BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Adverts generate profit. Profit funds research into improved drugs

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,  http://www.envoycapital.com/includes/docs/drugstore_industry.pdf, accessed 07/30/2011 [2] Families USA (2002) Profiting from Pain: Where Prescription Drug Dollars Go,  http://www.familiesusa.org/assets/pdfs/PPreport89a5.pdf, accessed 07/30/2011 [3] PR Newsmedia – United Business Media, Pharmaceutical Advertising: United States vs. Europe, published 12/22/2010,  http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/pharmaceutical-advertising-united-states-vs-europe-55640307.html, accessed 07/29/2011 [4] Turning ideas into products- a pharmaceurtical paradigm shift. http://www.paconsulting.com/our-thinking/turning-ideas-into-products-a-pharmaceutical-paradigm-shift/
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, http://www.haiweb.org/campaign/DTCA/BMintzes_en.pdf, 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. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States [2] BBC News, Drug profiteering claims denied, published 03/14/2004,  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/3511102.stm, accessed 07/30/2011
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. http://toostep.com/debate/should-drugs-companies-be-allowed-to-advertise-prescription [2] Jessop N., Will DTC Advertising appear in Europe ?, published 01/07/2011,  http://pharmtech.findpharma.com/pharmtech/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=702161, accessed 07/29/2011
NAFTA was severely damaging to independent Mexican farmers.

Corn is only one product in a complex trade system. While NAFTA has undoubtedly given US corn farmers an advantage, it has also benefited Mexican avocado famers- and everyone employed in the industry1. Automobile production has shifted away from the US and towards Mexico after NAFTA2. Each country cannot expect to export more of every product- what Mexico has lost in corn production, it has gained in other areas. 1Amy Clark, "Is NAFTA good for Mexico's Farmers?," CBS, February 11, 2009. 2 Scott, Robert, Carlos Salas, and Bruce Campbell. "Revisiting NAFTA: Still Not Good for North America's Workers." Economic Policy Institute, September 28, 2006.
NAFTA has benefitted Canada.

Canada already benefited from having the world's biggest market next door and under NAFTA this benefit is expanded immensely. Under NAFTA, Between 1994 and 2003, Canada's economy grew at 3.6% annually, and employment has risen1. NAFTA has also help equalize agricultural flows between the US and Canada. NAFTA has given Canada an advantage in the US, the world's biggest market, as well as zero-tariff access to a wide variety of American products2. 1 Lee Hudson Teslik, "NAFTA's Economic Impact," Council on Foreign Relations, July 7, 2009. 2 George Myles and Matthe Cahoon, "Canada and NAFTA: a 10-Year Measure of Success," BNET, January 2004.
NAFTA has improved democracy in Mexico.

Trade liberalization has caused social upheaval that created greater demand for genuine democracy within Mexico1. The election of 1994 is considered to be the first free election in the modern history of Mexico2. In 2000, the first opposition president (not a member of the Institutional Revolution Party) since 1929 was elected3. Many scholars credit the liberalized economic environment fostered by NAFTA for this political development towards a genuine democracy4. 1Kevin Kelley, "Good NAFTA?," Utne: The Best of the Alternative Press, 2011, 2. 2Renee G. Scherlen, "Lessons to Build on: the 1994 Mexican Presidential Election," Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs, 1998, 21. 3Sam Dillon, "Mexico's Ousted Party Tries to Regroup After Stunning Defeat," New York Times, July 13, 2000. 4 Geri Smith and Cristina Lindblad, "Mexico: Was NAFTA Worth it: A Tale of What Free Trade Can and Cannot Do," Business Week, December 22, 2003. improve this
NAFTA caused a severe trade imbalance between the US and its neighbors.

As NAFTA has allowed manufacturing to relocate south of the border and export to the United States the US has turned from having a trade surplus to a trade deficit. In 1993, the US had a trade surplus with Mexico and a stable deficit with Canada1. After NAFTA, the US' deficit with its neighbors increased $107.3 billion, creating a net displacement of over 1 million jobs. NAFTA was supposed to stimulate job growth in the US, not job loss; this failure demonstrates the harms that NAFTA has caused its members. 1 Scott, Robert, Carlos Salas, and Bruce Campbell. "Revisiting NAFTA: Still Not Good for North America's Workers." Economic Policy Institute, September 28, 2006.
NAFTA was severely damaging to independent Mexican farmers.

US farm subsidies make it impossible for Mexican farmers to compete without tariffs; the so-called free trade act disadvantages Mexican workers because their American counterparts are not working under a free trade system1. While Mexican consumers benefit from lower prices, rural farmers tend to be much poorer than city residents in Mexico. Therefore this agricultural loss benefits the rich at the expense of the poor1. 1 Joseph E. Stiglitz, "The Broken Promise of NAFTA," New York Times, January 6, 2004. improve this
NAFTA has reduced workers' bargaining power.

In reducing barriers to imports and exports, NAFTA has shifted bargaining power in favor of producers, who can more easily relocate factories if workers in an area are too demanding. This allows more exploitation of workers, something that we should be preventing rather than encouraging. By allowing companies to move production across the US, Canada, and Mexico, NAFTA creates a disadvantage for workers in all three countries1. This essentially helps the rich get richer while making those who are poor, or middle class poorer increasing income inequality. 1 Scott, Robert, Carlos Salas, and Bruce Campbell. "Revisiting NAFTA: Still Not Good for North America's Workers." Economic Policy Institute, September 28, 2006.
NAFTA has bolstered cross-continental cooperation.

If anything, NAFTA has harmed international cooperation by damaging the parties involved. Due to the continental free trade agreement, Mexican farmers have lost their livelihoods, American manufacturers have been laid off, environmental harms have increased, and the agreement has failed to create the job stimulus it promised. We can only hope that NAFTA is not a typical example of international cooperation, for such would not bode well for the international community.
NAFTA has interfered with Canadian laws concerning environmental protection.

NAFTA allows companies to shed light on antiquated regulations. The advantages and disadvantages of MMT are contested1, and the Canada's grounds for prohibitions on the water exportation that Sun Belt wanted to do were questionable1. Environmental protection is necessary, but should be reasonable; if regulations are preventing business for no good reason, those regulations should be reconsidered. 1 http://www.autos.ca/auto-tech/environment/auto-tech-mmt-the-controversy-... "> Jim Kerr, "Auto Tech: MMT: the Controversy Over this Fuel Additive Continues," March 10, 2004, < improve this
NAFTA has failed to give Mexico a competitive edge in the global economy.

NAFTA gave Mexico an edge; that does not mean Mexico's problems would disappear. Mexico's economic problems are the result of a low tax base and poor education, among other issues1. A trade agreement alone cannot solve a nation's complex socioeconomic issues. Though it is impossible to know what would have happened, it is fair to speculate that Mexico would import even fewer goods to the US if not for NAFTA. Therefore, even if Mexico has yet to become an industrial powerhouse, NAFTA can still be considered advantageous. 1 Joseph E. Stiglitz, "The Broken Promise of NAFTA," New York Times, January 6, 2004
The US has benefitted from NAFTA through lower prices and increased trade

The increase in low-cost Mexican goods has benefitted US consumers1, thereby improving the standard of living for working Americans. US exports have increased by $104 billion2, thereby bolstering manufacturing. While some jobs have been lost due to NAFTA, these have been primarily low-skill jobs; reducing the number of low-skill jobs in the economy allows the US to concentrate on more profitable, white-collar jobs. And even these low skilled workers benefit from having to pay less for their goods. 1 Marla Dickerson, "NAFTA has had its Tradeoffs for the U.S.: Consumers and Global Companies Benefitted, but Critics See Pitfalls," Los Angeles Times, March 3, 2008. 2 Robert Scott, Carlos Salas, Bruce Campbell, "Revisiting NAFTA: Still Not Good for North America's Workers," Economic Policy Institute, September 28, 2006, 5.
NAFTA has bolstered cross-continental cooperation.

By expanding their free trade regions to the entire continent, Canada, the US, and Mexico have demonstrated the plausibility of greater international cooperation. Although NAFTA is not on the scale of the EU, it similarly demonstrates the ability of nations to work together for mutual benefit, thereby increasing international cooperation. NAFTA helps create a secure North American continent where none of the states need be worried about the other members in much the same way as the European Union does in Europe. Competition and potentially wars are prevented through greater trade integration as is shown by European integration since the second world war.
NAFTA has interfered with Canadian laws concerning environmental protection.

Under NAFTA, if foreign investors believe they are being harmed by regulations, they may sue for reparations under special tribunals1. Canada regulates commercial use of its lake and river water2, fearing ecosystem damage, and had previously banned the importation of a gasoline additive MMT3. Due to lawsuits brought by American companies Sun Belt Water Inc. and Ethyl Corporation, the Canadian government was forced to change legislation to allow these companies to conduct business. By compelling Canada to reduce its standards for environmental protection, NAFTA has failed to meet Canada's interests. 1 Joseph E. Stiglitz, "The Broken Promise of NAFTA," New York Times, January 6, 2004. 2 "The Sun Belt NAFTA Case." Sun Belt Water, 2004. 3 Kerr, Jim. "Auto Tech: MMT: the Controversy Over this Fuel Additive Continues." March 10, 2004.
NAFTA has failed to give Mexico a competitive edge in the global economy.

Although NAFTA gives Mexico a slight advantage over its competitors, this edge has been insufficient; Chinese labor is still cheaper, and imports more goods to the US than Mexico does1. Real wages in Mexico have actually decreased 0.2% and income disparities between Mexico and the US have grown2. In failing to provide sufficient means for Mexico to compete with other developing nations, NAFTA has failed to serve its parties' interests. 1 Smith, Geri and Cristina Lindblad. "Mexico: Was NAFTA Worth it: A Tale of What Free Trade Can and Cannot Do." Business Week, December 22, 2003. 2 Stiglitz, Joseph E. "The Broken Promise of NAFTA." New York Times, January 6, 2004. improve this
NAFTA has improved democracy in Mexico.

There is little reason to believe that NAFTA was a key agent in Mexican political change. In the time after NAFTA was signed, Mexico also experienced an economic crisis linked to a currency collapse1. Its president fled the country on corruption charges and drug-related corruption continues to plague the country. Mexico has had both good and bad political and economic experiences since the implementation of NAFTA, and it is impossible to say that NAFTA caused the freer elections in 1994 and therefore has been overall beneficial for Mexico. 1Paul Magnusson, "Did NAFTA Backers Bamboozle America?" Business Week, May 8, 2000. improve this
NAFTA caused a severe trade imbalance between the US and its neighbors.

The loss of US production jobs is part of a greater global trend; NAFTA is not responsible for this change. Mexico and Canada are responsible for only one-fifth of the growth in the US trade deficit. The rapid acceleration of technological communication has made outsourcing and offshore production easier than ever1, and the US is losing jobs to countries that do the work as a fraction of the cost. 1 Thomas L. Friedman, "The World is Flat: a Brief History of the Twenty-First Century," (New York: Picador, 2007), 148.
A strong leader is working in the state’s best interest

Putin’s authoritarian style is not a threat to democracy but rather a requirement for a successful and quicker transition. Having Putin control the media is probably healthier than having it be controlled by a corrupt few that promote their personal interests rather than the interest of the state and thus those of the population at large. Democracy is a goal and while certain countries believe themselves to have achieved it, they are constantly struggling to maintain it. As a young democracy, Russia is still working towards defining its own version of democracy and finding what works best in its case.
Russia as a state and Russians as a nation need strong leadership

Historically, Russia has always needed strong centralised leadership for it to make progress. This was true both in imperial times under tsars such as Peter the Great (who made Russia a European power and built St Petersburg) and Alexander II (who freed the serfs), and since 1917 under Lenin and Stalin. Russia is too big, too diverse and too thinly-populated for western systems of representative democracy to be applied. Culturally its people are temperamentally suited to following the decisive lead of a strong ruler who can unite them in the face of great challenges. Without such a ruler Russia is likely to fragment with local strongmen grabbing power in the regions, religious fundamentalism dominating much of the Caucasus and Central Asia, and economic stagnation.
Proper democratic checks and balance are the only way to real problem-solving

There is a fine line between enough authority to fight corruption and enough authority to oppress a population. Many corrupt, authoritarian leaders have risen to power through the promise of social reform and of wiping out drug cartels and gangsters. A society living in fear and believing that all their problems will be solved by a powerful leader will never be able to overcome its problems. Empowering individuals and accepting risk is ultimately the only true solution to such problems. Even if Putin were completely pure himself, centralising power so completely gives great influence to those advisers and ministers around him and makes corruption in government inevitable. Only by building in proper democratic checks and balances, including criticism from a free media and legal system, can accountability be created and corruption or incompetence tackled.