It is common knowledge that advertisements are tools to sell a certain product or ideology. They are effective means by which an individual, like a political candidate, or an organization, such as a pharmaceutical corporation, could reach out to countless people and speak of a specific message. Oftentimes, advertisements encourage viewers towards a particular course of action, such as voting for a specific person or purchasing a product. The latter kind of advertisement is popular among pharmaceutical companies, where competition is quite intense among drugs that cure similar illnesses.
Indeed, in such an industry, popularity among consumers is key to business success. Thus, even prescription drugs that are specific to certain illnesses are being advertised in mass media, despite the necessity of a doctor’s prescription before their purchase. Thus, it is evident that the main purpose of such advertisements is to pierce the consciousness of the populace such that they would specifically ask for such branded products from their doctors, despite the availability of equally effective generic medicine. Given the following circumstances, it is my opinion that there is nothing wrong in such advertisements.
They fall under the broad category of rights guaranteed by the Constitution, that is, the freedom of expression. Indeed, for as long as such advertisements limit themselves to truthful information, they should not be restricted. Finally, even the public could benefit from the knowledge that a certain brand of product exists in the market. This knowledge allows them to make informed decisions. Ultimately, the choice as to the product that one patronizes belongs to the consumer, and advertisements help a consumer make such a choice.