9/18/2011


We need to analyze this issue from a couple of different perspectives.  The first is this trillion per decade cost. Is this truly a cost to the American economy? We think not, since this money will simply flow back into the economy, back into the hands of health care providers, insurance companies, etc. – back into the hands of taxpayers. So in this sense it is very much affordable.  But is this a productive enterprise? For the millions of people that at this very moment have absolutely no insurance and therefore very limited access to health care, the answer is very clear.  In addition, the reform will more or less pay for itself, not in a year, not even a decade – but as it stands now, it’s been designed to have a net worth of zero. [1]  Lastly, just because we live in a bad economic climate doesn’t mean we can simply abandon all sense of moral obligation. There are people suffering because of the current situation. No cost can offset that.  [1] Johnson, S., Kwak, J., Can We Afford Health Care Reform? We Can't Afford Not to Do It., published 9/1/2009,  , accessed 9/18/2011


People will only make better choices regarding their food only if people actually read the labels.  A survey of Irish consumers found that reading labels is rare. In fact, 61% of men and 40% of women never read the labels on food before they make the purchase. [1]  In addition, when labels are actually read, they seem to work only in more affluent parts of the society and so this is only going to have any effect in tackling obesity in one segment of society. [2]  [1] Hills, S., Half of all consumers ignore food labels, published 2/24/2009,  , accessed 9/17/2011  [2] Kersh, R., Obesity & the New Politics of Health Policy, published in February 2009,  , accessed 9/17/2011


Food labeling helps people make better choices regarding their food  Given that there is a global trend of increasing numbers of overweight and obese people, [1] food that is fattening and therefore contributes to this problem needs to be clearly labeled so people can avoid them.  Research shows that having this nutritional information helps people make better choices. Up to 30% of consumers reconsider buying a food item after reading the food label and finding out what’s inside [2] .  Another study points out that there were “significant differences in mean nutrient intake of total calories, total fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, sodium, dietary fiber, and sugars” when people could go ahead and use the information about the food they were considering buying. [3]  It is therefore clear that making more information about food available, especially in the form of readily available food labels, helps people make choices that will help the fight against obesity.  [1] Elseth, M., Obesity numbers rise in 28 states, published 6/29/2010,  , accessed 9/15/2011  [2] Arsenault, J. E., Can Nutrition Labeling Affect Obesity?, published in 2010,  , accessed 9/15/2011  [3] diabetesincontrol.com, Nutritional Labeling and Point-of-Purchase Signs Work to Make Better Choices, published 8/10/2010,  , accessed 9/15/2011


For every company that actually makes an effort to create a program of healthy products, there ten that use labels to promote a “functional food” gimmick.  More and more products are being labeled with the “health food” and “functional food” labels. One strong example of that is the “contains added vitamins and minerals” label in the U.S., with foods being fortified with vitamins – so seemingly improved for the better. Yet the U.S. population’s vitamin deficiencies are at an all time low. An epidemiologist at the University of Pennsylvania also notes that these fortifications and the labels that come with them are mostly a tactic used to distract consumers from actual nutritional problems – those of excess. [1]  [1] Narayan, A., Figuring Out Food Labels, published 5/2/2010,  , accessed 9/17/2011


Food labeling is an important form of consumer protection  It is a basic right for us as consumers to know what it is we eat.  Today more and more foods that we buy are processed [1] , they include many harmful additives, causing conditions such as hyperactivity in children [2] , or are advertised as health food, but are in reality loaded with sugar or salt [3] .  It is therefore necessary for consumers to be made aware of all their food contains in order to make safe and healthy choices for themselves and their families.  [1] Parvez, S., Processed food exports rise 41pc, published 3/26/2009,  , accessed 9/15/2011  [2] Rosenthal, E., Some Food Additives Raise Hyperactivity, Study Finds, published 9/6/2007,  , accessed 9/15/2011  [3] Smellie, A., That 'healthy' bowl of granola has more sugar than coke... and more fat than fries: Busting the diet food myths, published 5/21/2011,  , accessed 9/15/2011


Food labeling rarely helps consumers find out what exactly it is they are eating, because of the convoluted names companies use to describe ingredients.  Forcing companies to label food does not mean they will actually make those labels easy to understand and useful. Even when it comes to things as important as common allergens in food, it is very difficult to understand whether it is included or not. [1]  [1] Webster Family Wellness Center, Confusing terms make food labels difficult to understand, published 5/7/2011,  , accessed 9/17/2011


Food labeling encourages food companies to provide food more in tune with consumer values  Innovation is inevitable. That holds true for food industry as much as any other industry – and the food companies want to share their progress with the consumer to benefit from it. With the impact food labeling has on consumer choices, companies turned the issue on its head, producing food that is more in tune with what the people want and using labels to tell us about it.  An example is PepsiCo’s “Smart Spot” program that is intended to help consumers identify healthier products – products the company developed as a consequence of consumer pressure for healthier drinks that contain less sugar. What is more, the strategy proved very profitable for the company, with the smart spot products sales increasing 13 percent or three times as fast as the rest of the business. [1]  We see that companies were able to adapt to the pressure labeling created with excellent products, in tune with consumer values, and make a profit as well.  [1] Warner, M., Under Pressure, Food Producers Shift to Healthier Products, published 12/16/2005,  , accessed 9/15/2011


Although we agree that it is the role of government to ensure a fair marketplace, we do not agree that the case described should be included in this definition.  What we see is simply consumers reacting in accordance to their values – and currently the public opinion is quite opposed to the introduction of GMOs into their diets (71% in EU). [1] So it is only natural that products that include them are valued less.  It also goes to show that these products should be labeled, so that consumers can make informed decisions in accordance to what they believe – something much more important in this case than a company’s profits.  [1] Bonny, S., Why are most Europeans opposed to GMOs? Factors explaining rejection in France and Europe, published 4/15/2008,  , accessed 9/17/2011


There are two things we need to respond with in this case. One regarding the current state of labels and the other the strategy of fighting obesity.  It is a fact that the current label designs leave something to be desired. If currently only a certain (but not at all negligible) percentage go ahead and actually read the labels that does not mean that labels are inherently ineffective. It might just as well, if not more likely, mean that the current design of labels is simply not attractive and useful enough for people to pay attention to. Therefore efforts are being made to revamp the food label to improve its effectiveness. [1]  As to the second, food labels are but a weapon in our arsenal against fighting obesity. It might be that on their own they will not defeat the epidemic, but they certainly play a key part of the overall strategy. [2]  [1] Associated Press, New food nutrition labels from FDA coming, published 9/3/2011,  , accessed 9/17/2011  [2] Benassi, M., The launch of a dynamic process, published in May 2006,  , accessed 9/17/2011


Food labeling allows companies to deceive consumers  What we have seen with introducing visually impressive food labels is that companies started adopting similar visual elements to promote their products in a dishonest way.  Let’s take for instance Dannon’s Activia, which was marketed as health food (with very convincing packaging that went with that strategy). The labels claimed that the product helped improve digestion by hastening it. Yet the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) found this claim to be false.  On a similar note, Kellogg’s Rice Krispies featured packaging purporting that the product boosted immunity. Again, the regulator found this untrue. [1]  We see that the companies, so in essence telling consumers to trust information on the packaging, can easily misuse labeling.  [1] Singer, N., Foods With Benefits, or So They Say, published 5/14/2011,  , accessed 9/15/2011


Food labeling introduces unfair prejudice against certain products  Requiring companies to label their products a certain way might unfairly influence the sales of this product. Let us observe this point on the example of GMOs in food.  For instance, a study investigated the influence of labeling a cornflakes product with different variations on the theme of containing GMOs. The packaging might say that the product contained "USDA approved genetically modified corn" or "may contain genetically modified corn", basically stating the same thing. Yet the first product was evaluated much more favorably than the second, with a 6% price perception difference. [1]  Considering that GMOs are considered safe by the health authorities, [2] it would be unfair to prejudice against these products by specifically targeting them, when they pose no risk to health.  [1] Onyango, B. M., et al., U.S. Consumers' Willingness to Pay for Food Labeled 'Genetically Modified', published in October 2006,  , accessed 9/15/2011  [2] WHO, 20 questions on genetically modified foods, published 12/10/2010,  , accessed 9/15/2011


Food labeling does not change consumer behavior  Food labels may include useful dietary information, but they will not significantly impact actual consumption for two reasons.  The first is that people don’t really read or use the labels. A study at WSU shows that only 41% of men actually read the labels. The women did better, but still only 59% of them actually read the labels – which does not mean they actually understood or heeded the advice on them. [1]  The second reason concerns the connection between actually getting the information and acting on it. Research on posting calories on restaurant menus shows that customers actually ordered slightly more calories compared to before the information was made available. [2]  Thus we see that food labels are not enough to nudge customers towards better and healthier food choices.  [1] Warman, S., Reading food labels can help battle obesity, published 9/16/2010,  , accessed 9/15/2011  [2] Hartocollis, A., Calorie Postings Don’t Change Habits, Study Finds, published 10/6/2009,  , accessed 9/15/2011


These examples do not really demonstrate that food labels do not work or are deceptive but rather that consumers should be educated better about how to actually read and recognize them – something the consumers themselves want, a fact known now for decades. [1]  On the other hand, stricter regulations on packaging advertising are being called for as well, attacking the problem from another perspective. [2]  We contend that better educated consumers on the one and better regulations on the other will uproot this problem at hand. In addition, this just goes to show that food labels are anything but ineffective – they just need to be known and regulated better.  [1] Hackleman, E. C., Food label information: what consumers say they want and what they need, published in 1981,  , accessed 9/17/2011  [2] Neuman W., U.S. Seeks New Limits on Food Ads for Children, published 4/28/2011,  , accessed 9/17/2011


It is difficult to assess the true harm caused by cannabis. There are limits to the scope for information on its effects because of its illegal nature1. However, it is widely acknowledged that there are links between cannabis use and mental and physical health problems2. It is also widely acknowledged that excessive cannabis use can harm relationships and prevent people from acting as functional members of society. Cannabis is generally smoked with tobacco and cannabis users are more likely to drink alcohol. Regardless of whether cannabis itself is worse for you than tobacco or alcohol, it is still bad for you and therefore it should remain illegal.  The reason alcohol and tobacco are legal is not related to their effect on our health. They (alcohol and tobacco) are legal as they have existed in this country since long before laws were passed in relation to health and were far more popular than cannabis so it would have been much harder to ban them. Cannabis is illegal not because it supposedley is worse but because it is was less commonly consumed. That said, alcohol and tobacco are irerelvent in this debate.  1 Wolff , J. (2009, December 1). The art and science of evidence about drugs. Retrieved July 20, 2011, from Guardian:  2 Frank. (n.d.). Cannabis. Retrieved July 20, 2011, from Talk to Frank:


Alcohol and tobacco are more harmful drugs, yet remain legal.  Although cannabis can have some harmful effects, it is not nearly as harmful as tobacco or alcohol. Research by the British Medical Association shows that nicotine is more addictive. In England and Wales, cannabis was said to have helped cause 17 deaths, compared to 6627 for alcohol and 86,500 for tobacco1. A study, published by The Lancet, that scores drugs out of 100 for the harm they cause the user and others, gave alcohol 72, tobacco 27 and cannabis 202.  Given that tobacco and alcohol are more likely to harm the user and other people, it seems ludicrous that they should be legal and cannabis should not be. The legalization of cannabis would remove an anomaly from the law. 1 TDPF. (n.d.). Drug Related Deaths. Retrieved July 20, 2011, from Transform Drug Policy Foundation: 2 The Economist. (2010, November 2). Scoring Drugs. Retrieved July 20, 2011, from The Economist:


Legalizing cannabis would not stop the criminals who currently sell it from continuing to commit crimes. They could simply diversify their activities. Many of them would already be dealing other drugs or involved in other criminal activities. The legalization of cannabis could simply give them a legitimate base from which they may operate.  In order to end the "war on drugs" and the problems of violence associated with it, all drugs would have to be legalized. While some debate the harmful effects which cannabis may have, few argue that drugs like heroin and crack cocaine do not present a serious threat to people. To sell these kinds of drugs legally would be irresponsible and would ruin lives, families and communities.


People should be allowed to do whatever they want to their own bodies  It is important that we have the liberty to do what we want to our own bodies. People are allowed to eat or drink to their detriment. In many countries it is legal to take one's life. Why then, should people not be allowed to harm themselves through cannabis use? (Assuming that cannabis use is harmful. In most cases, this is highly debatable.)  Smoking cannabis may have effects on others, such as through the effects of passive smoking. However, regulation has been brought in to minimize the effects on others for alcohol and cigarettes, such as bans on smoking in public places, and the same thing could be done for cannabis.


While individual liberty is an important good, there are cases in which a Government can be justified in behaving in a paternalistic manner, even to prevent individuals harming themselves. Few people debate the law that you must wear a seatbelt in cars, for example.  Moreover, cannabis can harm others and many of the ways in which it does so would not be possible to counter with regulation. In the words of philosopher George Sher, "Drug use harms strangers by involving them in the collisions, shootouts and other catastrophes to which the impaired and overly aggressive drug users are prone. It harms family members by depriving them of the companionship and income of their addicted partners. It harms fetuses by exposing them to a toxic and permanently damaging prenatural environment. It harms children by subjecting them to the abuse of their drug-addled parents"1. 1 Wolff, J. (n.d.). Regulation of Recreational Drugs. Retrieved July 20, 2011, from University College London:


Cannabis does not open the mind. Rather, it harms it. Many researchers have concluded that cannabis impairs short-term memory, cognition and motivation. It has also proven to be highly addictive for some users and has damaged people's mental capabilities and abilities to function in society1. 2 Mabry, C. D. (2001, October). Physicians and the war on drugs: the case against legalization. Retrieved July 20, 2011, from Qualified Surgeons:


If cannabis was legalized, it could be regulated  Many of the problems associated with cannabis use arise from the fact that it is illegal. Cannabis is the world’s most widely used illegal drug – 23% of Canadians admit to having smoked it and up to 7 million people in the UK are estimated to do so.  In 2009, the UN estimated that the market for illegal drugs was worth $320 billion. This market is run by criminals and is often blighted by violence. It has cost thousands of innocent lives, particularly in supplier countries such as Mexico and Afghanistan 1. In the US, Milton Friedman estimated that 10,000 people die every year as a result of drug dealers fighting over territory 2. Many of the victims are innocent people, caught in crossfire. By legalizing cannabis, the size of this market for illegal drugs would be significantly reduced and so, effectively, would the number of crimes and unnecessary deaths that come with it.  Another way of seeing the problems of prohibition is to look at the failed attempt at alcohol prohibition in the 1920s. People continued to consume alcohol, only it became 150 per cent stronger, was as easy to obtain for minors as for adults, and was sold by murderous gangsters like Al Capone 3.  Given all of the problems associated with prohibiting cannabis, it seems nonsensical to spend billions fighting a drugs war when instead governments could reduce crime and make money by selling cannabis in a regulated manner. They could spend some of the profit on treating people who did experience any harmful effects.  1.United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 2010,   2.Hari, 2009,


Cannabis opens the mind in a positive and beneficial manner  Cannabis use can alter one's perception of reality or consciousness. The alteration need not be thought of as spiritual or religious to be respected for what it is; a fresh look on a reality that we are programmed as humans to perceive only in a particular manner. Cannabis can help humans perceive that complex reality from simply a different perspective, which can benefit our appreciation for that reality and our unique and limited perceptions of it. With this more intelligent approach to cannabis consumption, it is easy to argue that mental, perceptual, and societal benefits exist1. 1 Harris, S. (2011, July 6). Drugs and the Meaning of Life. Retrieved July 20, 2011, from Huffington Post:


First, it is not necessarily a bad thing for cannabis use to increase. Countries with the highest usage rates include some of the most prosperous in the world – Canada, Australia and New Zealand for example.  Secondly, even if increased cannabis use is a bad thing, there is little evidence to prove usage would necessarily go up if cannabis were legalized. Usage may have risen slightly in the Netherlands but cannabis was depenalized in 1976 and usage rates remain lower than in the US today. Moreover, there are other reasons why usage rose. According to Dirk Korf of the Institute of Criminology at the University of Amsterdam, "There is no appreciable causal connection between the Dutch decriminalization of cannabis and the rate at which cannabis use has evolved" 1.Portugal decriminalized drug use in 2001 and, a decade later, drug usage and drug related crime rates have fallen and cannabis use remains below the European average2 .  1. Griffin, 2011,   2. Hari, 2009,


There is little evidence of cannabis being a gateway drug. In fact, there is a higher correlation between cigarette smoking and hard drugs. If anything, the only way in which cannabis could be said to be a gateway drug is that it is illegal and people may be inclined to buy other illegal drugs after they have bought cannabis, particularly as some dealers will sell other drugs. This problem, however, would be immediately eradicated if cannabis were legalized.  Furthermore, the people who refer cannabis as a "gateway drug" don't take into consideration the prerequisites and situations people are in prior to ones marijuana use. The people who use it as an additive to relaxation occasionally and are in a relaxed environment, maybe with a few friends over to hang out aren’t using it as an escape from reality but at an additive to their relaxation and fun. When cannabis is referred to as a “gateway drug” people are generally and unknowingly referring to the people who use marijuana as an escape from a much less than pleasant reality and “smoke themselves sober” therefore requiring a harder drug to get the same high and escape that cannabis once provided for them.


Uncertainty over the effects of cannabis means it is best to be prudent  The debate over the effects of cannabis is based largely upon conflicting evidence. For example, some argue it can cause psychosis while others argue it only has positive effects on the mind. The effect of any illegal drug is a very difficult area to study 1. Most drug users use more than one drug and researchers are often limited to studying those who admit themselves into clinics with a crisis – something of a skewed sample.  Given that Governments cannot accurately predict what the effects of legalizing cannabis would be, it is prudent to maintain illegality. What if, for example, a state decided to legalize cannabis, to only discover five years later that it has a dramatically more negative impact on human cognition than previously thought, or that it substantially increased the risks of psychosis?  1.Wolff, 2009,


Cannabis is harmful  Studies have shown that cannabis may cause a number of physical and mental problems. It can cause respiratory problems, increase one's heart rate and lower one's sperm count. Cannabis use is also associated with causing or worsening some forms of psychosis. It has also been found to increase tiredness, depression and paranoia, impair short-term memory and hormone production and cause general cognitive decline1. As for cannabis' medicinal qualities, safer, more effective drugs are available. They include a synthetic version of THC, cannabis' primary active ingredient, which is marketed in the United States under the name Marinol. 1 Frank. (n.d.). Cannabis. Retrieved July 20, 2011, from Talk to Frank:


More people will use cannabis if legalized  If cannabis is legalized, it will become socially acceptable and more people will smoke it. It will also become more readily available. In the Netherlands, cannabis usage went up after it was legalized1. With more people smoking, more people will experience the adverse physical and mental health effects - more people will be harmed. Furthermore, as Dr. David Murray has noted, 'marijuana use is the leading cause of treatment need for those abusing or dependent on illegal drugs'2; therefore not only will more people use cannabis, more of them will be addicted.  1 Mackenzie, D. (1998, February 21). New Scientists Marijuana Special Report. Retrieved July 20, 2011, from UKCIA: 2 Dubner, Stephen J., 'On the Legalization - or not - of Marijuana', Freakonomics, 30 October 2007


Cannabis is a gateway drug  People who use cannabis will be more likely to move on to harder drugs. While the bad effects of cannabis may be disputed, the harmful effects of hard drugs cannot – they seriously damage people’s health. A major study in 2011 found that ‘smoking cannabis daily sets users up for a lifetime of multiple drug use’ 1. Heavy users are more likely to resort to crime to fund their addiction. Their habit often harms their relationships with friends, colleagues and family. State money then has to be spent on benefits, on policing, and on rehabilitation programs.  1. Griffin, 2011,


While there are studies that argue that cannabis is harmful, there is no substantial proof of many of the harmful effects it is accused of having. Indeed, there are many studies that claim it does not have these harmful effects. For example, a 15-year John Hopkins University study published in May 1999 found "no significant differences in cognitive decline between heavy users, light users, and non-users of cannabis."1 It is also claimed by many researchers that while cannabis has some potentially harmful effects, it is far less harmful then tobacco and alcohol2. Cannabis is also known to have medicinal qualities, such as in relieving pain for MS sufferers. In California, for example, it is possible to obtain a "medical marijuana" card. 1  2 The Economist. (2010, November 2). Scoring Drugs. Retrieved July 20, 2011, from The Economist:


Legalization of cannabis would make it easier for scientific studies to take place, thereby providing a more accurate picture of the physical, psychological, spiritual and sociological effects of the drug. Just as the lift of the taboo on discussions of a sexual nature in schools around the world has resulted in people being more informed as to the dangers of unprotected sex, so would the increased availability and accuracy of scientific data on cannabis serve to reduce the ratio of abuse to responsible use.


Surely the fact that what is healthy is also considered sexy should be embraced. Any motivation to lose a few pounds in a country where more than a quarter of people are obese [1] is surely a good thing for public health. Prop bemoans that diet advertising is targeted at the young and yet this is the group that policy makers routinely target with legislation to encourage healthy living and an early acceptance of the need for good health.  [1] Jeremy Laurance, ‘Britain is the fattest nation in Europe’, The Independent, 17 November 2012,


Selling to the vulnerable  Diets are predominantly targeted at those who feel desperate. It has nothing to do with medical need, a constant round of being told that there is only one way to look attractive inevitably encourages people to adopt a mindset that 'thin' equals 'attractive'. This has nothing to do with a medical need nor do diets represent a medical solution; at least not in the meaning of 'diet' at the focus of this debate.  The pressure on people, especially young people, to conform to a certain stereotype of physical perfection is astonishing and comes from many sources – music, magazines and the celebrity culture endemic in the media. It is notable that there is a well studied correlation between mass media consumption and eating disorders and fears of poor body image. [1]  Diet programmes sell the dream that as long as you look like a given ideal you will come to be like them. This is nearly always untrue. [2] However, it is particularly attractive to those who are most susceptible to peer pressure; primarily the young but really anyone with a desire to fit in. The advertising picks up on this, pictures of happy, smiling, thin people with successful personal lives. It's simply an illusion and has little to do with the realities of medical need.  [1] Kristen Harrison and Veronica Hefner, ‘Media Exposure, Current and Future Body Ideals, and Disordered Eating Among Preadolescent Girls: A Longitudinal Panel Study’, Journal of Youth and Adolescence, Vol.35 No.2, April 2006, pp.153-163, p.153   [2] Federal Trade Commission, ‘Weighing the Evidence in Diet Ads’, November 2004,


There is no doubt that weight is not purely a medical issue but that a positive appearance helps self-confidence and opens lifestyle opportunities. Different people approach losing a few pounds in different ways, some have the time for the meticulous dietary exercise and training regime Prop is suggesting but most don't. Promotion of other option is simply meeting that need.


Medical concerns  Dieting is a medical choice and should be treated as such; advertising the available options rather than discussing this with a doctor means that people do not have all of the available information and cannot make their decision in a safe environment.  In comparable areas such as giving up smoking, controlling drinking, making decisions about exercise, knowledge about inoculations before travel and so forth, we prize medical expertise. The diet industry in the UK is worth £2bn [1] (it's $61bn in the US) and is marked out by allowing the same people to tell us that we are sick in the first place and then tell us the cure and then do it all again when the solution didn't work.  Generally accepted medical opinion is that this is a slow process with miracle cures both unlikely to work in the first place and, where they do, more unlikely to last. In some cases the dieting may even threaten health. For example French doctors have criticised the Dukan diet, Dr Boris Hansel for example says "There are real risks … infertility, sleep apnoea, high blood pressure, type-two diabetes, liver disease or cardiovascular problems. Following this diet is not harmless; it could cause real health problems" but its endorsement by celebrities mean that many will ignore such warnings or never even hear of them. [2]  Most ridiculously, the solution that does work – moderate eating and regular exercise is absolutely free and available to all.  [1] Arabella Weir. Try it – don't diet. The Guardian. 31 December 2010,   [2] Kim Willsher, ‘Dukan diet divides French doctors over effect on health’, The Guardian, 30 May 2011,


People often wish to change their appearance for cosmetic rather than medical reasons. As with other cosmetic changes, from a new wardrobe to surgery, this can be expensive, and may even have some risks, but it is accepted because we know that it makes people feel better. It's a lifestyle choice and is no more the business of government than choosing a new jacket or deciding to get an earring.


Inventing the idea of fat  There's a lot to be said for eating well and being generally healthy. It's not just a matter of weight but the effect that bad nutrition has in contributing to heart conditions, blood pressure, energy levels and other health indicators. [1] None of these things are helped by trying to drop three stone in a couple of months by filling your body with one thing regardless of what it needs at the time as many of these diets do  Our physical appearance should be an indicator of our lifestyle not an accessory to it.  The diet industry has poured considerable time and effort, with help from Holywood and the publishing industry, in to promoting the idea that thin and emaciated are the same thing.  Fad diets are, for many, less healthy than being a little overweight.  [1] BMJ, ‘Obesity – how to lose weight’, 31 October 2012, p.3,


There is an enormous difference here. Even fast food chains themselves accept that their product should not be eaten all day everyday. Supermarkets have taken on board healthy messages about people's five a day or low fat brands. They've built these messages into their wider marketing strategy. Diet ads, by contrast, do claim to be a panacea that will instantly make you sexy, healthy, popular and, apparently successful. They are 21st century snake oil merchants and should simply be run out of town.


It's simply not true to say that people automatically take their adverts with a pinch of salt. Research in the US suggests that 1 in five young adults trust advertising to always tell the truth and a clear majority think it does “most of the time” [1] , as this is exactly the group that is primarily of concern it can't be taken for granted that they will use caution or undertake further research.  [1] Harris poll. Young adults more trusting of advertising. 5 November 2010.


Banning advertising won't work  How exactly is a ban on promoting diets supposed to work? Proposition isn't talking about tackling advertising online, presumably because it's difficult to do, nor is prop tackling the issue of books promoting certain techniques. So this ban would have failed to catch the largest craze of recent years, the Atkins diet.  Equally diets are a mainstay of teen and women's magazines and a fairly central pillar of lifestyle sections of newspapers. Even so called 'quality' papers endlessly talk about lifestyles issues such as how they don't work and everyone would be better off retiring to a country manor in Shropshire for Swedish massage and a diet of organic barley.  Unless prop is talking about starting to ban books or shut down entire sections (and profitable sections at that) of publishing companies then it is difficult to see how this measure will have any real affect.


Countercase; Tackling food advertising  If the Proposition is so keen to tackle obesity then regulating then it should tackle food advertising rather than the advertising of diets. [1] Banning the promotion of dieting ads while people are sitting in front of the TV munching on the take away food or complaining that the remote is 'all the way' on the other side of the room, smacks of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.  Diets are a response, one of many as Prop is keen to point out, to a serious problem that only government can begin to address.  From before we are old enough to walk most people in the developed world are hooked on a fat-, sugar- and salt-rich diet. [2] Going after dieting ads is simply an effort by governments to be seen as doing something in a way that has little electoral impact. People will still use diets because of the gaps, such as the web, already mentioned however it doesn't require government to say anything as risky as “You're fat because you eat rubbish and don't move around much” to the electorate – or worse still, “Your children are fat because you can't put your foot down and tell them they can't have another choc-ice or more chips”.  Prop's entire case is tokenism of the highest order.  [1] Denis Campbell, ‘Call for ban on TV junk food ads before 9pm watershed’, The Guardian, 4 September 2012,   [2] AP, ‘Study: Bad Eating Habits Start Near Age 2’, InteliHealth, 27 October 2003,


It's my body and I'll starve if I want to  The main problem facing Prop's entire case is that this is simply none of the government's business. What people eat or don't eat is a private matter and the intervention of the nanny state would have us all on a diet of compulsory cabbage and nut roast.  People can be grown up about this, and where they're children, their parents can be grown up about this. The entire health and education system already exists to tell us to eat our greens and cycle to work; for those people who chose not to do so, they have a range of diet option and advertising tell them what those options are. The government regularly runs healthy eating advertising campaigns, and they often focus on obesity such as the Change4Life campaign, so there is plenty of opportunity to get the other side across. [1]  It's free speech, it's a free choice for the consumer, it's called the market.  Prop seems to think that consumers are idiots, nobody believes that a diet for a couple of weeks will make them look like a super model any more than buying a pair of speedos will. However, they can assess the different products, decide which one they trust more, do further research if they want to and then choose.  [1] Politics.co.uk Staff, ‘Anti-obesity campaign launched’, Politics.co.uk, 2 January 2009,


The fact that it is difficult to do everything is no reason not to do something. At the very least articles and books have to go through an editorial process and are open to challenge by other articles and books. That's not true for bought space.  In the same way that we regulate the claims that can be made about cars, gambling websites and dating agencies to protect consumers without banning discussion of transport, money or love, advertising and journalism are treated differently.


Human beings are naturally inclined towards violence and conflict. Sex and violence are primal parts of our genetic make-up and we do not need alcohol to bring them to the surface.  A study conducted by the University of Osnabrück (Germany) explains that individuals who are the cause of domestic violence usually have very little or no capacity for empathy from the early stages of their development. It states, that the domestic violence is deeply rooted in their psychology. Thus, nothing to do with alcohol as the cause of third party harm. [1] Alcohol, at worst, may slightly exaggerate these tendencies - but that makes it the occasion not the underlying cause of violent crimes. The underlying causes are biological and social and abuse would happen anyway, even without alcohol. [2]  Making rape and murder illegal does not eradicate rape and murder, so it is unlikely that making drinking alcohol illegal will do so either.  [1] European Council of Europen - Human Rights, Explaining the inclination to use violence against women, October 1999,  , accessed 08/17/2011  [2] Hanson D., Drinking Alcohol and Domestic Abuse, State University of New York,  , accessed 08/17/2011


Banning alcohol protects third parties (family members) from harm.  Alcohol is a contributory factor to a huge proportion of disputes and distress in society. It also contributes to the psychological problems of the alcohol consumer children. While the problem might not be connected to one individual in society, it is important that laws protect those, who might abuse their rights and with this hurt others.  Currently in the US alone, there is an estimated 6.6 million children under 18, which live in households with at least one alcoholic parent. [1] It was never the fault of these children that others started to drink and harm them. According to psychological studies many of the children coming from alcohol abuse families have problems such as low self-esteem, loneliness, guilt, feelings of helplessness, fears of abandonment, and chronic depression. Children of alcoholics in some cases even feel responsible for the problems of the alcoholic and may think they created the problem. [2]  Alcohol is also a great contributor not only to psychological, but also to physical damage. Many times, alcohol is an easy excuse for domestic abusers. The incidence of domestic abuse in households, where there is alcohol abuse is a lot higher and the abusers name the effects of alcohol as their main cause of violence. [3]  With taking away alcohol we take away the fuel of many of the abusers, thus protecting third involved parties.  [1] Alcohol Information, Alcohol Statistics,  , accessed 08/14/2011  [2] Parsons T., Alcoholism and it’s effects on the Family, AllPsych Journal, published 12/14/2003,  , accessed 08/16/2011  [3] University of Minnesota, Alcohol and Domestic Violence,  , accessed 08/17/2011


First of all alcohol abuse (excessive amounts of alcohol) contribute only to a small percentage of all alcohol use in society. Even in Germany, where prices of beer are very low in comparison to other beverages, the data shows, that only 1.7 million (in a country of more than 80 million) use alcohol in a harmful way. [1] So why force people to give up something, just because a minority is not sure how to use it.  Further on, even if it was a concerning amount of people whose health is impacted by alcohol abuse, campaigns and information have very effectively reduced the death rate for cirrhosis. During a 22-year period, death from cirrhosis: dropped 29.8% among black men, 15.3% among white men, 47.9% among black women and 33.3% among white women [2]  [1] Ryan R., The Highs and Lows of Germany's Drinking Culture, published 11/18/2006,  , accessed 08/18/2011  [2] Hanson D., Alcohol – Problems and Solutions, State University of New York,  , accessed 08/18/2011


Governments have the obligation to protect citizens from harmful substances  Alcohol is a mind altering drug, which can cause individuals to take actions they would have not done otherwise. This does not refer to loosened inhibitions, but also extends to harmful acts against themselves and others.  Democracy is based on the principle that the majority of people are to elect leaders and trust them with a term, where their duty is solely to look after the wellbeing of the country and its citizens. The politicians, having the resources and time which they have to use, to get well equipped to make more informed decision on activities dangerous to the individual, others and the society. One of the principles in society therefore is that elected representatives have to make sure their citizens get the best possible protection in society. Even if this infringes on some of their rights. Alcohol for a long time has been kept because the government trusted the people; they would make responsible decisions regarding alcohol. However, each year, the society loses, on a 30 year based average, more than 75,000 individuals to alcohol related diseases or accidents. [1] Thus the citizens proved not to be responsible; even though they had information available they did not make the choice that would keep them alive.  The government has a duty to protect those irresponsible citizens, because otherwise they will not be able to contribute to society to the extent they could without alcohol. And because the government does not know who is the one that will make a stupid decision that will engender their lives in the long run, for the sake of few individuals’, alcohol has to be banned for all.  Therefore, because the government has been trusted with the duty to make informed decisions instead of the individuals and to protect the individual, it is right to allow them to ban alcohol if they believe it is very harmful.  [1] msnbc.com, Alcohol linked to 75,000 U.S. deaths a year, published 06/25/2005,  , accessed 08/13/2011


Individuals are sovereign over their own bodies, and should be free to make choices which affect them and no other individual.  Since the pleasure gained from alcohol and the extent to which this weighs against potential risks is fundamentally subjective, it is not up to the state to legislate in this area. Rather than pouring wasted resources into attempting to suppress alcohol use, the state would be better off running information campaigns to educate people about the risks and consequences of alcohol abuse.


Banning alcohol would lead to healthier individuals.  A ban of alcohol would have a great impact on the health of every individual.  Alcohol and especially alcohol abuse are very common problems in today’s society. Long lasting abuse of substances leads to many chronic diseases such as liver cirrhosis (damage to liver cells); pancreatitis (inflammation of the pancreas); various cancers, including liver, mouth, throat, larynx (the voice box), and esophagus; high blood pressure; and psychological disorders. [1]  With a ban of alcohol we would very much lower the rates of consumption, as already current drug laws show. Even though drugs have a similar effect as alcohol, because of the risk of consequences when using those substances.  Therefore in general the number of alcohol addiction would sink and cause also less of a financial health burden. According to the US alone, the economic cost of alcohol abuse in 1998 was 184.6 billion dollars. [2] This is a burden which many state budgets have to bear.  Therefore if this cost can be prevented, the lives of people improved (by not getting the chronic diseases) we should do so.  [1] Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Alcohol and Public Health,  , accessed 08/17/2011  [2] Harwood, H.; The Economic Costs of Alcohol and Drug Abuse in the United States, 1992. Report prepared for the  National Institute on Drug Abuse and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism,  , accessed 08/17/2011


Laws change attitudes. Many times laws are the first step towards more approval of a certain new societal value and even lead the step to a quicker mentality change.  This was seen with the legalizing of gay marriages in many countries, among them also in some states in the US. In 2010 the approval among US citizens reached more than half of the population, which is a drastic improve from the past. [1] In the beginning there was very little approval of the policy and same-sex marriages in general, an open discussion about the law, the first actual practical implications of the law and consequences have over time gained more acceptances in most Western countries towards gay marriage.  The same principle will apply to an alcohol ban. While in the beginning there will probably be a lot of protest, there will probably also be a change of mentality later on.  [1] Gallup, Americans acceptance of gay relations crosses 50 %  , accessed 08/13/2011


The state is obligated, when the health of citizens is on the line, to pass laws and regulations that protect them. The precedent has already been established in most countries with most forms of drugs. Citizens’ rights in this case are not a right to have drugs, but a right to be protected from the harmful effects of the substances, not merely on their own bodies but society as a whole. Governments would be derelict in their duty if they did not act to remove such harmful substances from society.


Prohibition would be impractical and serve only to create an enormous black market  In comparison to any other drug, alcohol is very easy to produce (hence the great amount of vineyards) and very much engraved in the culture of especially European countries.  Therefore a ban would be very ineffective, as the people would do it due to the ease of producing alcohol and the cultural acceptance. A ban would bring just more deregulation and loss of taxes through the black market.  We might acknowledge that the legal implications will scare away some people from drinking alcohol, but the main part of population will want more. Because there is a strong inelastic demand and the illegal supply will flourish.  This can be seen already with both and illegal drugs. It is also the lesson of Prohibition in the USA in the 1920s. Smuggled alcohol brought in from much cheaper continental countries will undercut both pubs and law-abiding retailers, and will circumvent the normal regulations which ensure consumer safety, such as proof-of-age or quality controls. In Saudi Arabia, a country with an alcohol ban, the Saudi police had seized over 100,000 bottles of eau-de-cologne with an expired expiration date. The methanol in cologne recently led to the deaths of over 20 people who drank it and many others were blinded. Earlier, over 130,000 bottles were confiscated. [1] Because people wanted alcohol so badly and could not get it. While in Europe there might not be much of poisoning going on, a great amount of alcohol because of the different wine regions. Only Spain has already 2.9 million acres of land devoted entirely to the planting of wine grapes. However, it is only number 3 when it comes to the amount of wine actually produced. [2] So in comparison to the Arabic countries, there is a lot of ground where easily to produce alcohol and therefore making it hard to control.  Worse, criminals will find a market for cheap, home-brewed alcohol, of the kind which kills or blinds hundreds of people a year in countries like Russia. [3] Overall criminality will flourish, with the gang violence associated with Prohibition or the drugs trade.  An alcohol ban has worked mainly in countries where it is very tight tied to religion and to the religious practices. Especially in countries that are secular and more multicultural, the ban would be impossible to enforce. The harms associated with black market alcohol are too great for us to risk introducing this proposal.  [1] Hanson D., Alcohol – Problems and Solutions, State University of New York,  , accessed 08/18/2011  [2] A Beginners Guide to Spanish Wine,  , accessed 08/18/2011  [3] Sodertorns Hogskola, The Alcohol Use in Russia and the Baltic Sea Region, published April 2000,  , accessed 08/18/2011


Banning alcohol harms the economy.  Not only would banning alcohol infringe people’s civil liberties to an unacceptable degree, it would also put thousands of people out of work. The drinks industry is an enormous global industry.  In 2007, it was a $970 billion global market for alcoholic beverages, experiencing a period of unprecedented change. While about 60 percent of the market was still in the hands of small, local enterprises, truly global players are steadily emerging and creating an even greater market. There are not good enough reasons for wreaking this havoc on the world economy. [1]  A point further on is that currently governments raise large amounts of revenue from taxes and duties payable on alcoholic drinks. To ban alcohol would take away a major source of funding for public services. In addition, the effect of banning alcohol would call for additional policing on a huge scale, if the prohibition were to be enforced effectively. If would create a new class of illegal drug-users, traffickers, and dealers on an unprecedented scale.  [1] Jackson J., Spirited performance, published May 2007,  , accessed 08/17/2011


Banning alcohol is a quick fix to a wider societal problem.  By banning alcohol the government is searching for a quick way out of the problem of people excessively drinking, making bad decisions when under the influence of alcohol.  Alcoholism and also drunk driving is a problem in many countries over the world. It has taken governments for over 30 years to decrease the number of drunk driver accidents, to decrease the number of drinkers in certain regions. This is a hard campaign battle, the government has to battle. According to a recent study, by the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, campaigns contribute to approximately 13 % of decrease in drinking through time. This is a number with which many governments are not satisfied as they are pouring a lot of money in the campaigns. [1] In Scotland alone, the annual expenditure for the “drink driving campaign was £141000. [2] Because of quite high expenditure on campaigns, countries may see a ban as an easy way out of these expenditures. Therefore for the government it seems maybe reasonable to prevent just all citizens from drinking. With this the government might be saying that the problem is fixed (because no one is allowed to drink alcohol anymore), but mainly it is just superficially solving it.  As people’s mentality has not changed just through a law passing, they have created only more problematic users, they cannot target with campaigns and so do not impact the society. A quick public message that they fixed the superficial problem, while leaving citizens in their misery.  [1] Elder R., Effectiveness of Mass Media Campaigns for Reducing Drinking and Driving and Alcohol-Involved Crashes, American Journal of Preventive Medicine, published 2004,  , accessed 08/13/2011  [2] Institute of Alcoholic Studies, Economic cost and benefits,  , accessed 08/13/2011


The state should keep alcohol legal in order to maximize citizens’ rights.  Governments are not there to be the mothers of citizens, but should allow people to freely live their lives as long as they do not hurt others.  A government might have the wish to build a society that is obedient, productive and without flaws. This may also mean a society without alcohol, cigarettes, drugs or any other addictive substances. Such a society might have its benefits in a short term, but seen long term it has more unsatisfied individuals.  With drinking alcohol responsibly no one is getting harmed; in many cases not even the individual, as it is actually beneficial for the health. A glass of wine per day is good for decreasing the risk of cancer and heart disease, scientists say. [1]  So if someone in society has decided that it is good for them for whatever reason possible to use a substance that impacts only them, the state should not prevent them from doing so. This is because the society has been made from the different individuals, which lead different lifestyles and therefore have very opposing opinions views on what freedom is. A society that is free and where individuals are happy is a society where individuals engage more and also give more back to the society. So if alcohol will make the people happy and then more productive, we should maintain status quo.  [1] Bauer J., Is wine good for you ?, published 6/4/2008,  , accessed 08/14/2011


It is true that currently thousands of people are employed by the alcoholic drinks industry. However the fact that an immoral industry employs a lot of people is never a good argument to keep that immoral industry going (similar arguments apply to the cases of prostitution, arms dealing, fox hunting, battery farming, etc.) Instead, a gradual process would have to be implemented, which would include governments providing funding for training for alternative careers.  Also it is true that tax revenues would be lost if alcohol were banned. However, again, this is not a principled reason to reject the proposition, simply a practical problem. It should be pointed out that governments would save a huge amount of money on police and health spending (through the reduction in crime and alcohol-related illness) which would go at least some of the way to offsetting the decreased tax revenues.


In any single law, that prohibits substances there is going to be the danger of a black market. In Canada, a black market for alcohol developed despite the legal status of alcohol (it was due to high taxation). The Association of Canadian Distillers actually estimated that 25 % of all spirits in Ontario are consumed illegally (without paying taxes). [1]  The problem therefore is not going to lay in the ban itself, but in the enforcement of legislation and thorough control of the markets.  [1] Mackenzie Institute, Prohibition’s Hangover – Ontario’s Black Market and Alcohol,  , accessed 08/17/2011


Many ads don't include enough information on how well drugs work. For example, Lunesta is advertised by a moth floating through a bedroom window, above a peacefully sleeping person. Actually, Lunesta helps patients sleep 15 minutes faster after six months of treatment and gives 37 minutes more sleep per night. The Majority of ads are based on emotional appeals, but few include causes of the condition, risk factors, or important lifestyle changes. In a study of 38 pharmaceutical advertisements researchers found that 82 percent made a factual claim and 86 percent made rational arguments for product use. Only 26 percent described condition causes, risk factors, or prevalence. [1] Thus not giving the patients balanced information that would make them aware, that taking one of the pills is not a magic solution to their problem.  Actually, according to a study conducted in the US and New Zealand, patients requested prescriptions in 12% of surveyed visits. Of these requests, 42% were for products advertised to consumers and consumers could not recall more than 4 different products of medicine. [2]  This proves that the decisions made by the patients are not more informed and mainly only pressure to the advertised drugs.  [1] Creating Demand for Prescription Drugs: A Content Analysis of Television Direct-to-Consumer Advertising. Ann Fam Med. 2007 January; 5(1): 6–13.   [2] Mintzes B. and co-workers, Influence of direct to consumer pharmaceutical advertising and patients' requests on prescribing decisions: two site cross sectional survey, BMJ 2002,  , accessed 08/01/2011


Patients will be better informed than under the status quo  Advertising prescription drugs enables patients to learn, and to request innovation faster in order to benefit from the new drugs that health personnel still have not gotten used to.  Advertising increases consumer awareness of drugs, which makes consumers more likely to take appropriate medication. The drugs market is complex and so advertising can help explain the differences between treatments, for example between contraceptive pills intended to reduce period pain, period flow and those simply to prevent pregnancy.  Advertising under current rules is used to inform patients of new drugs which may be appropriate for conditions which they suffer from (such as recent asthma drugs which reduce the frequency of attacks), but which their doctor might overlook or not have the time to crosscheck against her list of patients. [1]  56% of AMA general practitioners believed that direct-to-consumer advertising had prompted some of their patients to seek treatment for a condition which would have otherwise been neglected. [2] If a patient has taken the time to actively consider a particular drug and then visits their doctor, whether they are prescribed it or not, they are building up a positive relationship with their doctor and are more likely to continue to take an active interest in their health.  Further on, in states where there is no direct to consumer advertising but there is advertising to doctors, patients are disadvantaged because it is in the interest for private medical insurance firms or national health services to keep information about expensive new drugs from patients.  In the UK it was because of cost that the Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) refused to allow the prescription of Herceptin, a drug which US studies have shown reduces the damage done by breast cancer. Ultimately pressure from Roche, the drug’s manufacturer and from patients resulted in the drug being authorized for use, but the process was much faster in the US where Roche could run advertisements alerting consumers to the potential benefits of Herceptin, and thereby immediately giving patients access to a similar level of information as their doctors and allowing them to push for its authorization.  [1] Patient View – for improving patient care, Information on prescription medicines: the views of EU-based patient groups,  , accessed 08/07/2011  [2] Lyles A., Direct Marketing of Pharmaceuticals to Consumers, Annual Review of Public Health, published May 2002,  , accessed 08/08/2011


This leads to patients requesting drugs they do not need and in many cases are even harmful to them.  The prescription drugs are very different from freely available drugs. They often treat serious diseases, and so advertising those should target mainly people that are very ill and especially vulnerable. On the other hand, with direct-to-consumer advertising, many people who do not have a serious disease become convinced that they need the prescription drug, because the advertisements scare them.  Because of such advertisement, in the U.S. there was a rapid widespread exposure to dangerous drugs before risks were fully recognized, as with troglitazone (Rezulin) for diabetes and cisapride (Propulsid) for nighttime heartburn. Causing people to become more ill instead of healthier, because this leads to a higher “self-diagnosing”. [1]  [1] Health Information Action, Direct-to-Consumer Prescription Drug Advertising The European Commission’s Proposals for Legislative Change, September 2011,  , accessed 08/07/2011


Advertisements for prescription drugs are not significantly different from any other advertisement  Advertising serves an important purpose by informing the public about a specific product. It is also regulated from manipulation, and therefore deserves no special restrictions; these same restrictions and watchdogs would be in place if advertising of drugs were allowed to make sure that no drug is misrepresented. We trust consumers to view adverts with a level of skepticism and we know that they form only one part of the research that goes into, say, buying a car. Drug companies have become more open in recent years. For instance, GSK now publishes the results of all their drug trials (including the ones that fail) online and there are plenty of other sources of information on drugs available. A drug that remains unused is a drug that is helping nobody; adverts are simply a reasonable way for drug companies to help consumers find out about their products within a safe and highly regulated environment [1] .  When the first discussion in the European Parliament was started, regarding the advertisement of pharmaceuticals, the pharmaceutical industry specifically pointed out the anomaly that exists: “Specific laws stood in the way of it communicating with patients over its products, even when others could. Presumably, this meant information was communicated by the media about new medicines. In this regard, the restrictions on the pharma industry contrast with the freedom enjoyed by manufacturers of vitamins and herbal remedies, who routinely advertise products to patients.” [2] This shows that it is unjust to make any differences between the companies.  [1] Debate: Should Drug Companies be allowed to advertise prescriptions direct to the public.   [2] Jessop N., Will DTC Advertising appear in Europe ?, published 01/07/2011,  , accessed 07/29/2011


Advertising does not attempt to tell the truth, but to give a biased view of a product. Companies spend millions of dollars a year on advertising, and would not do so if there were no return on this investment. While purchasing a particular brand of cola on the basis of an advert might not be disastrous for the consumer, using an inappropriate drug could be.  Drugs companies have also shown their willingness to abuse their advertising rights. For instance the FDA has recently had to insist that the possible side effects of drugs must be listed as an integral part of TV advertisements, because advertisements were being produced in which the list of side effects was read at too fast a pace to be understood.  It is thus understandable that in a survey soon after the 1997 regulations on direct to consumer advertising, 80% of American Medical Association (AMA) General Practitioners (GPs) thought it was not a good idea and undermined their role. [1]  [1] FDA: Direct-to-Consumer Advertising of Prescription Drugs:Looking Back, Looking Forward, published October 2005, www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/CDER/ucm095993.ppt , accessed 08/07/2011


Actually prescription drugs are generally sold expensively worldwide, especially in North America and receive enormous profits, regardless of the advertising. Companies actually have enormous budgets dedicated to advertising, in countries where it is legal. They are required to spend this money because they have to compete with other companies that are advertising their products, but if there were no advertising, they could spend the money on more research.  The pharmaceutical industry has been the most profitable industry in America for each of the past 10 years and, in 2001, was a five-and-one-half time more profitable than the average for Fortune 500 companies [1] . Moreover, in Canada, the sale of a typical patented branded drug would bring about a profit margin of almost 70% [2] .  “U.S. Pharmaceutical Launches: Marketing Spend and Structure" reveals that the average blockbuster brand in the United States allots 49% of its budget to fulfill advertising needs. This hefty allotment is attributed to the fact that most blockbuster brands target a mass-market audience that requires large-scale advertising. [3]  Advertising reduces the incentive for research into new drugs as companies have found the returns on investment in advertising are better than those on research and development. This is particularly the case as it has become increasingly difficult to find a ‘blockbuster’ drug (because increasingly, new drugs are minor adjustments to existing ones). Significant changes to the way drugs are researched are needed for scientific advancements, but such changes are expensive and carry high risks of failure. It is of much lower risk is to the manufacturer to relicense existing drugs for new markets and new consumers, thereby allowing them to re-brand the drug [4] .  So they do not use the money mainly for research for new therapeutics, but spend nearly half of it on advertisements to maximize their profit even more.  [1] CIBC World Markets (2003) 2003 Investors' Guide to The Canadian Drugstore Industry, published 2003,  , accessed 07/30/2011  [2] Families USA (2002) Profiting from Pain: Where Prescription Drug Dollars Go,  , accessed 07/30/2011  [3] PR Newsmedia – United Business Media, Pharmaceutical Advertising: United States vs. Europe, published 12/22/2010,  , accessed 07/29/2011  [4] Turning ideas into products- a pharmaceurtical paradigm shift.


Advertising will enable patients to get better treatment earlier in their illnesses  Advertisements—especially those that identify symptoms—can lead to a healthier citizenry, as consumers become aware of their diseases earlier, and can thus find the drug that targets their problem at an earlier stage. Many drugs can prevent or reduce the likelihood of a patient requiring surgery (for instance anti-cholesterol drugs can reduce the buildup of atheroma in blood vessels, which cause cardiovascular heart disease and strokes, thus reducing the likelihood of a heart bypass being required and improving any post-stroke rehabilitation). This not only saves money but is also better for patients. Surgery involves the risk of complications as well as taking time both directly and in post-operation rehabilitation.  Also many degenerative conditions can be best treated by early intervention; if patients are aware of the drugs that are available at an early stage they are more likely to take them, thereby increasing their standard of living and reducing their long-term cost to state or private health cover providers.


Adverts generate profit. Profit funds research into improved drugs  We should not attack drugs companies for making profits from their products, nor for encouraging patients to use them. Each new drug costs an average of $500m to produce and very small percentage of the drugs that are researched ever make it to the market. [1] The more profitable the industry, the more new drugs it can afford to research and develop and thus the more patients who can receive appropriate treatment. Many of the complex cures being developed for diseases like cancer, HIV/AIDs, SARS and Avian Flu will take decades to research. In the meantime, drug companies require funding streams from other drugs to continue research.  Drugs have become increasingly expensive and advertisement helps to cover those costs. From 1980 and 2004, from about $6 billion (in 2005 dollars) to $39 billion. There has been a real growth rate of about 8 percent a year, on average.  By comparison, drug firms’ gross margins—sales revenue minus costs and income taxes—have been increasing more slowly, by about 4 percent annually. [2]  So, with more personalized medicine and greater costs in drug development, the industry needs a greater source of revenue in order to research therapeutics further. Advertising would provide this revenue.  [1] Hollis A., Me-too drugs: is there a problem ?, University of Calgary, published December 2004,  , accessed 08/08/2011  [2] Congres of United States, Research and Development in the Pharmaceutical Industry, October 2006,  , accessed 08/01/2011


According to a financial study conducted by the Villanova School of Business explained that there is no significant burden to the health care system due to direct-to-consumer advertising. The study, conducted in the years 2001 – 2005 in the United States, shows that there is no significant relationship between advertising and price sensitivity. The comparison with other countries shows, the prices of pharmaceuticals and the price for health care (for drugs) have not risen in the United States.  Through advertising, after the introductory phase of a drug, the health system is not burdened more. Simply put people are just able to choose between drugs, in a comparable price range easier and therefore do not cost additional money to the state. [1]  So a greater financial burden is no excuse from prohibiting companies to advertise products.  [1] Villanova University, DOES DTC ADVERTISING RAISE PRICE? THE IMPACT OF  PHARMACEUTICAL ADVERTISING ON CONSUMERS’ PRICE SENSITIVITY, published 2005  , accessed 08/07/2011


Advertising puts pressure on doctors to prescribe inappropriate drugs to their patients  If a patient sees a drug that is inappropriate for him, and asks their doctor for it, if his doctor does not prescribe it, then he may ignore his doctor and seek a second or third opinion. In private health care systems it is likely that economic pressure will result in a doctor eventually agreeing to the patient’s demand.  In nationalized health services ‘pester power’ has resulted in doctors giving in to patients in the past rather than arguing with them (seen, for example, in the massive over-prescribing of antibiotics by British general practitioners for viral infections against which they are ineffective). If the doctor prescribes another drug (perhaps a cheaper generic version), even if it is chemically identical to the branded and advertised drug, the reverse-placebo effect may result in the drug being less effective than it should be, because the patient believes it is a weaker treatment. The patient may also be less willing to complete the prescription, or to visit that doctor again, thereby undermining the doctor-patient relationship. [1]  Prescription medicines are fundamentally complex and dangerous, which is why they require a prescription by a qualified doctor. It is not helpful to have a patient who lacks the decade of medical training a GP has self-diagnosing on the basis of an advert.  [1] FDA: Direct-to-Consumer Advertising of Prescription Drugs:Looking Back, Looking Forward, published October 2005, www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/CDER/ucm095993.ppt , accessed 08/07/2011


The costs and effects of advertising will place an additional burden on the healthcare system  Allowing advertising places an additional burden on the health care system.  As a result of advertising, if it were allowed, many patients would request the more expensive brand drugs and so place an additional burden on the public health care system. The offered generic drugs have the same effect; they are simply cheaper because they do not spend several millions on advertising.  Drug costs are increasing at a faster rate in the United States than anywhere else in the world (roughly by 25% year on year since the mid-1990s). This growth has been mainly driven by patients demanding advertised drugs (they accounted for half the 2002-2003 increase, for instance). Advertised drugs are always more expensive than generic rivals because of the branding and advertising costs, as well as the increased price that manufacturers can demand for a snappily named product. In private health care systems, this drives up insurance premiums, thereby pricing large numbers of people out of health care coverage (44 million Americans have no coverage, despite the United States spending more per capita on health care than any other country). Alternatively, it forces many people to select insurance packages with lower levels of coverage (the solution introduced in 2005 by the Bush administration). The EU has estimated that its member states with public healthcare systems would be crippled if they spent as much on drugs as the United States [1] .  Actually estimates in the United Kingdom state that, by buying generic drugs, the public health care system could save more than £300m a year. General practioners could make more use of cheaper, non-brand versions of the drugs, without harming care. An example of the NHS overpricing drugs: one treatment for gastric problems, Omeprazole, can be bought from wholesalers for between £2.50 and £3.40, yet the NHS pays £10.85 every time it is prescribed. To make the matter worse, doctors often over-prescribe; at least £100m could be saved if they were more careful in this matter. [2]  Therefore, because it would create a substantial financial burden to the current public health care system, allowing advertising would be a bad idea.  [1] Heath Care in the United States.   [2] BBC News, Drug profiteering claims denied, published 03/14/2004,  , accessed 07/30/2011


Creating a mentality of illness  Advertising to patients promotes a ‘pill for every ill’ mentality as the drug industry seeks to ‘create’ new markets for its drugs by convincing patients that a pill can solve their problems.  This leads both to greater hypochondria and to self-diagnosis of normal conditions as medical ones. For instance in October 2001, GSK ran advertisements for Paxil in the New York Times, claiming the drug would solve chronic anxiety. These advertisements came at a time when the events of 9/11—rather than a medical condition—were probably to blame for New Yorkers’ stress. The FDA declared in a 1999 study that fewer than one in four new drugs has any therapeutic value and the medical community now accepts that prevention through lifestyle choices is often the best way to tackle disease (for instance, rather than seeking a weight-loss or diabetes wonder-pill, childhood obesity should be tackled through exercise and healthy eating).  Pill-popping seems easier and so is more attractive to many patients but in practice it is worse for the long-term health of society. By allowing the prescription drugs to be advertised we are making more people believe they are ill and need pills for them, rather than explaining to them that their back pain and high blood pressure are problems caused by their lifestyle choices. [1]  [1] Health Information Action, Direct-to-Consumer Prescription Drug Advertising The European Commission’s Proposals for Legislative Change, September 2011,  , accessed 08/07/2011


The majority of products that are advertised treat currently under-treated conditions. Drugs dealing with diseases such as depression, diabetes, and high cholesterol are some of the most frequently advertised. These advertisements can help inform viewers about their conditions, and prompt visits to physicians, who can help treat the problem early on.  Additionally, informed citizens are good for society, as physicians do not always recommend necessary or helpful drugs. In the status quo, patients do not visit their doctors often enough to be diagnosed. Only approximately half the patients in America get beta blockers after a heart attack. Clearly, an advertisement for beta blockers would be informational, rather than harmful.