Furthermore, he stressed the importance of price advertising in a free market economy, because they serve to provide the underlying information for citizens to make private economic decisions.

Blackmun responded that while regulation of the pharmacy profession was both necessary and within the prerogative of the several States through their police power, the statute promoted consumers' ignorance, effectively keeping them in the dark about prescription drug prices.

[9] Chief Justice Burger concurred on largely practical grounds, citing the fact that since 95% of the prescriptions being filled required prepackaged medications, prepared by their manufacturers to be sold immediately.

Burger reasoned that since regulation of these professions governed a different set of risks, and since the services involved were unique and personalized to the client, the holding of this case should not apply to them.

He cited various libel cases to demonstrate that while the press cannot be harshly restricted for fear that journalists may occasionally get their facts wrong, an advertiser is much more likely to know whether or not the material he was publishing was true.

He used a type of slippery slope argument to describe the potential consequences of this decision; specifically, he worried that this ruling would allow the promotion of consumption of liquor, cigarettes, and other products which states had traditionally tried to discourage.

He concluded by arguing that the majority has not only failed to accord proper weight to the judgment of the Virginia State Legislature, but that the protection of the First Amendment ought to be limited to political and social issues.