The Sackler Family Wins Immunity from Future Opioid Lawsuits(npr.org)
npr.org
The Sackler Family Wins Immunity from Future Opioid Lawsuits
https://www.npr.org/2021/09/01/1031053251/sackler-family-immunity-purdue-pharma-oxcyontin-opioid-epidemic
276 comments
> The Sackler family is conclusively and directly responsible for at least 18,000 deaths in the united states
Do you have a good source for this? I'm genuinely curious. I've heard about the opioid crisis and Purdue Pharma but not this particular family. I see that they were on the board of Purdue. How were they directly connected to the deaths?
Do you have a good source for this? I'm genuinely curious. I've heard about the opioid crisis and Purdue Pharma but not this particular family. I see that they were on the board of Purdue. How were they directly connected to the deaths?
Here's an article:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/10/30/the-family-tha...
>>>
In 1952, the Sackler brothers bought a small patent-medicine company, Purdue Frederick, which was based in Greenwich Village and made such unglamorous staples as laxatives and earwax remover.
According to court documents, each brother would control a third of the company, but Arthur, who was occupied with his publishing and advertising ventures, would play a passive role. The journalist Barry Meier, in his 2003 book, “Pain Killer: A ‘Wonder’ Drug’s Trail of Addiction and Death,” remarks that Arthur treated his brothers “not as siblings but more like his progeny and understudies.”
Now Raymond and Mortimer, who became joint C.E.O.s, had a company of their own.
...
Richard Sackler worked tirelessly to make OxyContin a blockbuster, telling colleagues how devoted he was to the drug’s success.
>>>
In 1952, the Sackler brothers bought a small patent-medicine company, Purdue Frederick, which was based in Greenwich Village and made such unglamorous staples as laxatives and earwax remover.
According to court documents, each brother would control a third of the company, but Arthur, who was occupied with his publishing and advertising ventures, would play a passive role. The journalist Barry Meier, in his 2003 book, “Pain Killer: A ‘Wonder’ Drug’s Trail of Addiction and Death,” remarks that Arthur treated his brothers “not as siblings but more like his progeny and understudies.”
Now Raymond and Mortimer, who became joint C.E.O.s, had a company of their own.
...
Richard Sackler worked tirelessly to make OxyContin a blockbuster, telling colleagues how devoted he was to the drug’s success.
> NPR reported on Tuesday that Purdue Pharma and its attorneys launched a behind-the-scenes pressure campaign aimed at convincing the DOJ not to challenge the plan in court.
> NPR acquired an early draft of a letter distributed by the drug company to groups supportive of the bankruptcy deal.
> The letter is framed as a direct appeal to DOJ officials and purports to be written by those injured by the company and members of the Sackler family.
> "We collectively speak for the overwhelming majority of the state and local governments, organizations, and individuals harmed by Purdue and the Sacklers," the letter states.
> There is no mention in the document of the company's role launching the effort or crafting the message.
Not shocking that the group largely responsible for the opioid crisis would lie like this, but still disgusting. I'm hoping the DOJ appeals.
> NPR acquired an early draft of a letter distributed by the drug company to groups supportive of the bankruptcy deal.
> The letter is framed as a direct appeal to DOJ officials and purports to be written by those injured by the company and members of the Sackler family.
> "We collectively speak for the overwhelming majority of the state and local governments, organizations, and individuals harmed by Purdue and the Sacklers," the letter states.
> There is no mention in the document of the company's role launching the effort or crafting the message.
Not shocking that the group largely responsible for the opioid crisis would lie like this, but still disgusting. I'm hoping the DOJ appeals.
> I'm hoping the DOJ appeals.
"Hoping" won't make it happen; but writing to your Representatives just might have an effect.
"Hoping" won't make it happen; but writing to your Representatives just might have an effect.
Hell this might be the one instance where Joe Manchin's current stranglehold could prove powerful. Give him a ring.
"The Sacklers, who admit no wrongdoing and who by their own reckoning earned more than $10 billion from opioid sales, will remain one of the wealthiest families in the world."
Where is that wealth now, I wonder if it's really all that secure. History has shown that ill-gotten wealth can be made transitory, if someone tries hard enough. Seen any Medici lately?
We can't even carve their names off museums...
The Medici family continues to exist and is still wealthy.
The main branch, the ones with the money and power, did die off, and their lands were given to Maria-Theresa's husband as compensation for him losing his ancestral lands ( Lorraine, because the French king didn't want Austria to have land even closer to him) after the war of the Austrian Succession.
These days I pretty much just assume every single billionaire deserves to get stood up against a wall for the things they did to become one. I've seen very little evidence to the contrary. Even the best of them fall into the "probably worth having around even if they are a raging jackass" category.
I generally don't take hard stands against people. I disagree a lot, but disagreement is par for the course.
If you think the solution to any problem in society is "standing people up against a wall", you are literally the problem. You are the violent jackboot that actively harms society and has no value to discourse. You are a bad person.
That you can do that against an entire class of people because of some shared characteristic is horrifying. You are made up of the same stuff of historical dictators who put people in furnaces.
If you think the solution to any problem in society is "standing people up against a wall", you are literally the problem. You are the violent jackboot that actively harms society and has no value to discourse. You are a bad person.
That you can do that against an entire class of people because of some shared characteristic is horrifying. You are made up of the same stuff of historical dictators who put people in furnaces.
Do child rapists deserve to be lined up against a wall? If I think it's a good idea, am I a violent jackboot that actively harms society? Am I worse than the rapists?
BTW, I wouldn't line up "terrorists", as they may have reasons (as in someone may have bombed their village or something).
Is thinking some people should be lined up the bigger problem, rather than actually doing things to get billions of $, like killing >10k people, or putting 100k or millions of people in misery?
I'm not sure how many furnaces you'd be able to fill before you ran out of billionaires. Seems there would be less of them than this 30% fine guy killed, so .. it might be a net benefit?
Technically, I'm a pacifist, so I'd lock them up. Not sure if OP meant it literally. Then again, if locking up proves unmanageable (try locking up a billionaire), it may be a reasonable option (for individuals). I wouldn't, but if someone had a go at them, I probably wouldn't stop him.
BTW, I wouldn't line up "terrorists", as they may have reasons (as in someone may have bombed their village or something).
Is thinking some people should be lined up the bigger problem, rather than actually doing things to get billions of $, like killing >10k people, or putting 100k or millions of people in misery?
I'm not sure how many furnaces you'd be able to fill before you ran out of billionaires. Seems there would be less of them than this 30% fine guy killed, so .. it might be a net benefit?
Technically, I'm a pacifist, so I'd lock them up. Not sure if OP meant it literally. Then again, if locking up proves unmanageable (try locking up a billionaire), it may be a reasonable option (for individuals). I wouldn't, but if someone had a go at them, I probably wouldn't stop him.
If you think a terrorist blowing up a market full of kids and women is cool, but we need to be putting billionaires in ovens because.. they have money.. you may not be the pacificist you pretend to be.
If you are trying to balance out the "benefit" of killing humans then you are lost. That's the "but it'd be really convenient to take land from the Jews and kill them!" kind of ethics.
I would suggest you disengage from whatever is giving you this kind of warped mentality.
If you are trying to balance out the "benefit" of killing humans then you are lost. That's the "but it'd be really convenient to take land from the Jews and kill them!" kind of ethics.
I would suggest you disengage from whatever is giving you this kind of warped mentality.
> If you think a terrorist blowing up a market full of kids and women is cool
I don't think they meant it as "cool", but it's usually more complex than that. Most terrorists have a cause and reasons for joining it sometimes it's brainwashing by a local trusted person ( e.g. priest or whatever), sometimes it's directly suffering against something and wanting to fight back - e.g. the IRA, the Chechen's against Russia, and many people against the US. When your market was bombed, and your wife, kid and neighbors got exploded because someone is playing empire, is it really that insane to want to blow up their wife and kids in retaliation, to bring the fight to them? I don't consider it so, even if it remains despicable and wrong.
However, a billionaire that knowingly sacrificed even hundreds of civilians purely out of greed, is worse. They weren't brainwashed to believe there will be virgins as reward, they knew killing people ( either through negligence or overworking or marketing drugs) will get them money and they do it. There are no mitigating circumstances, no excuses. Of course that doesn't mean they should all be executed. Making them pay hefty taxes and better regulating the ways they made their money is a better way to deal with the issue. (However i understand how a person could look at the current situation, decide it's hopeless and think violence is the only possible way forward)
I don't think they meant it as "cool", but it's usually more complex than that. Most terrorists have a cause and reasons for joining it sometimes it's brainwashing by a local trusted person ( e.g. priest or whatever), sometimes it's directly suffering against something and wanting to fight back - e.g. the IRA, the Chechen's against Russia, and many people against the US. When your market was bombed, and your wife, kid and neighbors got exploded because someone is playing empire, is it really that insane to want to blow up their wife and kids in retaliation, to bring the fight to them? I don't consider it so, even if it remains despicable and wrong.
However, a billionaire that knowingly sacrificed even hundreds of civilians purely out of greed, is worse. They weren't brainwashed to believe there will be virgins as reward, they knew killing people ( either through negligence or overworking or marketing drugs) will get them money and they do it. There are no mitigating circumstances, no excuses. Of course that doesn't mean they should all be executed. Making them pay hefty taxes and better regulating the ways they made their money is a better way to deal with the issue. (However i understand how a person could look at the current situation, decide it's hopeless and think violence is the only possible way forward)
There's a form of discrimination where you justify or hold someone to a lower standard because you believe they are less capable. A common form is "racism of lower expectations" but it can of course be due to classism, nationalism, etc.
"Well, Terrorists are brainwashed and therefore aren't culpable." When you are about to press the plunger of a detonator in a market full of women and kids, that's a pretty universally bad thing - whether you're Muslim or Christian, rich or poor. You can wrap it up in this romantic story of how this young man was misled by promises of virgins but even very religious people have doubts and are logical beings. More than a few suicide bombers have backed out (or attempted to back out), and it's common for suicide bombers to be told there are punishments (of the earthly variety) for not completing their task.
It seems like you're holding a person responsible for a very complex web of events, to a very high standard and demanding extra punishment for them then you are for someone who is responsible much more directly for an event. If the billionaire was going around shooting people we would be much more likely as a society to condemn them to death, but we understand the more complex the casuality, the lesser the guilt. We do not condemn propagandists to death either.
The best I can figure it, it comes down to envy. Nobody envies the goat herder who blows up a market. Lots of people envy the rich. If you can't beat them, then make them suffer. Historically, people have also tied wealth to morality - being wealthy is good/evil, not simply an outcome of being skilled at making money.
"Well, Terrorists are brainwashed and therefore aren't culpable." When you are about to press the plunger of a detonator in a market full of women and kids, that's a pretty universally bad thing - whether you're Muslim or Christian, rich or poor. You can wrap it up in this romantic story of how this young man was misled by promises of virgins but even very religious people have doubts and are logical beings. More than a few suicide bombers have backed out (or attempted to back out), and it's common for suicide bombers to be told there are punishments (of the earthly variety) for not completing their task.
It seems like you're holding a person responsible for a very complex web of events, to a very high standard and demanding extra punishment for them then you are for someone who is responsible much more directly for an event. If the billionaire was going around shooting people we would be much more likely as a society to condemn them to death, but we understand the more complex the casuality, the lesser the guilt. We do not condemn propagandists to death either.
The best I can figure it, it comes down to envy. Nobody envies the goat herder who blows up a market. Lots of people envy the rich. If you can't beat them, then make them suffer. Historically, people have also tied wealth to morality - being wealthy is good/evil, not simply an outcome of being skilled at making money.
> "Well, Terrorists are brainwashed and therefore aren't culpable
That's really not what i said. There are terrorists who were just brainwashed, but there are those who personally suffered and want to avenge that. Both scenarios are much more understandable reasons to make people die people than greed, at least for me.
And i think the reason for that is empathy, not envy. I can emphasise with the person who lost their land(whose ancestors lost their lands) and is living in an apartheid state; the person who had friends and family killed by an invading power for profit; the person who is treated as a second class thing, with his fellow second class things murdered at will, in his own land by an occupying power; and the poor confused youngsters that was brainwashing to believe in magical people, righteous justice, how great things used to be, etc. They are wrong to kill civilians, but there are underlying issues that need to be fixed.
I can't emphathise with somebody like the fuckwits at Boeing sacrificing human lives with incompetence and negligence to abide by an arbitrary deadline for money, or a fossil fuel executive lobbying against climate change and for his people-killing planet-destroying oil or coal. I can't put myself in their shoes and I wouldn't be able to sleep at night if i were at there place.
That's really not what i said. There are terrorists who were just brainwashed, but there are those who personally suffered and want to avenge that. Both scenarios are much more understandable reasons to make people die people than greed, at least for me.
And i think the reason for that is empathy, not envy. I can emphasise with the person who lost their land(whose ancestors lost their lands) and is living in an apartheid state; the person who had friends and family killed by an invading power for profit; the person who is treated as a second class thing, with his fellow second class things murdered at will, in his own land by an occupying power; and the poor confused youngsters that was brainwashing to believe in magical people, righteous justice, how great things used to be, etc. They are wrong to kill civilians, but there are underlying issues that need to be fixed.
I can't emphathise with somebody like the fuckwits at Boeing sacrificing human lives with incompetence and negligence to abide by an arbitrary deadline for money, or a fossil fuel executive lobbying against climate change and for his people-killing planet-destroying oil or coal. I can't put myself in their shoes and I wouldn't be able to sleep at night if i were at there place.
I didn't want to get into terrorists, but both sides of the conflict are killing innocent people, including women and children. If you tallied them up, I'm not sure which side would have higher numbers. One side can shoot people from the sky, the other uses a more manual approach.
If one side is (kind-of) hailed as heroes while the others are called terrorists, how could I pass judgement on one of them, without passing the same judgement on those we tend to call soldiers or commanders?
I don't think they are doing something unprecedented - in pretty much all wars atrocities were committed and wars are atrocities themselves. When they don't have other realistic ways to fight back, while not condoning, I cannot judge them.
Back to rich folks: If someone kills 10 people for whatever, another provokes a war for profit, killing many thousands, yet another organizes mass addiction for profit, killing many thousands, who has most and least guilt? Please answer.
Only one of them is a candidate for hanging in western world. Do you think it's proper?
If one side is (kind-of) hailed as heroes while the others are called terrorists, how could I pass judgement on one of them, without passing the same judgement on those we tend to call soldiers or commanders?
I don't think they are doing something unprecedented - in pretty much all wars atrocities were committed and wars are atrocities themselves. When they don't have other realistic ways to fight back, while not condoning, I cannot judge them.
Back to rich folks: If someone kills 10 people for whatever, another provokes a war for profit, killing many thousands, yet another organizes mass addiction for profit, killing many thousands, who has most and least guilt? Please answer.
Only one of them is a candidate for hanging in western world. Do you think it's proper?
[deleted]
>These days I pretty much just assume every single billionaire deserves to get stood up against a wall for the things they did to become one.
alright I'll bite. What did bill gates do? Sure, he engaged in some anti-competitive practices, but does that deserve to be "stood up against a wall"?
alright I'll bite. What did bill gates do? Sure, he engaged in some anti-competitive practices, but does that deserve to be "stood up against a wall"?
Since you asked -
Have you heard 'Episode 45: The Not-So-Benevolent Billionaire - Bill Gates and Western Media' by Citations Needed Podcast on SoundCloud? https://soundcloud.com/citationsneeded/episode-45-the-not-so...
Transcript: https://link.medium.com/FXbDzrWDdjb
Have you heard 'Episode 45: The Not-So-Benevolent Billionaire - Bill Gates and Western Media' by Citations Needed Podcast on SoundCloud? https://soundcloud.com/citationsneeded/episode-45-the-not-so...
Transcript: https://link.medium.com/FXbDzrWDdjb
Definitely sexism, possibly bordering on misogyny. During the Gates era he avoided hiring female execs because “they’ll get pregnant and leave”
Not worth standing against a wall, but Gates is a bad person.
Not worth standing against a wall, but Gates is a bad person.
My son likes the book series "Diary of a Wimpy Kid". This series sold more than 250 million books, and there were a few movies made after them. The author is without a doubt a billionaire. Should we execute him? Should we line up Dan Brown and J.K. Rowling next to him? Michael Jordan is obviously toast, but what's going to happen to Patrick Mahomes? He got a contract for half a bil, with endorsements and investments he's bound to cross the nine zeros one day. Should he be worried?
Jeff Kinney has a net worth of $70 million. Dan Brown has a net worth of $160 million. Rowling is no longer a billionaire after giving hundreds of millions to charity. Patrick Mahomes' net worth is $30 million. Jordan is a raging homophobe who refuses to tip waiters and a billionaire, and almost all of it came from conning kids and teenagers into wasting their money on overpriced shoes.
I believe my point stands.
I believe my point stands.
Patrick Mahomes has a net worth greater than $30M. Those random net worth sites aren’t exactly scientific.
You're on HN so i assume you work in big tech. Big tech has been associated with many "evils" in society. By your logic, you should be stood up against a wall.
Sometimes i wonder how intelligent people in tech can reasonably make some of the arguments that they do and then i come across arguments such as these in the wild and cringe some more.
Sometimes i wonder how intelligent people in tech can reasonably make some of the arguments that they do and then i come across arguments such as these in the wild and cringe some more.
I work in agriculture, actually.
By your logic, you should be stood up against a wall.
How so? My argument is that it's unlikely for an individual to accumulate and hold a certain level of wealth without being a jerk. What does that have to do with middle-class tech workers?
By your logic, you should be stood up against a wall.
How so? My argument is that it's unlikely for an individual to accumulate and hold a certain level of wealth without being a jerk. What does that have to do with middle-class tech workers?
Unless youve written every single line of code in whatever industry you’re in on your own, I assure you, you’re using derived work of the companies in Faang or their devices or tools.
Your position on “Billionaires” is idiotic since it classifies people into a cohort that you deem must all be guilty purely by a measure of their wealth.
I’m making the point that if I were to classify you similarly with no regard for your individual contributions to society or how you choose to live your life, but instead by your association with companies I deem “evil”, you will protest the unfairness as you have.
So thank you for making my point for me, I’m glad you see the irony in how your viewpoint shifts when you’re on the receiving end of similar “judgement through grouping”
Your position on “Billionaires” is idiotic since it classifies people into a cohort that you deem must all be guilty purely by a measure of their wealth.
I’m making the point that if I were to classify you similarly with no regard for your individual contributions to society or how you choose to live your life, but instead by your association with companies I deem “evil”, you will protest the unfairness as you have.
So thank you for making my point for me, I’m glad you see the irony in how your viewpoint shifts when you’re on the receiving end of similar “judgement through grouping”
Not the OP, but I'm guessing the larger point is that if you're pulling $400k writing adware/spyware/analytics, you're at least complicit in oligarchs concentrating their power, control, and ownership of your personal data.
Should you (not you, dear poster, but the hypothetical FAANG employee) be put against the wall? no. But you also have no right to complain about inequality or encroachments on freedom or privacy if you're actively working to aid those ends.
You either quit, or you shut up. Those are the options.
Should you (not you, dear poster, but the hypothetical FAANG employee) be put against the wall? no. But you also have no right to complain about inequality or encroachments on freedom or privacy if you're actively working to aid those ends.
You either quit, or you shut up. Those are the options.
Yes because getting a salary of 0.04% of a billionaire's net worth means that you're equally culpable. Never mind if, say, you're doing it so you can provide for your parents or extended family that lives near the poverty line...
Please don't equate working in a system with not also simulatenously wanting the system to drastically change.
Please don't equate working in a system with not also simulatenously wanting the system to drastically change.
All I'm saying is that if you're doing logistics accounting for gas canisters in 1943 Germany in order to "provide for your parents", that's fine, I get it. But you're not in a moral position to complain about the atrocities going on at Birkenau.
You've made your choice that your parents' comfort is more important than some people's lives. You do your job, and maybe you do it with a heavy sense of personal shame. But you don't get to publicly bloviate about how horrible the machine is whilst you're actively working to help it function.
You've made your choice that your parents' comfort is more important than some people's lives. You do your job, and maybe you do it with a heavy sense of personal shame. But you don't get to publicly bloviate about how horrible the machine is whilst you're actively working to help it function.
Ok, so other people who do different things from me would be hypocrites if they tried to make the same points I'm making. That's entirely true, such as the idiotic moral posturing of Google employees who throw tantrums at the idea of taking money from the DoD while also doing their best to figure out who's pregnant before they themselves know it. I just don't see how it's a relevant response to my position on billionaires.
How does it feel to know you're making the same fallacious arguments as capitalists from the 1920's?
"Through a warped lens the worker is equally as bad as the exploiter, hmm! Better not think critically of the exploiter or you could be next!"
Good lord.
"Through a warped lens the worker is equally as bad as the exploiter, hmm! Better not think critically of the exploiter or you could be next!"
Good lord.
Yes, Jeff Kinney's net worth is $70 MM because the internet says so. I guess then, if I ever become a billionaire, the first thing I should do is to put out there on the internet that my net worth is only $70 MM.
These comments frighten me. Seems like we are on the verge of a woke cultural revolution. No, violence is not the answer for poor personal decisions.
Whether or not violence is the answer, it seems inevitable if the trend of unequal outcomes continues on the trajectory it has been for the past 40 years. If the wealthy were as smart as they think they are, they would get behind some form of redistribution just out of a "Bread and Circuses" self-interest plan.
The worst bit is some of it is quite-likely Russian destabilizing astroturfing. Stoking a class war would be absolutely in scope for this stuff.
- https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/10/28/its-not-e... - https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/download/10...
- https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/10/28/its-not-e... - https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/download/10...
It is really strange that this comment has more downvotes than the parent comment.
So... things you do that harm other people are a special class of "poor personal decisions".
But I agree with you, violence is not the answer, or at least not a good answer, a very last resort answer -- but applies to sending people to prison too (prison is definitely a form of violence) for their "poor personal decisions" that harmed and killed others too, I hope you agree.
But yeah, it also applies to the billionairres.
On the other hand, the initial comment just said they "deserved" it, which is different than saying it should happen or we will make it happen. Although I'm reluctant to decide who "deserves" violence or not myself too. (And I hope you agree that this applies to deciding who "deserves" prison too...)
I think it's safe to say that at the minimum they deserve, and ought to lose all the money they made in profit from the scheme that ruined and ended lives. Like that's just the minimum starting point for what they ought to do to make restitution to the families, communities, and society that they hurt, and to make sure they don't do similar again. That this bare minimum starting point isn't being met is why people are so mad.
But I agree with you, violence is not the answer, or at least not a good answer, a very last resort answer -- but applies to sending people to prison too (prison is definitely a form of violence) for their "poor personal decisions" that harmed and killed others too, I hope you agree.
But yeah, it also applies to the billionairres.
On the other hand, the initial comment just said they "deserved" it, which is different than saying it should happen or we will make it happen. Although I'm reluctant to decide who "deserves" violence or not myself too. (And I hope you agree that this applies to deciding who "deserves" prison too...)
I think it's safe to say that at the minimum they deserve, and ought to lose all the money they made in profit from the scheme that ruined and ended lives. Like that's just the minimum starting point for what they ought to do to make restitution to the families, communities, and society that they hurt, and to make sure they don't do similar again. That this bare minimum starting point isn't being met is why people are so mad.
The thing is they did not do all bad. What the woke cannabis pushing media ignores is that millions of chronic pain patients had access to effective treatments that improved and in some cases saved their lives thanks to oxycotin because older opioids like morphine had already been stigmatised in previous moral panics.
I don't think that's the case, unless you go back many decades.
Purdue was in part so effective because they spent millions 'educating' (and bribing) doctors and making up a '5th vital sign' in order to push huge quantities of drugs. This was on purpose. Those face in pain posters you see still originally came from Purdue.
This always comes up in these threads, that perhaps we've swung too far in the direction of limiting access to pain meds for legit patients.
Which definitely has merit.
But that doesn't take away from what Sacklers and Kappor et al did.
from my understanding long term prescription of opiates in modern medicine wasn't really a thing before Purdue's marketing (and still isn't outside of late stage cancer in most countries).
So that's what I was getting at in responding to 'other opiates having been stigmatized in previous moral panics,' I think you'd have to go back to prohibition to find a similar time of heavy long term use 'medically'
Purdue was in part so effective because they spent millions 'educating' (and bribing) doctors and making up a '5th vital sign' in order to push huge quantities of drugs. This was on purpose. Those face in pain posters you see still originally came from Purdue.
This always comes up in these threads, that perhaps we've swung too far in the direction of limiting access to pain meds for legit patients.
Which definitely has merit.
But that doesn't take away from what Sacklers and Kappor et al did.
from my understanding long term prescription of opiates in modern medicine wasn't really a thing before Purdue's marketing (and still isn't outside of late stage cancer in most countries).
So that's what I was getting at in responding to 'other opiates having been stigmatized in previous moral panics,' I think you'd have to go back to prohibition to find a similar time of heavy long term use 'medically'
So that you suggest it was useful only because other opiates had been "stigmatized" is telling.
But anyway, they could have done all that good without the despicable practices they used to ensure that it got over-prescribed with under-awareness of it's dangers. Those were in no way necessary for supplying a useful pain relief drug. Those things were only about greed and lack of concern for who it hurt, not some kind of necessary collateral damage of trying to do good.
Nobody that does harm is without some redeeming qualities. (Not anyone we send to prison either). But those who do serious harm need to make restitution and repair for it. That starts, just starts, with giving up the fruits of that harm.
But anyway, they could have done all that good without the despicable practices they used to ensure that it got over-prescribed with under-awareness of it's dangers. Those were in no way necessary for supplying a useful pain relief drug. Those things were only about greed and lack of concern for who it hurt, not some kind of necessary collateral damage of trying to do good.
Nobody that does harm is without some redeeming qualities. (Not anyone we send to prison either). But those who do serious harm need to make restitution and repair for it. That starts, just starts, with giving up the fruits of that harm.
If you ever wondered how you could kill half a million people and get away with it, here you go.
But no, we will hyperventilate about the Taliban. But let US billionaires off with mass murder
And in China, when executives commit willfully harmful acts at this scale, they’re executed (6 children dead, hundreds of thousands harmed in my example from citations below).
The actions of the Sacklers caused the deaths of over 500k people, and they walk away with a large fine and civil judgment immunity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Chinese_milk_scandal
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8375638.stm
The actions of the Sacklers caused the deaths of over 500k people, and they walk away with a large fine and civil judgment immunity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Chinese_milk_scandal
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8375638.stm
China sent a cute little state execution van to execute a billionaire on the spot, and I think they billed his family for the cost of sending the van to him and the execution materials.
They really don't fuck around, and if the CCP doesn't fall apart from internal strife, they've probably got the 21st century in the bag. Might end up being the best for the survival of humanity and exploration of the universe, who knows.
They really don't fuck around, and if the CCP doesn't fall apart from internal strife, they've probably got the 21st century in the bag. Might end up being the best for the survival of humanity and exploration of the universe, who knows.
Every family of every person who has an interest in the fortune should be followed by hecklers wherever they go for the rest of their lives.
These people don't mingle with the riff raff. The only middle and lower class people they see are their employees, and that's usually only through a screen or several sheets of glass.
They still remain billionaires after the settlement. This is immoral and disgusting
I imagine these are the sort of tactics that worked right up until the end of the Ancien Régime. Then suddenly, they didn't... and things rapidly devolved.
FDR managed to stop his fellow class members from pushing too far, and got the New Deal passed. Now that is unwound, and the tipping point is far too near, again.
FDR managed to stop his fellow class members from pushing too far, and got the New Deal passed. Now that is unwound, and the tipping point is far too near, again.
I've been thinking a lot about pre-revolutionary France and it's parallels. Higher tax rates for poor people than ultra rich, over-powerful Christian influence on politics, court system that is localized by state and district, and partisan life-appointed supreme court, the list goes on.
The main differences? Street mobs won't be a thing, mob justice and guillotines won't be a thing, monarchy isn't existent, no foreign neighbors about to invade us opportunistically, it's a lot of differences.
Fundamentally, I don't see getting out of the status quo peacefully anytime soon. I think division and partisanship will remain until the boomers die out, at which point we have a chance to leave behind our current quagmire.
The main differences? Street mobs won't be a thing, mob justice and guillotines won't be a thing, monarchy isn't existent, no foreign neighbors about to invade us opportunistically, it's a lot of differences.
Fundamentally, I don't see getting out of the status quo peacefully anytime soon. I think division and partisanship will remain until the boomers die out, at which point we have a chance to leave behind our current quagmire.
>Street mobs won't be a thing, mob justice and guillotines won't be a thing
There were "mostly peaceful" protests that destroyed many of the larger city centers last year.
The very real threat to the normally peaceful suburbs that had police closing the Indiana/Illinois border near me made me strongly reconsider my need to be able to respond to such violence, and it created a large spike in gun sales across the US
>monarchy isn't existent
The donor class runs the Federal Government by proxy
>no foreign neighbors about to invade us opportunistically
Unless of course, you count 9/11
There were "mostly peaceful" protests that destroyed many of the larger city centers last year.
The very real threat to the normally peaceful suburbs that had police closing the Indiana/Illinois border near me made me strongly reconsider my need to be able to respond to such violence, and it created a large spike in gun sales across the US
>monarchy isn't existent
The donor class runs the Federal Government by proxy
>no foreign neighbors about to invade us opportunistically
Unless of course, you count 9/11
Not even certain what to say.
Yes this is a low value comment but I'm speechless. The argument "We potentially screwed up so much that there would be so many people suing us that it would cause legal chaos. So as a result we should be granted full waivers of liability to avoid the lawsuits." Is so brazen as to be absurd.
But the fact it was a successful argument and won is what's astounding.
Unchecked corporate power is a phenomenal national liability.
Yes this is a low value comment but I'm speechless. The argument "We potentially screwed up so much that there would be so many people suing us that it would cause legal chaos. So as a result we should be granted full waivers of liability to avoid the lawsuits." Is so brazen as to be absurd.
But the fact it was a successful argument and won is what's astounding.
Unchecked corporate power is a phenomenal national liability.
This is now a proven, well-worn playbook: put yourself at the center of a massive enterprise, and if/when it all goes to shit, basically demand a ransom: "If you don't let me go quietly, my scorched earth policy will ensure there is no carcass to pick over."
It is the playbook that CEOs with golden parachutes use as their companies go under, it is the playbook that Adam Neumann used when exiting WeWork, and it is even used by jailed business owners for leniency ("If I'm in jail, I'll have to shut my company and all of my poor employees will lose their jobs")
At some point, though, I do worry that metaphorical pitchforks become real ones. There are literally hundreds of thousands of family members of those who died due to Sacklers' greed, and they get to read that the Sacklers will remain one of the wealthiest families in the world.
It is the playbook that CEOs with golden parachutes use as their companies go under, it is the playbook that Adam Neumann used when exiting WeWork, and it is even used by jailed business owners for leniency ("If I'm in jail, I'll have to shut my company and all of my poor employees will lose their jobs")
At some point, though, I do worry that metaphorical pitchforks become real ones. There are literally hundreds of thousands of family members of those who died due to Sacklers' greed, and they get to read that the Sacklers will remain one of the wealthiest families in the world.
I'm one of those people. I didn't know my mother very well because she abandoned my family when I was 3 years old, but I did eventually start to get to know her again starting in 2012.
She was always struggling with addiction, but never did any form of heroin until she injured herself while walking down a stairwell drunk. She was prescribed OxyContin and quickly became extremely addicted.
My last conversation with her before she died was one where she was desperately begging me to find her any kind of opiate painkiller I could. This was because she had been cut off by her doctor who wouldn't renew her prescription. She ended up procuring some heroin which was apparently laced with fentanyl. She snorted it in her car in the parking lot of a 7-Eleven in Washington DC and overdosed and died in 2015.
I'm not going to pretend like she was living a productive life because she certainly wasn't. I'm also not going to pretend like she wasn't already an addict in other ways. But this product and this evil family who knowingly pushed it into Appalachia and other parts of the US where the residents are ignored by the political parties has caused tremendous damage to many people.
The first time I lost a friend to an overdose on oxycontin was in 2000 when I was a freshman in college. We were in southwestern Virginia, right in the heart of the emerging crisis. He was my co-worker at a Pizza Hut.
Nobody gave a shit about the droves of people dying until it hit New England 15 years later. It was only then that anyone even took notice in the media.
The biggest insult added to this injury for me personally was when I was a contestant in a hackathon for the US health and human services department in 2017. This is the organization that is in charge of the FDA and they had a whole slew of speakers talking about the opioid epidemic. At no point in the entire event did any of these bureaucrats admit any form of culpability and complicity in approving this drug. As far as I know not a single person in the FDA or HHS was ever fired for allowing this horrible product to be pushed like junk food into this country's most forgotten communities.
She was always struggling with addiction, but never did any form of heroin until she injured herself while walking down a stairwell drunk. She was prescribed OxyContin and quickly became extremely addicted.
My last conversation with her before she died was one where she was desperately begging me to find her any kind of opiate painkiller I could. This was because she had been cut off by her doctor who wouldn't renew her prescription. She ended up procuring some heroin which was apparently laced with fentanyl. She snorted it in her car in the parking lot of a 7-Eleven in Washington DC and overdosed and died in 2015.
I'm not going to pretend like she was living a productive life because she certainly wasn't. I'm also not going to pretend like she wasn't already an addict in other ways. But this product and this evil family who knowingly pushed it into Appalachia and other parts of the US where the residents are ignored by the political parties has caused tremendous damage to many people.
The first time I lost a friend to an overdose on oxycontin was in 2000 when I was a freshman in college. We were in southwestern Virginia, right in the heart of the emerging crisis. He was my co-worker at a Pizza Hut.
Nobody gave a shit about the droves of people dying until it hit New England 15 years later. It was only then that anyone even took notice in the media.
The biggest insult added to this injury for me personally was when I was a contestant in a hackathon for the US health and human services department in 2017. This is the organization that is in charge of the FDA and they had a whole slew of speakers talking about the opioid epidemic. At no point in the entire event did any of these bureaucrats admit any form of culpability and complicity in approving this drug. As far as I know not a single person in the FDA or HHS was ever fired for allowing this horrible product to be pushed like junk food into this country's most forgotten communities.
Remember: heroin was made illegal so the administration would have a reason to harass and arrest anti-war black people.
Just like cannabis was made illegal, to arrest anti-war hippies.
Just like cannabis was made illegal, to arrest anti-war hippies.
I've heard the Ehrlichman quote, but just to be super clear:
I am vehemently against most aspects of the drug war. I've even grown multiple cannabis plants with a hydroponic system/grow tent I setup in my basement. Heroin and opiates are on a different level due to the physical aspects of the addiction/withdrawal, as well as the effects opiates have on suppressing psychological pain and creating a slippery slope for treatable mental illness to untreatable mental illness.
While I support allowing doctors to administer it in designated, supervised locations, I'm 100% against the Vancouver inspired approaches advocated for by people like Johann Hari. I was once a supporter of these approaches. I witnessed implementation in 3 different communities. I was wrong, and it's an utter disaster. Giving needles to addicts so they can continue to support the black market is a dumb idea. I watched it turn entire neighborhoods into inhospitable hell holes in Asheville, SF, and Vancouver. No thank you.
I am vehemently against most aspects of the drug war. I've even grown multiple cannabis plants with a hydroponic system/grow tent I setup in my basement. Heroin and opiates are on a different level due to the physical aspects of the addiction/withdrawal, as well as the effects opiates have on suppressing psychological pain and creating a slippery slope for treatable mental illness to untreatable mental illness.
While I support allowing doctors to administer it in designated, supervised locations, I'm 100% against the Vancouver inspired approaches advocated for by people like Johann Hari. I was once a supporter of these approaches. I witnessed implementation in 3 different communities. I was wrong, and it's an utter disaster. Giving needles to addicts so they can continue to support the black market is a dumb idea. I watched it turn entire neighborhoods into inhospitable hell holes in Asheville, SF, and Vancouver. No thank you.
For some reason the problems of opiates tend to not manifest when availability and quality are stable and prices affordable. Nobody used needles when heroin was available OTC.
Yup. Become too big to fail and you can do anything.
We have decided that economic stability and stability in general is more important than honesty, accountability, abiding by the law, or pretty much anything else. If we hold anyone accountable for anything the stock market might go down.
The same seems to happen in politics, but it works a bit differently. If you hold a politician responsible for gross incompetence or worse, such as George Bush Jr. for Iraq WMDs or Donald Trump for January 6th, then they or their allies might retaliate or hold back legislation that you want passed. On top of that extreme partisan division makes this worse by making it virtually impossible to get members of a politician's own party to hold them responsible for anything. I realized recently that extreme partisanship makes it easier for politicians of both sides to get away with bullshit.
We have decided that economic stability and stability in general is more important than honesty, accountability, abiding by the law, or pretty much anything else. If we hold anyone accountable for anything the stock market might go down.
The same seems to happen in politics, but it works a bit differently. If you hold a politician responsible for gross incompetence or worse, such as George Bush Jr. for Iraq WMDs or Donald Trump for January 6th, then they or their allies might retaliate or hold back legislation that you want passed. On top of that extreme partisan division makes this worse by making it virtually impossible to get members of a politician's own party to hold them responsible for anything. I realized recently that extreme partisanship makes it easier for politicians of both sides to get away with bullshit.
Is there any legal mechanism the public can use to try to kick pro-corporate judges out of power?
It starts with the DOJ. They are afraid of going after big corporations because the corporations have more resources than the DOJ so it’s hard to win. In addition a lot of DOJ leaders don’t want to harm their chances at getting a cushy job at one of these corporations.
DOJ did get at least $2 billion (their press release also says $8?) previously.
I hope they intervene here and or follow up with criminal charges against the individual Sacklers as individuals.
I hope they intervene here and or follow up with criminal charges against the individual Sacklers as individuals.
[deleted]
> It starts with the DOJ. They are afraid of going after big corporations
DoJ can't (except in special circumstances) legally stand in the place of harmed individuals and go after liable actors; because this a bankruptcy case DoJ is involved though, and opposes the settlement, as stated in the article.
DoJ can't (except in special circumstances) legally stand in the place of harmed individuals and go after liable actors; because this a bankruptcy case DoJ is involved though, and opposes the settlement, as stated in the article.
Here is an example from the financial crisis in 2008:
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/holder-big-banks-...
I also remember reading a book about epo and J&J. There the situation also was that the government prosecutors were reluctant to touch the case because they knew J&J would outspend them with their lawyers. Then a private lawyer took on the case and after years reached a settlement but in the process was close to bankrupting his law firm.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/holder-big-banks-...
I also remember reading a book about epo and J&J. There the situation also was that the government prosecutors were reluctant to touch the case because they knew J&J would outspend them with their lawyers. Then a private lawyer took on the case and after years reached a settlement but in the process was close to bankrupting his law firm.
> Here is an example from the financial crisis in 2008
I am not disputing the existence of the general phenomenon, I am saying the facts of the immediate case (including those directly in the article) contradict the assertion that it is the factor responsible for the decision at issue in the case under discussion.
I am not disputing the existence of the general phenomenon, I am saying the facts of the immediate case (including those directly in the article) contradict the assertion that it is the factor responsible for the decision at issue in the case under discussion.
How the hell do you outspend the federal government (Lemme guess, you lobby congress or curry favor with the executive to put limits on the amount of spending you can do on cases that look suspiciously like yours).
> How the hell do you outspend the federal government?
Veey easily if you are a big corp and its an existential threat; the DoJ has lots of funding, sure, but also lots of competing priorities.
Veey easily if you are a big corp and its an existential threat; the DoJ has lots of funding, sure, but also lots of competing priorities.
Very simple. These agencies are underfunded. The IRS also can’t afford to do enough audits.
In modern democracies it should be via legislation, and enabled by elected officials. In practice, it should be difficult to elect parties that promote corporate-hostile policies.
Even if it exists, it's not something the public has true access to. These laws are not made for the benefit of the masses.
Judges can be impeached by your elected officials, so you can demand that of your representatives.
Demanding anything of a representative that goes contra to their donors, who grace both sides with their money, is a quick exercise in failure.
Doesn't that run counter to the idea of an independent judiciary?
Independent Judiciary means independent of the executive and legislative branches. It doesn't mean immunity to public rebuke. Plenty of judges have to renew their mandate by standing for election.
The incentives associated with having your career tied to elections can end up being suboptimal, so we could debate what the most effective method would be, but it's an example of how a judge can be removed from power by the public.
The incentives associated with having your career tied to elections can end up being suboptimal, so we could debate what the most effective method would be, but it's an example of how a judge can be removed from power by the public.
> Independent Judiciary means independent of the executive and legislative branches. It doesn't mean immunity to public rebuke.
This seems to be confirmed by the first sentence of the wikipedia article on "Judicial independence", but the second sentence also mentions not being subject to influence from "private or partisan interests".
>Plenty of judges have to renew their mandate by standing for election.
this is mostly a US thing, and only in certain states. Federal judges are appointed AFAIK.
This seems to be confirmed by the first sentence of the wikipedia article on "Judicial independence", but the second sentence also mentions not being subject to influence from "private or partisan interests".
>Plenty of judges have to renew their mandate by standing for election.
this is mostly a US thing, and only in certain states. Federal judges are appointed AFAIK.
Private means only for one person or group. It doesn't apply. And public rebuke doesn't imply partisanship.
[deleted]
Is the idea of an independent judiciary just a myth to manufacture consent?
It seems obvious to me that judges apply their own ideologies in their rulings. But IANAL, maybe I'm just too cynical.
It seems obvious to me that judges apply their own ideologies in their rulings. But IANAL, maybe I'm just too cynical.
Nullify the jury of the people with the pitchforks.
Go big or go home.
You're being downvoted but this is actually well-understood and phrased in many different ways, including:
> If you owe the bank $100 that's your problem. If you owe the bank $100 million, that's the bank's problem.
- J Paul Getty
> If you owe the bank $100 that's your problem. If you owe the bank $100 million, that's the bank's problem.
- J Paul Getty
> If you owe the bank $100 billion, that's the government's problem.
- Me
- Me
It is a harder question than that. I think we do want limited liability as legal notion.
For any company, not just this example, culpability should stop at the Board, and then any employee of company that willfully commits wrongdoing. The owners should have 100% of their equity at stake, but claimants against actions taken by the company shouldn't pierce the liability curtain of the owners.
Now in this case, at least 8 members of the family did have directorship influence, not just ownership.
I doubt the settlement is just, though I'm not sure some other kind of lawsuit would have been able to retrieve the 4.3 Billion the family is giving up in the settlement. But I'm also fairly certain we don't just want dismantle the notional of limited liability in general
For any company, not just this example, culpability should stop at the Board, and then any employee of company that willfully commits wrongdoing. The owners should have 100% of their equity at stake, but claimants against actions taken by the company shouldn't pierce the liability curtain of the owners.
Now in this case, at least 8 members of the family did have directorship influence, not just ownership.
I doubt the settlement is just, though I'm not sure some other kind of lawsuit would have been able to retrieve the 4.3 Billion the family is giving up in the settlement. But I'm also fairly certain we don't just want dismantle the notional of limited liability in general
The argument against this is that when the Sackler family realized that this was all going to go south they started sucking all of the profit out of Perdu Pharma (over 10 Billion dollars shortly before it declared bankruptcy).
So is it Ok to suck out money and leave the responsibility behind? Is that what limited liability is there for?
I am all for limited liability protecting you from ordinary business failure (allowing people to take some risks). But this goes far beyond that.
So is it Ok to suck out money and leave the responsibility behind? Is that what limited liability is there for?
I am all for limited liability protecting you from ordinary business failure (allowing people to take some risks). But this goes far beyond that.
>The argument against this is that when the Sackler family realized that this was all going to go south they started sucking all of the profit out of Perdu Pharma (over 10 Billion dollars shortly before it declared bankruptcy).
Source for this happening? If so it'd fall under fraudulent conveyance. I suspect what actually happened was that they slowly withdrew the money years before bankruptcy or even the lawsuits, which makes it hard to go after them.
Source for this happening? If so it'd fall under fraudulent conveyance. I suspect what actually happened was that they slowly withdrew the money years before bankruptcy or even the lawsuits, which makes it hard to go after them.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1329736/downl...
>Around the same time, from approximately 2008 to 2018, at the Named Sacklers’ request, billions of dollars were transferred out of Purdue as cash distributions of profits and transfers of assets into Sackler family holding companies and trusts. Certain of these distributions and transfers were made with the intent to hinder future creditors and/or were otherwise voidable as fraudulent transfers.
Edit: Just going through this document makes me wonder how people can carry water for these demons
>The same day, David Sackler replied-all by email: [W]hat do you think is going on in all of these courtrooms right now? We’re rich? For how long? Until which suits get through to the family?
>In or about April 2008, Richard Sackler wrote a memorandum to Kathe Sackler, Ilene Sackler, David Sackler, Jonathan Sackler, and Mortimer D. A. Sackler in which he discussed limiting the Sackler family’s risk in the ownership of Purdue: “[T]he most certain way for the owners to diversify their risk is to distribute more free cash flow so they can purchase diversifying assets.”
These aren't people acting in ignorance, this is family essentially running a legalized drug cartel and has today just protected all their assets. I'm sure the negative externalities of these individuals will cause damage for decades to come in America's heartland.
>Around the same time, from approximately 2008 to 2018, at the Named Sacklers’ request, billions of dollars were transferred out of Purdue as cash distributions of profits and transfers of assets into Sackler family holding companies and trusts. Certain of these distributions and transfers were made with the intent to hinder future creditors and/or were otherwise voidable as fraudulent transfers.
Edit: Just going through this document makes me wonder how people can carry water for these demons
>The same day, David Sackler replied-all by email: [W]hat do you think is going on in all of these courtrooms right now? We’re rich? For how long? Until which suits get through to the family?
>In or about April 2008, Richard Sackler wrote a memorandum to Kathe Sackler, Ilene Sackler, David Sackler, Jonathan Sackler, and Mortimer D. A. Sackler in which he discussed limiting the Sackler family’s risk in the ownership of Purdue: “[T]he most certain way for the owners to diversify their risk is to distribute more free cash flow so they can purchase diversifying assets.”
These aren't people acting in ignorance, this is family essentially running a legalized drug cartel and has today just protected all their assets. I'm sure the negative externalities of these individuals will cause damage for decades to come in America's heartland.
>Around the same time, from approximately 2008 to 2018
That seems different than the parent post's claim of withdrawing "shortly before it declared bankruptcy" and closer to my suspicion of "slowly withdrew the money years before bankruptcy".
>Certain of these distributions and transfers were made with the intent to hinder future creditors and/or were otherwise voidable as fraudulent transfers.
This seems to be the problem. It's impossible to prove whether they were doing so to "hinder future creditors" or to simply pay out profits. Not even the state wants to claim all of those distributions were "fraudulent". They only claim certain ones are, presumably the ones near the 2018.
>In or about April 2008, Richard Sackler wrote a memorandum to Kathe Sackler, Ilene Sackler, David Sackler, Jonathan Sackler, and Mortimer D. A. Sackler in which he discussed limiting the Sackler family’s risk in the ownership of Purdue: “[T]he most certain way for the owners to diversify their risk is to distribute more free cash flow so they can purchase diversifying assets.”
>These aren't people acting in ignorance, this is family essentially running a legalized cartel and has today just protected all their assets. I'm sure the negative externalities these individuals have caused will cause damage for decades to come in America's heartland.
I see how that might seem super evil, but then again it's also totally consistent with how you should manage investments. If you made an outsized gain in one asset (eg. because you sat on DOGE from a few years ago and it went to the moon), you shouldn't sit on it. You should diversify it, like selling it and buying other assets.
That seems different than the parent post's claim of withdrawing "shortly before it declared bankruptcy" and closer to my suspicion of "slowly withdrew the money years before bankruptcy".
>Certain of these distributions and transfers were made with the intent to hinder future creditors and/or were otherwise voidable as fraudulent transfers.
This seems to be the problem. It's impossible to prove whether they were doing so to "hinder future creditors" or to simply pay out profits. Not even the state wants to claim all of those distributions were "fraudulent". They only claim certain ones are, presumably the ones near the 2018.
>In or about April 2008, Richard Sackler wrote a memorandum to Kathe Sackler, Ilene Sackler, David Sackler, Jonathan Sackler, and Mortimer D. A. Sackler in which he discussed limiting the Sackler family’s risk in the ownership of Purdue: “[T]he most certain way for the owners to diversify their risk is to distribute more free cash flow so they can purchase diversifying assets.”
>These aren't people acting in ignorance, this is family essentially running a legalized cartel and has today just protected all their assets. I'm sure the negative externalities these individuals have caused will cause damage for decades to come in America's heartland.
I see how that might seem super evil, but then again it's also totally consistent with how you should manage investments. If you made an outsized gain in one asset (eg. because you sat on DOGE from a few years ago and it went to the moon), you shouldn't sit on it. You should diversify it, like selling it and buying other assets.
>I see how that might seem super evil, but then again it's also totally consistent with how you should manage investments. If you made an outsized gain in one asset (eg. because you sat on DOGE from a few years ago and it went to the moon), you shouldn't sit on it.
This just seems like a massively sympathetic view to the company. It's rare for any corporation to distribute most, if not all, of a companies FCF to shareholders. For most public pharmaceutical companies that spending goes to R&D. Furthermore even if you call it "normal", then this kind of shareholder enrichment could be argued to be a gross mismanagement of company funds. Trying to paint this as "normal" is incredibly odd, especially when they call out future litigation as a reason to hoard cash.
>On September 8, 2014, Mortimer D. A. Sackler emailed Jonathan Sackler, stating that there had been “a huge depreciation in [Purdue’s] bottom line and more importantly shareholder value over the past 5+ years” and that Purdue was in a “death spiral.”
And despite what the letter of the law says, I can't imagine wanting to support such a system where once can knowingly poison middle America for decades and run away with profits. At the very least it's incredibly unpatriotic and does more to threaten American hegemony than any quagmire in the middle east. This isn't a case where they were just "diversifying" as good financial advice - they foresaw their litigation issues in 2008. The fact it took more than 10 years to get to the court has more to do with the slowness of our justice system rather than the Sackler's financial savvy.
This just seems like a massively sympathetic view to the company. It's rare for any corporation to distribute most, if not all, of a companies FCF to shareholders. For most public pharmaceutical companies that spending goes to R&D. Furthermore even if you call it "normal", then this kind of shareholder enrichment could be argued to be a gross mismanagement of company funds. Trying to paint this as "normal" is incredibly odd, especially when they call out future litigation as a reason to hoard cash.
>On September 8, 2014, Mortimer D. A. Sackler emailed Jonathan Sackler, stating that there had been “a huge depreciation in [Purdue’s] bottom line and more importantly shareholder value over the past 5+ years” and that Purdue was in a “death spiral.”
And despite what the letter of the law says, I can't imagine wanting to support such a system where once can knowingly poison middle America for decades and run away with profits. At the very least it's incredibly unpatriotic and does more to threaten American hegemony than any quagmire in the middle east. This isn't a case where they were just "diversifying" as good financial advice - they foresaw their litigation issues in 2008. The fact it took more than 10 years to get to the court has more to do with the slowness of our justice system rather than the Sackler's financial savvy.
>This just seems like a massively sympathetic view to the company.
It's the view that the defense is going to argue and the prosecution will have to disprove.
>It's rare for any corporation to distribute most, if not all, of a companies FCF to shareholders
You can't convict people on "rare" behavior.
>then this kind of shareholder enrichment could be argued to be a gross mismanagement of company funds.
It's a private company. They have wide latitude to do whatever they want.
>And despite what the letter of the law says, I can't imagine wanting to support such a system where once can knowingly poison middle America for decades and run away with profits.
Yeah, the flip side is going after them jack ma style.
>This isn't a case where they were just "diversifying" as good financial advice - they foresaw their litigation issues in 2008. The fact it took more than 10 years to get to the court has more to do with the slowness of our justice system rather than the Sackler's financial savvy.
That does raise an interesting issue. If there's threat of litigation, how much money should you have to keep on hand? That should prevent the issue we saw with perdue. Should companies that are currently being sued be prevented from paying out dividends? What about companies that are being sued all the time, or frivolous lawsuits? What if the lawyers in 2008 claim (or even honestly believe) that the lawsuits have a slim chance of succeeding?
It's the view that the defense is going to argue and the prosecution will have to disprove.
>It's rare for any corporation to distribute most, if not all, of a companies FCF to shareholders
You can't convict people on "rare" behavior.
>then this kind of shareholder enrichment could be argued to be a gross mismanagement of company funds.
It's a private company. They have wide latitude to do whatever they want.
>And despite what the letter of the law says, I can't imagine wanting to support such a system where once can knowingly poison middle America for decades and run away with profits.
Yeah, the flip side is going after them jack ma style.
>This isn't a case where they were just "diversifying" as good financial advice - they foresaw their litigation issues in 2008. The fact it took more than 10 years to get to the court has more to do with the slowness of our justice system rather than the Sackler's financial savvy.
That does raise an interesting issue. If there's threat of litigation, how much money should you have to keep on hand? That should prevent the issue we saw with perdue. Should companies that are currently being sued be prevented from paying out dividends? What about companies that are being sued all the time, or frivolous lawsuits? What if the lawyers in 2008 claim (or even honestly believe) that the lawsuits have a slim chance of succeeding?
I'm ready for the guillotines to make a come back at this point. I've lost friends to this; it's personal.
>It's the view that the defense is going to argue and the prosecution will have to disprove.
The defense is getting paid millions to carry water for the Shacklers, you don't have to.
>You can't convict people on "rare" behavior.
You absolutely can, what are you talking about? The entire basis of criminal negligence is based on what an reasonable actor would do. I find it hard to believe that a "reasonable" CEO would effectively dial R&D spending to 0. At the very least other shareholders could sue for securities fraud.
>Yeah, the flip side is going after them jack ma style.
I'm not sure your what the problem with this is? I have no problem with the state going after billionaires who act criminally negligent nor do I have any problem with the state going after anyone else who breaks the law. Why would I sacrifice millions of Americans and the potential future of the country for a couple of bad actors. If I take your "China bad" argument at face value, why should America cripple it's own population during the critical moment when it will need to answer to Chinese hegemony? I guess it would be a sick just desserts for China to exercise power over an opiod addicted west.
>Should companies that are currently being sued be prevented from paying out dividends? What about companies that are being sued all the time, or frivolous lawsuits?
You are talking hypotheticals, but the law isn't C++ code. Intent matters, which is why we have judges. It's my belief the prosecution should be able to show that the Sacklers intentionally sabotaged Purdue pharma in an effort to extract as much capital as possible before the federal government and other litigious parties sued Purdue Pharma. That would be fraudulent transfer - they weren't paying themselves massive dividends to "diversify their portfolio", they were doing it to prevent their assets from being frozen. The most vile part about it is the fact they knowingly engaged in what should be a criminal enterprise and got away with it - this is something that simply shouldn't be allowed to happen in future. Again, the economic burden from opiod misuse costs us a cool $80B according to the CDC. That's your tax dollars cleaning up the mess of this criminal enterprise. Those are families destroyed that now have to depend on the welfare state.
The defense is getting paid millions to carry water for the Shacklers, you don't have to.
>You can't convict people on "rare" behavior.
You absolutely can, what are you talking about? The entire basis of criminal negligence is based on what an reasonable actor would do. I find it hard to believe that a "reasonable" CEO would effectively dial R&D spending to 0. At the very least other shareholders could sue for securities fraud.
>Yeah, the flip side is going after them jack ma style.
I'm not sure your what the problem with this is? I have no problem with the state going after billionaires who act criminally negligent nor do I have any problem with the state going after anyone else who breaks the law. Why would I sacrifice millions of Americans and the potential future of the country for a couple of bad actors. If I take your "China bad" argument at face value, why should America cripple it's own population during the critical moment when it will need to answer to Chinese hegemony? I guess it would be a sick just desserts for China to exercise power over an opiod addicted west.
>Should companies that are currently being sued be prevented from paying out dividends? What about companies that are being sued all the time, or frivolous lawsuits?
You are talking hypotheticals, but the law isn't C++ code. Intent matters, which is why we have judges. It's my belief the prosecution should be able to show that the Sacklers intentionally sabotaged Purdue pharma in an effort to extract as much capital as possible before the federal government and other litigious parties sued Purdue Pharma. That would be fraudulent transfer - they weren't paying themselves massive dividends to "diversify their portfolio", they were doing it to prevent their assets from being frozen. The most vile part about it is the fact they knowingly engaged in what should be a criminal enterprise and got away with it - this is something that simply shouldn't be allowed to happen in future. Again, the economic burden from opiod misuse costs us a cool $80B according to the CDC. That's your tax dollars cleaning up the mess of this criminal enterprise. Those are families destroyed that now have to depend on the welfare state.
> Certain of these distributions and transfers were made with the intent to hinder future creditors and/or were otherwise voidable as fraudulent transfers.
That's an allegation, not a legal fact nor even an admission. The allegations are included in the settlement to clarify the scope in case there's a subsequent dispute. On its face it sounds plausible, but proving it in a court of law is a different matter entirely.
That's an allegation, not a legal fact nor even an admission. The allegations are included in the settlement to clarify the scope in case there's a subsequent dispute. On its face it sounds plausible, but proving it in a court of law is a different matter entirely.
That logic ignores the potential criminality of the activity. If a bunch of robbers incorporate an LLC, would you want to limit their liability to their tools and the getaway vehicle so the LLC can “declare bankruptcy”? Those sponsoring the “enterprise” will at the very least be charged as accessories.
Limited liability is not about, and has many asterisks before it applies.
Limited liability is not about, and has many asterisks before it applies.
Sure, it's "limited" liability, not "no" liability. And criminal actions remove even the limited part.
But it isn't clear to me that the owners having criminal liability was the basis the bankruptcy court was operating under ... though it is clear both side thought it was the way things _could_ go, so they preempted that state.
But it isn't clear to me that the owners having criminal liability was the basis the bankruptcy court was operating under ... though it is clear both side thought it was the way things _could_ go, so they preempted that state.
As a CEO and 100% owner of a business of 200 full-time employees, I can tell you that limited liability is incredibly damaging. We need to get rid of this, I can tell you that I personally have witnessed many other CEOs take risks they would never have taken at the public's expense because of this.
[deleted]
> Unchecked corporate power is a phenomenal national liability.
I'm sure there are other dynamics at play but Xi has probably started seeing the same thing in China, hence the recent crackdown on said corporate power.
I'm sure there are other dynamics at play but Xi has probably started seeing the same thing in China, hence the recent crackdown on said corporate power.
I never thought I would say this, but Xi is doing things I would if I had his power.
I'm just talking about slapping down billionaires, cracking down on gambling, making education equal to all kids, etc.
None of it is worth the loss of free speech.
I'm just talking about slapping down billionaires, cracking down on gambling, making education equal to all kids, etc.
None of it is worth the loss of free speech.
I disagree; free speech is already showing its degradation in the west: it's only a matter of time before we're left with nothing.
I'm no fan of the CCP, but these policies I agree with.
The US is happy to relegate itself to a Russia-like plutocracy as China eats our lunch.
The US is happy to relegate itself to a Russia-like plutocracy as China eats our lunch.
There is a simple solution to this - fire up the guillotines. There are more of us than there are of their security guards.
This will hold until good automated security systems.
Removes the need for numbers and collateral damage in one easy step.
Bonus points if they can target individuals, even the au pair gets to survive these days!
Bonus points if they can target individuals, even the au pair gets to survive these days!
More of a reason to get started now.
I will think it will continue to go unchecked until there is financial incentive for such individuals to face repercussions from other individuals since corporates have largely co-opted the state.
Probably will take the form of looming $20 billion in open interest expiring worthless on options on whether $x pharma exec will be alive by $y date, that trades on a decentralized options exchange that uses a decentralized prediction market amm liquidity pool as a underlying price feed.
Probably will take the form of looming $20 billion in open interest expiring worthless on options on whether $x pharma exec will be alive by $y date, that trades on a decentralized options exchange that uses a decentralized prediction market amm liquidity pool as a underlying price feed.
>The argument "We potentially screwed up so much that there would be so many people suing us that it would cause legal chaos. So as a result we should be granted full waivers of liability to avoid the lawsuits." Is so brazen as to be absurd.
But that's not what's happening? At least from my reading of the article, they settled with the state, that's it. The judge wasn't like "you're off the hook because the lawsuits were too complicated".
>The complex bankruptcy plan, confirmed by Drain at a hearing in White Plains, N.Y., was negotiated in a series of intense closed-door mediation sessions over the past two years.
>The deal grants "releases" from liability for harm caused by OxyContin and other opioids to the Sacklers, hundreds of their associates, as well as their remaining empire of companies and trusts.
But that's not what's happening? At least from my reading of the article, they settled with the state, that's it. The judge wasn't like "you're off the hook because the lawsuits were too complicated".
>The complex bankruptcy plan, confirmed by Drain at a hearing in White Plains, N.Y., was negotiated in a series of intense closed-door mediation sessions over the past two years.
>The deal grants "releases" from liability for harm caused by OxyContin and other opioids to the Sacklers, hundreds of their associates, as well as their remaining empire of companies and trusts.
The lines you quote do not seem to actually say anything to support your claims or contradict those of the person you responded to?
It supports the claim that it was a settlement, rather than the judge letting them off the hook unilaterally. As part of any settlement, each side agrees not to engage in further litigation on the same matter, otherwise there's no point in settling. I also omitted the next sentence which states what they gave in exchange for the settlement.
>In return, they have agreed to pay roughly $4.3 billion, while also forfeiting ownership of Purdue Pharma.
>In return, they have agreed to pay roughly $4.3 billion, while also forfeiting ownership of Purdue Pharma.
Didn't they move a lot of their assets abroad? [1] I mean sure, $4.3 billion is a lot of money, but personally I feel like they should all be left with zero and a few of them should be in prison for a long time.
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2020-sackler-family-money...
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2020-sackler-family-money...
If it's the same agreement John Oliver talked about last week, they have 10 years to pay the $4.3 billion, so they'll almost earn it all back in that period in interest.
* As part of any settlement, each side agrees not to engage in further litigation on the same matter*
Individuals injured by the Sacklers are not party to the current case, but are now unable to sue. Or am I misreading?
Individuals injured by the Sacklers are not party to the current case, but are now unable to sue. Or am I misreading?
That's my read but IANAL. That's why some states are objecting
It's just the next level of "to big to fail".
We're accelerating into a new feudal age. The aristocracy becomes, or is already, unimpeachable.
We're accelerating into a new feudal age. The aristocracy becomes, or is already, unimpeachable.
> "We potentially screwed up so much that there would be so many people suing us that it would cause legal chaos. So as a result we should be granted full waivers of liability to avoid the lawsuits."
It worked for the banks in 2008, why wouldn't it work for them?
It worked for the banks in 2008, why wouldn't it work for them?
yeah, did you see how a bunch of former employees at the fed are urging another bail out repeat for some of these big corporations? i am all for people being rewarded for their effort, but a lot of these companies seem to be redirecting tax payers money into their own bank accounts. to me, that is corruption.
[deleted]
I suspect it won as the other option is having the entire thing destroyed and there being nothing left to settle over.
Sure, you can embroil the company in 1000 lawsuits, but the end result will be lawyers getting all the money.
Sure, you can embroil the company in 1000 lawsuits, but the end result will be lawyers getting all the money.
That's ideal, isn't it? No one gets a reward, but the criminals lose what they have. Instead, the criminals are basically getting rewarded.
Well, they appear to be going bankrupt already unless I'm missing something and turning over all these assets to the bankruptcy court? At least that's what the article seemed to indicate, it wasn't overly clear on the details.
> Well, they appear to be going bankrupt already unless I'm missing something and turning over all these assets to the bankruptcy court? At least that's what the article seemed to indicate, it wasn't overly clear on the details.
No, none of the people getting immunity are filing for bankruptcy, which is one of the absolutely ridiculous parts of this settlement. Why should a bankruptcy settlement even apply to them if that's the case?
No, none of the people getting immunity are filing for bankruptcy, which is one of the absolutely ridiculous parts of this settlement. Why should a bankruptcy settlement even apply to them if that's the case?
Amazing twist. Bankruptcy with all the legal protection and none of the losing all your money.
Admittedly I can't be sure of how much of their wealth is or isn't tied up in the bankruptcy--though I think the same is also true of everyone else here--but if they're anything like most others who own large companies, it represents a significant fraction of their net worth and it's about to be worthless.
Bankruptcy court is pretty much always like this, though. I remember the same kinds of things coming up during, e.g., SCO.
Bankruptcy court is pretty much always like this, though. I remember the same kinds of things coming up during, e.g., SCO.
From a Bloomberg article I read, approximately $200 million will come from a family foundation, $3 billion will come from a forced sale of some international companies they own, and the remainder of the settlement from their vast array of trusts and other investments worth...approximately $8-9 billion dollars. So while the settlement is a large amount, it amounts to no practical impact for the family, which is why so many people think it's unjust. They will still have a huge amount of dynastic wealth and will not need to make any changes to their extravagant lifestyles whatsoever. Boohoo, the dynastic wealth will only enable the next 6 generations of Sacklers to be entitled pieces of shit instead of the next 8.
From what I understand, this bankruptcy preceding was for the company the family owned (Purdue Pharma) and they contributed some of the billions in previously captured profits from their family wealth to get to an agreement, but the balance of their family wealth remains beyond the reach of the courts.
this is the umpteenth example of why we need to shred the corporate veil. it doesn’t actually fuel innovation as it purports to do, but rather promotes a slippery slope of bad behavior by owners and executives (at the expense of customers, employees, and society at large). like many bad regulations, it’s a distortion of the risk profile for a given endeavor, which leads directly to negatively externalized, but rarely unintended, consequences.
all the sackler billions should be clawed back and commensurately redistributed to literally everyone else.
all the sackler billions should be clawed back and commensurately redistributed to literally everyone else.
Yup. The good has to come with the bad. I can understand the motivation for things like limited liability, but if that is to exist then the individuals should not be able to extract billions from the corporation. We see this consistently. The rich and powerful justify something that benefits them by pointing out the downsides and then when the downsides rear their heads, the rich and powerful find a way to ignore them.
> they contributed some of the billions in previously captured profits from their family wealth to get to an agreement
Not even that. They agreed to give 4.3 billion dollars over the next 9 years. Given how much net worth they have, over that 9 years they will earn that much, or more, in interest. They're just giving up the next 9 years of growth, they'll still be multi-billionaires.
Not even that. They agreed to give 4.3 billion dollars over the next 9 years. Given how much net worth they have, over that 9 years they will earn that much, or more, in interest. They're just giving up the next 9 years of growth, they'll still be multi-billionaires.
This settlement allows the Sackler family to keep some assets (billions?); many people have proposed that they deserve to lose everything.
No, as then there is nothing for the settlement and remediation of the harm done.
> No, as then there is nothing for the settlement and remediation of the harm done.
You're the one that invented that dichotomy, so you'll need to support it with more than speculation as a counterargument or admit it's just that.
The US can afford $4 billion in opioid relief efforts on its own (what's the yearly budget at federal and state level already?) so it's not like we're in a position to beg for scraps here. But really there's no reason why there would be nothing left of their fortune after lawyer fees.
More importantly, this stance makes it ok to make a profit this way. They would come out of this with billions of dollars more than they started with and no threat of ever being legally liable again. They should not have that money.
They set up a pharmaceutical empire with thousands of reps pushing disinformation to doctors and patients, they should absolutely have to deal with thousands of lawsuits come home to roost.
You're the one that invented that dichotomy, so you'll need to support it with more than speculation as a counterargument or admit it's just that.
The US can afford $4 billion in opioid relief efforts on its own (what's the yearly budget at federal and state level already?) so it's not like we're in a position to beg for scraps here. But really there's no reason why there would be nothing left of their fortune after lawyer fees.
More importantly, this stance makes it ok to make a profit this way. They would come out of this with billions of dollars more than they started with and no threat of ever being legally liable again. They should not have that money.
They set up a pharmaceutical empire with thousands of reps pushing disinformation to doctors and patients, they should absolutely have to deal with thousands of lawsuits come home to roost.
> The US can afford $4 billion in opioid relief efforts on its own
Exactly what I was thinking. Go after the Sacklers, relentlessly, as long as it takes, until they have nothing, and hopefully are in jail. The few billions of dollars coming out of this settlement aren't even a rounding error in the US federal budget, we can afford to just pay it ourselves. I'm happy to do that if it means putting the Sacklers behind bars, bankrupt.
Exactly what I was thinking. Go after the Sacklers, relentlessly, as long as it takes, until they have nothing, and hopefully are in jail. The few billions of dollars coming out of this settlement aren't even a rounding error in the US federal budget, we can afford to just pay it ourselves. I'm happy to do that if it means putting the Sacklers behind bars, bankrupt.
Why bother? I have multiple immediate family members that were affected and who aren't capable of coming back from it; I don't think they should get a reward if it means the Sacklers aren't pushed down with them. Doubly so given very few people will be getting anything, anyway.
Sorry about your loss.
There is no acceptable punishment for a crime of this scale that doesn't adequately deter future criminals. Billions in rewards isn't just inadequate, it's disrespectful to every victim and their families.
There is no acceptable punishment for a crime of this scale that doesn't adequately deter future criminals. Billions in rewards isn't just inadequate, it's disrespectful to every victim and their families.
>There is no acceptable punishment for a crime of this scale that doesn't adequately deter future criminals.
Well this is just a self-justifying statement. "Acceptable," "adequately," so many ways to weasel out of assigning any consequences. Let's just discuss how adequate a hypothetical punishment will be in the future that we both definitely know facts about.
>Billions in rewards isn't just inadequate, it's disrespectful to every victim and their families.
Disrespectful to remedy the loss of one or more breadwinners? Disrespectful to prevent descendants from firing up the corporate grill again? I don't know what ethical standard you're using, but it seems to elevate suffering and misfortune.
Disgorgement and prison, the facts bear this out. That they were able to buy their way out of this is more evidence that the nation strives to protect criminals who have money and are white.
Well this is just a self-justifying statement. "Acceptable," "adequately," so many ways to weasel out of assigning any consequences. Let's just discuss how adequate a hypothetical punishment will be in the future that we both definitely know facts about.
>Billions in rewards isn't just inadequate, it's disrespectful to every victim and their families.
Disrespectful to remedy the loss of one or more breadwinners? Disrespectful to prevent descendants from firing up the corporate grill again? I don't know what ethical standard you're using, but it seems to elevate suffering and misfortune.
Disgorgement and prison, the facts bear this out. That they were able to buy their way out of this is more evidence that the nation strives to protect criminals who have money and are white.
No acceptable punishment, maybe not, however, fear can go a long way! Actual fear of _really_ losing all their family wealth, basically everything but the shirt on their back with a lifetime of hard labor to follow is probably a scarier proposition to these kind of scum then death is. On that note, hanging some of them from the rafters may also help deter this kind of parasitic behavior going forward.
Why are we only talking about relieving them of their wealth? Why is capital punishment off the table?
This sounds an awful lot like a "something is better than nothing" fallacy. With the settlement, there is practically zero benefit to anyone who was harmed. Without such a settlement, there is zero benefit to anyone harmed. "Practically zero" being greater than "zero" is worth not punishing literal evil?
These people are still worth billions. You shouldn't get to walk away with billions when you should be rotting in prison for the rest of your life.
Except the only way to get their billions is also to destroy the settlement.
That seems like putting the cart before the horse. Or at least, logically of course the settlement which protects their billions would need to be destroyed.
The US govt doesn't need their billions for the settlement, it's pocket change for the feds. Justice is worth far, far more than a few billion.
> the other option is having the entire thing destroyed and there being nothing left to settle over.
Another option that I’m fond of: send them to jail for a very long time.
Another option that I’m fond of: send them to jail for a very long time.
> In return, they have agreed to pay roughly $4.3 billion. ... by their own reckoning earned more than $10 billion from opioid sales
Who says crime doesn't pay? Kill 100s of 1000s of people, destroy millions of lives, and walk away with a cool 6 Billion dollars.. what's not to like?
When the Law fails to be just, no wonder Vigilantes step in.
Who says crime doesn't pay? Kill 100s of 1000s of people, destroy millions of lives, and walk away with a cool 6 Billion dollars.. what's not to like?
When the Law fails to be just, no wonder Vigilantes step in.
> [DELETE THIS SENTENCE] One remaining question for the settlement is whether the Justice Department will file an appeal.
Is this article a draft that somehow got published before it was ready?
Is this article a draft that somehow got published before it was ready?
I noticed that, too. It's a rather interesting sentence to remove. Given that it signals that it's up to the Justice Department to make the next move. That will turn a lot of heads their direction.
I think they already announced they will file an appeal
Maybe that's the reason for the deletion.
“Too big to fail” really need ma to be abolished. Wealthy insiders can hide behind large corporations and always issue the thread that jobs will be lost if somebody goes after them.
The bailouts of 2008 did enormous damage to people’s trust in justice, so do the constantly too low fines for corporate wrongdoing. The Sackler settlement is just another step in the erosion of trust.
No wonder people are clamoring for populist strongmen who will “drain the swamp”.
The bailouts of 2008 did enormous damage to people’s trust in justice, so do the constantly too low fines for corporate wrongdoing. The Sackler settlement is just another step in the erosion of trust.
No wonder people are clamoring for populist strongmen who will “drain the swamp”.
Clearly, if you want to be a drug dealer, the best way to get into the drug business is to be a white American. See also: Warren Delano Jr. (grandfather of FDR) and Frances Forbes (grandfather of John Kerry), who made their fortunes smuggling opiates into China.
Just don't put anything on paper lol. Kapoor was just the dumber version of these evil human suffering profiteers.
bsksi(2)
[deleted]
https://www.house.gov/representatives/find-your-representati...
https://www.senate.gov/senators/senators-contact.htm
If you disagree share your opinion. Best place to do that is too your representative.
https://www.senate.gov/senators/senators-contact.htm
If you disagree share your opinion. Best place to do that is too your representative.
The notion that billionaire criminals can be allowed hide from prosecution behind a bankruptcy court judge when they are not bankrupt is just a mind blowing departure from the rule of law.
This is disgusting. Basically outright admitting that there are a class of people who are above the law. I wish i were surprised.
Knowingly peddle highly addictive substances, lie about their nature, kill millions, destroy countless lives, and get to keep billions of dollars. it is just hard to fathom.
America will be suffering the consequences of these actions for a generation.
Knowingly peddle highly addictive substances, lie about their nature, kill millions, destroy countless lives, and get to keep billions of dollars. it is just hard to fathom.
America will be suffering the consequences of these actions for a generation.
Not just a generation. Habitual drug use is a cultural aspect of america now. Everyone uses drugs, everyone. We can exclude alcohol and tobacco since they're older versions of basically the same cultural phenomenon, everyone smokes weed or uses opioids or meth or xanax or something now, from a doctor or otherwise. Americans abuse drugs, that can be stated almost unequivocally at this point.
I think many people use but it's actually less a cultural pressure than in the past. In generations past it was always expectation that somebody drinks, go back a bit further and smokes too. It's normalized to use most drugs to an extent, especially weed and party drugs, but it's also more okay to not even drink.
[deleted]
I mean, the Opium Wars were most definitely a thing because other entire countries unequivocally abused drugs at points in their history.
I never said this was unique to Americans.
There are people in prison who were sentenced to life without parole for selling drugs, and there are some who got life without parole for merely possessing drugs.
The Sacklers get to walk free, though.
The Sacklers get to walk free, though.
There's a guy in jail for life because he stole a pair of hedge clippers. He didn't ruin someone's life, he inconvenienced a gardener.
> This is disgusting. Basically outright admitting that there are a class of people who are above the law. I wish i were surprised.
>Knowingly peddle highly addictive substances, lie about their nature, kill millions, destroy countless lives, and get to keep billions of dollars. it is just hard to fathom.
AFAIK the problem isn't that Sacklers is "above the law", it's that what the Sacklers wasn't (probably couldn't be) convicted under the law. If they actually were convicted of wrongdoing, going after the money would be easy.
>Knowingly peddle highly addictive substances, lie about their nature, kill millions, destroy countless lives, and get to keep billions of dollars. it is just hard to fathom.
AFAIK the problem isn't that Sacklers is "above the law", it's that what the Sacklers wasn't (probably couldn't be) convicted under the law. If they actually were convicted of wrongdoing, going after the money would be easy.
It’s very easy to not be convicted under the law when you cut a deal with one court where no other court can even attempt to convict you.
94% of federal criminal cases end in a plea bargain. It's not at all unusual.
a plea bargain is by rule a conviction. It is simply an alternative route to one.
A plea bargain is where a bargain is struck between some prosecuting authority and the accused wherein the accused pleads guilty in exchange for some nominally lesser punishment.
WHat happened here is one plea bargain that included (but should not have included by any rational definition of justice) a global bar on the accused being prosecuted for any other crimes. See if you can find an example of that logic being applied to a low level drug dealer or non-rich person.
A plea bargain is where a bargain is struck between some prosecuting authority and the accused wherein the accused pleads guilty in exchange for some nominally lesser punishment.
WHat happened here is one plea bargain that included (but should not have included by any rational definition of justice) a global bar on the accused being prosecuted for any other crimes. See if you can find an example of that logic being applied to a low level drug dealer or non-rich person.
Most of those are because the defendant is in a position of weakness and the courts are busy, not because the defendant is able to cut a deal that lets them live out the rest of their lives outside of prison and with billions in the bank.
You can't convict someone if you never build a case to begin with. Prosecutors have a very large amount of tools and wide latitude to deploy them; where are the house searches? The wiretaps? The seizures? The hundreds of criminal charges meant to coerce a settlement? The parallel construction?
These are all widely used tools for the lower rungs of the drug trade. Why is everything with these guys some kind of civil lawsuit tit for tat? I'm sure there are other dealers out there with a LLC, but they don't get this treatment.
These are all widely used tools for the lower rungs of the drug trade. Why is everything with these guys some kind of civil lawsuit tit for tat? I'm sure there are other dealers out there with a LLC, but they don't get this treatment.
>where are the house searches?
>The seizures?
All the good stuff is probably in their lawyers' offices or offshore. Moreover, I doubt you'll find the smoking gun email that's like "plz transfer money I don't want our creditors to get it".
>The wiretaps?
>The parallel construction?
and what, hope that they catch them in the act of admitting that they made such transfers with the intent of hiding them from creditors? Besides, I suspect most of the illegal stuff (eg. getting it approved, hiding the results) were done before the public/government was aware, so wiretapping after fact wouldn't do much.
>The hundreds of criminal charges meant to coerce a settlement?
They can afford the lawyers.
>The seizures?
All the good stuff is probably in their lawyers' offices or offshore. Moreover, I doubt you'll find the smoking gun email that's like "plz transfer money I don't want our creditors to get it".
>The wiretaps?
>The parallel construction?
and what, hope that they catch them in the act of admitting that they made such transfers with the intent of hiding them from creditors? Besides, I suspect most of the illegal stuff (eg. getting it approved, hiding the results) were done before the public/government was aware, so wiretapping after fact wouldn't do much.
>The hundreds of criminal charges meant to coerce a settlement?
They can afford the lawyers.
> Moreover, I doubt you'll find the smoking gun email that's like "plz transfer money I don't want our creditors to get it".
"[W]hat do you think is going on in all of these courtrooms right now? We’re rich? For how long? Until which suits get through to the family? I think [the investment banker’s] advice was just violated in a Virginia courtroom. My thought is to lever up where we can, and try to generate some additional income. We may well need it. . . . Even if we have to keep it in cash, it’s better to have the leverage now while we can get it than thinking it will be there for us when we get sued."[1]
[1] https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1329736/downl...
"[W]hat do you think is going on in all of these courtrooms right now? We’re rich? For how long? Until which suits get through to the family? I think [the investment banker’s] advice was just violated in a Virginia courtroom. My thought is to lever up where we can, and try to generate some additional income. We may well need it. . . . Even if we have to keep it in cash, it’s better to have the leverage now while we can get it than thinking it will be there for us when we get sued."[1]
[1] https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1329736/downl...
The worst part of it all is that the Sacklers/Purdue were just one of many predatory actors behind the opioid crisis, the vast majority of whom are escaping public outrage completely by offering up the Sacklers as (somewhat) sacrificial lambs.
I'm sure there were others, but it does seem that the products from the sacklers were the main ones responsible.
How is it even legal to get blanket immunity from civil lawsuits? Isn't that a violation of potential plaintiffs' 7th amendment right to a jury trial in civil cases.
An argument from 2008 was that as the CEOs and bankers were careful, no one had actually broken any laws and so no one (important) went to jail.
I agreed with the Bank Of England governer that this presented a huge moral hazard.
A similar moral hazard is seen here. Maybe no laws were broken. But the moral hazard argument suggests laws similar to those that targeted Robber barons (ie tax on those with incomes over 5 billion dollars)
I agreed with the Bank Of England governer that this presented a huge moral hazard.
A similar moral hazard is seen here. Maybe no laws were broken. But the moral hazard argument suggests laws similar to those that targeted Robber barons (ie tax on those with incomes over 5 billion dollars)
The thing is, billionaires are in control of laws, so this is a weak argument. Of course there will be nothing to charge them with.
What pisses me off most is they have 10 years to pay off what I consider a puny settlement. I would guess their investments appreciation over that time frame could be even more than what they end up paying out. Especially if they go forward with their India misadventure.
Honest question. We're knocking over a lot of drug laws: MJ, mushrooms... I'm assuming there's a group that's pushing for legalization of everything under the sun. I mean, is there something in Opiods that is like 10 times worse or something?
Pretty straightforward compared to cannabis and mushrooms:
1. 10X-100X more addictive
2. Infinite more likelihood of death from over consumption.
Strong opioids should only be used under careful supervision.
1. 10X-100X more addictive
2. Infinite more likelihood of death from over consumption.
Strong opioids should only be used under careful supervision.
I'd be one of those people that advocates for the legalization of everything.
Opioids in general don't all have the same addictive potential or acute danger, and most of the ones commonly used don't have severe chronic effects (besides addiction) and are generally considered safe to use if used with proper moderation.
The problem with this case though is not someone is liable for selling addictive drugs to willing participants. The problem is that someone deliberately marketed a highly addictive substance (more addictive than morphine) as a less addictive alternative to existing opiate drugs.
This is not the first time this happened, Bayer marketed Heroin as a less addictive alternative to morphine, and it was widely used on civil war veterans in the US which led to widespread addiction and we still live with the legacy of that today in the form of widespread heroin use. BTW heroin, like oxycontin (the drug being discussed in this thread), is far more addictive than morphine.
Opioids in general don't all have the same addictive potential or acute danger, and most of the ones commonly used don't have severe chronic effects (besides addiction) and are generally considered safe to use if used with proper moderation.
The problem with this case though is not someone is liable for selling addictive drugs to willing participants. The problem is that someone deliberately marketed a highly addictive substance (more addictive than morphine) as a less addictive alternative to existing opiate drugs.
This is not the first time this happened, Bayer marketed Heroin as a less addictive alternative to morphine, and it was widely used on civil war veterans in the US which led to widespread addiction and we still live with the legacy of that today in the form of widespread heroin use. BTW heroin, like oxycontin (the drug being discussed in this thread), is far more addictive than morphine.
I don't think there is any evidence to suggest any opiate is more or less addictive than any other, as you say have made that mistake many times (relevant: purdue claimed this, there's evidence showing they knew it was a lie).
They are basically all pro-drugs to morphine from what I understand.
some evidence I've read that the longer term, higher dose the great % of abuse.
On the order of 4-26% .....
i think ROA makes a difference but i can't find a quick source for that, and if you're shooting it you're already an addict lol.
https://www.drugabuse.gov/drug-topics/opioids/opioid-overdos... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3280085/#R10
They are basically all pro-drugs to morphine from what I understand.
some evidence I've read that the longer term, higher dose the great % of abuse.
On the order of 4-26% .....
i think ROA makes a difference but i can't find a quick source for that, and if you're shooting it you're already an addict lol.
https://www.drugabuse.gov/drug-topics/opioids/opioid-overdos... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3280085/#R10
I'm for 100% legalization and regulation of all drugs.
But opiates are FAR more addictive.
A big reason we have so many deaths is adulterated drugs where you don't know what opiate is in it or how strong it is. And then you physically can't live without it so you shoot up anyways.
In set controlled doses, with pills, powder, or clean needles it wouldn't be that dangerous. I think alcohol would be more so under those controls. So long as you don't take so much you nod off while driving or something. Just like drinking...
Personally I think heavy stims and opiates would be something you have to show an addiction too in order to get the good stuff from the Gov. Kind of cart and horse, maybe it would destroy the profitability of the drug trade enough we'd have fewer first time users.
I'm 100% for MDMA, coke and similar to be available in small controlled quantities capped to like once a month at a special pharmacy. Can always work around that (eh em cough syrup) but I think way safer and way better externalities with all the death from drug trade.
People will use drugs no matter what. We should see the humanity and reduce harm as much as possible. Not to mention it would likely save a lot of money.
But opiates are FAR more addictive.
A big reason we have so many deaths is adulterated drugs where you don't know what opiate is in it or how strong it is. And then you physically can't live without it so you shoot up anyways.
In set controlled doses, with pills, powder, or clean needles it wouldn't be that dangerous. I think alcohol would be more so under those controls. So long as you don't take so much you nod off while driving or something. Just like drinking...
Personally I think heavy stims and opiates would be something you have to show an addiction too in order to get the good stuff from the Gov. Kind of cart and horse, maybe it would destroy the profitability of the drug trade enough we'd have fewer first time users.
I'm 100% for MDMA, coke and similar to be available in small controlled quantities capped to like once a month at a special pharmacy. Can always work around that (eh em cough syrup) but I think way safer and way better externalities with all the death from drug trade.
People will use drugs no matter what. We should see the humanity and reduce harm as much as possible. Not to mention it would likely save a lot of money.
How is this justice?
Well I suspect the Sacklers feel pretty justified with all of their reprehensible “business” decisions.
Relevant article from last year:
These WhatsApp Messages Show the Opioid Crisis Was Just a Big PR Headache for the Sackler Family https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/12/these-whatsapp-...
These WhatsApp Messages Show the Opioid Crisis Was Just a Big PR Headache for the Sackler Family https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/12/these-whatsapp-...
Pretty standard and it was done with tobacco companies.
The goal is to reach a final resolution. You’d have to be out of your mind to enter into any such agreement if it left you open to future risk of liability.
Would you agree to a plea bargain if the DA said “ok, you agree to a 1 year jail term and if we decide to prosecute you in the future for another related crime, well tough”.
The goal is to reach a final resolution. You’d have to be out of your mind to enter into any such agreement if it left you open to future risk of liability.
Would you agree to a plea bargain if the DA said “ok, you agree to a 1 year jail term and if we decide to prosecute you in the future for another related crime, well tough”.
500,000 people at the least who are known to have overdosed and died from opioids between 1999 and 2019 and this family gets away with paying just $4.5 Billion from their personal wealth for immunity from all civil pursuits in the Justice System?
Forget fair, how is this even legal? Why have we not seen criminal charges levied?
Forget fair, how is this even legal? Why have we not seen criminal charges levied?
i still dont really understand what they are accused of. did they lie about something in the trials or something?
They family both owned and controlled (in the sense that the board was stacked with family members) the company that manufactured OxyContin. The _company_ has been found in prior cases to be liability for criminal marketing practices leading to deaths. This has ultimately lead to the company going bankrupt under all it legal obligations as fallout from various suits.
The family is losing their equity in the bankruptcy. The question is if the family, as both owners and/or directors of the company, need to give back funds they received as dividends from the company, back to the company (under the bankruptcy courts guidance to give out to its creditors, including parties owed money due to harm).
There hasn't been a specific criminal case against the family, so the prosecutors can't just seize the profits as proceeds of a criminal enterprise. But the family clearly benefited from and directed a company the willfully sold opioids that lead to the deaths of so many, and the corporate malfeasance is something that has been adjudicated.
The family is losing their equity in the bankruptcy. The question is if the family, as both owners and/or directors of the company, need to give back funds they received as dividends from the company, back to the company (under the bankruptcy courts guidance to give out to its creditors, including parties owed money due to harm).
There hasn't been a specific criminal case against the family, so the prosecutors can't just seize the profits as proceeds of a criminal enterprise. But the family clearly benefited from and directed a company the willfully sold opioids that lead to the deaths of so many, and the corporate malfeasance is something that has been adjudicated.
Why hasn't there been a specific criminal case? At least those people that served as board members should be criminally charged with something.
Yes
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-...
Because the Sacklers weren't just board members, it's privately held, and they actively micro managed and directed their criminal actions.
Kapoor went to jail, but he was dumb enough to put on paper the reality of what all these 'marketing' tactics are: bribes and lies.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-...
Because the Sacklers weren't just board members, it's privately held, and they actively micro managed and directed their criminal actions.
Kapoor went to jail, but he was dumb enough to put on paper the reality of what all these 'marketing' tactics are: bribes and lies.
Because higher-ups in Congress, the DEA and DOJ were almost certainly paid off to ignore the Sacklers. So if the Sacklers were prosecuted, they would bring down other powerful insiders.
Here is a 60-minutes interview with DEA agents who were inexplicably taken off cases: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hd-43K-rdQA
Here is a 60-minutes interview with DEA agents who were inexplicably taken off cases: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hd-43K-rdQA
At what point does this cross the line from "selling a legal product" to "mass murder"?
I'd say when you know of the damage you are causing but still double down to increase sales with lies & bribes. you pay a criminal fine, but the fine is far less than your profits so why not ;(
You might know you've gone too far when you have to sneak in a law change to get rid of the only enforcement mechanism DEA had to stop (pause) such an insanely huge volume of pills through distributors. Thousands upon thousands at once to tiny towns.
One feature of our for-profit marketable drug industry is they know exactly who is prescribing and where. They then go after those doctors to push more.
They also knew it was all a lie from the start. They put the FDA employee in charge of approving the label in a hotel to write it together with their corporate staff.
Relying on the most flimsy, misrepresented single scientific piece of paper to pretend their pills might be less addictive. Then using those few words to launch a marketing assault of death and pain.
It's just like this settlement! Get your own lawyers to write it up and the government will rubber stamp it.
https://archive.is/VYOeM
You might know you've gone too far when you have to sneak in a law change to get rid of the only enforcement mechanism DEA had to stop (pause) such an insanely huge volume of pills through distributors. Thousands upon thousands at once to tiny towns.
One feature of our for-profit marketable drug industry is they know exactly who is prescribing and where. They then go after those doctors to push more.
They also knew it was all a lie from the start. They put the FDA employee in charge of approving the label in a hotel to write it together with their corporate staff.
Relying on the most flimsy, misrepresented single scientific piece of paper to pretend their pills might be less addictive. Then using those few words to launch a marketing assault of death and pain.
It's just like this settlement! Get your own lawyers to write it up and the government will rubber stamp it.
https://archive.is/VYOeM
The crime classification manual puts the threshold at three victims. Mass murder is concentrated in time, so this qualification does not apply, instead this is serial. Murder requires intent to kill, but the Sacklers only let the deaths recklessly happen, so this is manslaughter.
I think there's a case that this is depraved-heart murder, at least in some states. And since this occurred in all 50 states, I'd contend there's a good case for serial murder in at least a few of them.
So what did we learn today?
You can build a massive fortune by:
1) creating addictive painkillers 2) push the company to promote the drug to sales reps 3) cause an epidemic responsible for killing 50,000 Americans 4) blame it on the company 6) get granted immunity from the problem you created if you decide to donate a fraction of your fortune (John Oliver explained how the spackler family can donate periodically based on surplus from investments)
At the same time I think this is unbelievable but I'm also not surprised.
You can build a massive fortune by:
1) creating addictive painkillers 2) push the company to promote the drug to sales reps 3) cause an epidemic responsible for killing 50,000 Americans 4) blame it on the company 6) get granted immunity from the problem you created if you decide to donate a fraction of your fortune (John Oliver explained how the spackler family can donate periodically based on surplus from investments)
At the same time I think this is unbelievable but I'm also not surprised.
There are hundreds of thousands, or possibly millions of BIPOC individuals out there in the USA who have felonies on their record and ruined lives for selling marijuana, or other trivial low level personal-usage-amount drug crimes, and these guys get to walk?
Seems odd how we spent billions locking up low level offenders - and high-level traffickers and dealers - but basically let them slide with 4.5B and forfeiting ownership.
Also the opioid epidemic has done way more damage to this nation than what a few billion can fix.
Also the opioid epidemic has done way more damage to this nation than what a few billion can fix.
The sacklers manufactured a legal product that sold (legally) via perscription only. If anybody should be sued it is the individual doctors who made millions operating pill mills.
Meanwhile real patients suffering from chronic pain now have more difficult access to effective treatments due to the moral panic.
How about some individual responsibility? If you choose to misuse your pain medication so that you develop addiction and then go further and transfer to using street drugs and overdose on heroin cut with fentanyl then it is your own fault.
Though I will note the transfer to street drugs is often impelled by the above mentioned moral panic restricting supply.
I say this as somebody who had a family member die of an "heroin" (who knows what's in it) overdose after starting with perscribed painkillers.
Meanwhile real patients suffering from chronic pain now have more difficult access to effective treatments due to the moral panic.
How about some individual responsibility? If you choose to misuse your pain medication so that you develop addiction and then go further and transfer to using street drugs and overdose on heroin cut with fentanyl then it is your own fault.
Though I will note the transfer to street drugs is often impelled by the above mentioned moral panic restricting supply.
I say this as somebody who had a family member die of an "heroin" (who knows what's in it) overdose after starting with perscribed painkillers.
Where is the "individual responsibility" from the Sackler family?
If you haven’t, I urge you to watch The Crime Of The Century on HBO. The title is not hyperbolic, and this outcome speaks to just how unequal justice is for the wealthy.
This is a gross miscarriage of justice.
"The law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone; and it cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone." – Frank Wilhoit
"The law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone; and it cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone." – Frank Wilhoit
[deleted]
Valium, Opioids ... oh well, see you on the next one.
Well, the Sacklers get off free. I was hoping that something like actual justice would come of this, but I guess I was hoping for too much.
I get that they get to keep most of their money, but how come nobody's going to jail for this?
[deleted]
There's an alarming legal trend with big pharma that they are blameless, not unlike the way big tech hides behind Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act when it's convenient to them for profit but also exploit their censorship and free speech meddling power unchecked.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/16/covid-vaccine-side-effects-c...
This is not healthy on so many levels. We urgently need credible politicians who are by, of and for the people instead of the career lobbyist controlled bureaucrats currently in power in the western world
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/16/covid-vaccine-side-effects-c...
This is not healthy on so many levels. We urgently need credible politicians who are by, of and for the people instead of the career lobbyist controlled bureaucrats currently in power in the western world
After all this, you sometimes do wonder that the guys with the guillotines did have a point
This would have easily had a different outcome 200 years ago, absolutely no doubt. Hell, 100 years ago even.
It was less of a point and more of a sharpened edge.
No joke, I'm really starting to understand the mentality around public execution. I don't condone violence in any form, but given these acts of non-action by the government, it brings to light, in a real-world sense, why these uprisings occurred.
I no longer read about the past with wonder; I wonder about our future.
I no longer read about the past with wonder; I wonder about our future.
[deleted]
[deleted]
For anyone that's just getting up to speed on this, John Oliver had a really good video specifically about this issue:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaCaIhfETsM
I've got a settlement for them, and it only cost about $.70 a head. I swear they'll be immune from future legal action.
But Big Pharma and the FDA (which approved these opioids) are totally trustworthy, folks. Don't you dare ask any questions, or you'll be banned from Facebook.
FDA doesn’t hand out prison sentences. FDAs role is to understand if a certain drug is safe and effective.
You could argue that FDA should do more in monitoring situations like these and have more control/funding to prevent outcomes like these.
I don’t think you or anyone will be banned for saying that.
The FDA greenlit the marketing of many of these opioids on the false pretext that they would be less addictive than traditional painkillers like morphine.
The real problem is that the US allows direct to consumer marketing for pharmaceuticals, which is illegal in basically every other country because it's an objectively terrible idea.
Man, I need to get into this business where sucking at my job is justification to be paid more to suck even more at my job. M
On what planet are opioids "safe" outside a hospital in any way? Incredibly easy to OD, highly addictive, and severely exacerbated by alcohol consumption. They _knew_ ahead of time people would die, and approved this garbage anyway. Then looked the other way when the Sacklers bought the doctors to hand the pills out like candy.
People have been using opiates for pain and recreation since before writing. Humanity seems to be faring reasonably OK. So I'd argue that this planet is the one you're looking for.
The problem here isn't opioid drugs being abused. The problem is that a particular proprietary compound was marketed as a safer alternative while the ones doing the marketing knew it was more dangerous than alternative existing drugs.
The problem here isn't opioid drugs being abused. The problem is that a particular proprietary compound was marketed as a safer alternative while the ones doing the marketing knew it was more dangerous than alternative existing drugs.
> Humanity seems to be faring reasonably OK.
Have you heard of the Opium Wars? Including perhaps the one China is waging against the US right now? Tens of thousands of deaths every year - nobody is even aware.
Have you heard of the Opium Wars? Including perhaps the one China is waging against the US right now? Tens of thousands of deaths every year - nobody is even aware.
Yeah I am aware of all that. A lot of people are aware.
So according to your own post above, 93331 opioid deaths in 2020 in the US alone qualifies as "doing OK" then? To me it sounds like something ought to be done about the situation. Such as, perhaps, imposing crippling trade sanctions on China and enforcing the US/Mexico border security at the very minimum, as well as making an example of large scale opioid peddlers like the Sacklers.
> So according to your own post above, 93331 opioid deaths in 2020 in the US alone qualifies as "doing OK" then?
No. But humanity all things considered is doing fine with drugs available outside a hospital, which was the statement I was replying to. I never made anything like a statement that "people dying is fine."
No. But humanity all things considered is doing fine with drugs available outside a hospital, which was the statement I was replying to. I never made anything like a statement that "people dying is fine."
There are plenty of ways opioids are an appropriate tool outside of a hospital setting. You act like the only form available is high dose fentanyl.
Appropriate? Maybe, in some cases. But certainly not "safe". There's no non-cynical explanation for banning marijuana at the federal level (an effective and non-addictive pain mangement tool), while allowing addictive opioids. The cynical explanation is that this is done specifically to let the Sacklers of the world (rather than some farm hippies in WA) take the profits (and then offer the former government officials do-nothing jobs paying millions of dollars a year).
As an aside, I wonder why, in spite of abundant and blindingly obvious evidence, people in the US have a hard time believing that deep seated corruption exists in US government. When something gets done (or, as the case may be, not done) by e.g. Russian government everyone in Russia knows money is changing hands under the table, in 100% of the cases. What makes anyone in the US think it's any different here? This case in particular is an obvious mockery of justice, and yet we have people on this forum rejecting this reality and substituting it with their own.
As an aside, I wonder why, in spite of abundant and blindingly obvious evidence, people in the US have a hard time believing that deep seated corruption exists in US government. When something gets done (or, as the case may be, not done) by e.g. Russian government everyone in Russia knows money is changing hands under the table, in 100% of the cases. What makes anyone in the US think it's any different here? This case in particular is an obvious mockery of justice, and yet we have people on this forum rejecting this reality and substituting it with their own.
Marijuana is absolutely not a reasonable replacement for opioids for treating pain in many circumstances. Not going to respond to the rest of your rant because it has nothing to do with what I said in the first place.
Oh FDA has skin in this game.
Gibney's documentary (highly recommend) reported that the FDA person in charge of approving the label, actually sat in a crappy motel room with a Purdue staffer.
That's like asking the oil and gas company what you think their pollution regulations should be. Which I mean depending on the administration does happen...
That label - based on one piece of flimsy, misinterpreted study - is what gave Purdue an excuse to sell a bunch of BS.
Gibney's documentary (highly recommend) reported that the FDA person in charge of approving the label, actually sat in a crappy motel room with a Purdue staffer.
That's like asking the oil and gas company what you think their pollution regulations should be. Which I mean depending on the administration does happen...
That label - based on one piece of flimsy, misinterpreted study - is what gave Purdue an excuse to sell a bunch of BS.
Here's what'll really cook everyone's noodle: the same exact official who was responsible for Oxycontin (Janet Woodcock) was also responsible for approving the Pfizer vaccine the other day. Not drawing an equivalence here, just showing how these people are consistently able to fail upward somehow and there's now _less than zero_ accountability. Anyone who thinks this is coincidental is, how do I put this diplomatically, not very smart.
Its easy to criticize the Sackler settlement, but I have yet to hear anyone criticize the US Government that received nearly $4bln in taxes (profit) from the $10Bln their enterprise earned.
How come the US Govt's $4bln "take" is not considered ill-gotten gain, particularly given it was the US FDA (Woodcock, in her prior role at agency) that essentially sanctioned rampant opioid prescriptions?
How come the US Govt's $4bln "take" is not considered ill-gotten gain, particularly given it was the US FDA (Woodcock, in her prior role at agency) that essentially sanctioned rampant opioid prescriptions?
I don't know about what shady dealings the FDA was involved in with this case, but governments generally tax all economic activity within their jurisdiction. There are even guidelines for reporting income on stolen goods on the IRS website.
Lying to people about addictive potential, causing many of them to die, for a profit is far and away from a government collecting collecting taxes on economic activity.
Lying to people about addictive potential, causing many of them to die, for a profit is far and away from a government collecting collecting taxes on economic activity.
This is being framed is as miscarriage of justice, and from a moral perspective it definitely is. The problem is that the legal grounds on which Purdue (and the Sacklers) can be sued are actually kind of weak.
Broadly, the things Purdue is accused of are 1) Aggressively marketing opioids to doctors, and 2) Lobbying the states to change various laws around prescription and marketing of opioids
The problem is that for direct liability, there are two more actors that need to be considered - the doctors, and the patients themselves. Doctors are considered to be experts, and patients are often breaking the law when they misuse opioids. Both of these facts break the chain of liability, and so arguing that Purdue is legally liable for the ultimate addiction of the patient is difficult.
As a result, people have tried to sue Purdue under more general "public nuisance" statutes, rather than regular tort liability. A public nuisance is when someone interferes with a right that the general public shares in common. However, this area of law is not very well developed - a lot of it is carryover from old British law, and winning those cases isn't a slam dunk. So there are certain objectors to the settlement, but I don't know why people think that it would be easy to hold the Sacklers criminally responsible or to get more money than this settlement.
Broadly, the things Purdue is accused of are 1) Aggressively marketing opioids to doctors, and 2) Lobbying the states to change various laws around prescription and marketing of opioids
The problem is that for direct liability, there are two more actors that need to be considered - the doctors, and the patients themselves. Doctors are considered to be experts, and patients are often breaking the law when they misuse opioids. Both of these facts break the chain of liability, and so arguing that Purdue is legally liable for the ultimate addiction of the patient is difficult.
As a result, people have tried to sue Purdue under more general "public nuisance" statutes, rather than regular tort liability. A public nuisance is when someone interferes with a right that the general public shares in common. However, this area of law is not very well developed - a lot of it is carryover from old British law, and winning those cases isn't a slam dunk. So there are certain objectors to the settlement, but I don't know why people think that it would be easy to hold the Sacklers criminally responsible or to get more money than this settlement.
> the doctors, and the patients themselves. Doctors are considered to be experts, and patients are often breaking the law when they misuse opioids.
The doctors were fed dodgy studies and information that what they were prescribing was safe. And you can hardly blame a patient who receives pain treatment and gets addicted to opiates when they were also informed they were safe.
The doctors were fed dodgy studies and information that what they were prescribing was safe. And you can hardly blame a patient who receives pain treatment and gets addicted to opiates when they were also informed they were safe.
I totally agree. I'm just saying that from the point of view of legal liability the doctor is considered an expert. Purdue would argue that the doctor is getting information from a variety of sources (including the FDA), and so when they prescribe a medication and then the patient gets addicted, the responsibility lies with the doctor.
And I also agree that you can't blame a patient for getting addicted. However, in US law there is something called the "clean hands doctrine", which denies remedies if the accuser has acted in bad faith wrt the subject of the claim. In practice this might translate to arguing that because the patient is breaking the law in misusing opioids, they don't deserve damages.
All I'm trying to say is that while Purdue is definitely morally responsible, legally it's kinda difficult.
And I also agree that you can't blame a patient for getting addicted. However, in US law there is something called the "clean hands doctrine", which denies remedies if the accuser has acted in bad faith wrt the subject of the claim. In practice this might translate to arguing that because the patient is breaking the law in misusing opioids, they don't deserve damages.
All I'm trying to say is that while Purdue is definitely morally responsible, legally it's kinda difficult.
I think you mean well but I’d say you have to read up more about this case. The owners were not mere stockholders. Nor were they innocent bystanders. They convinced doctors to prescribe their addictive drugs with false information and studies and a very high pressure marketing and sales campaign. It’s on them.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RZEUVRzNt0U
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RZEUVRzNt0U
One of Purdue’s specific misdeeds was lying to doctors about the addictiveness of OxyContin and leading them to believe that it had a very low risk of abuse. Much of the litigation against the company focuses on this.
[deleted]
Taking nothing away from the Sackler situation which appears to be entirely self-inflicted, and allegedly, a reprehensible criminal conspiracy.
I think you may want to consider the doctors' perspectives, by general theme, that may or may not coincide with groups of years, but maybe not quite decades.
(1) Pain is inadequately treated, some patients are in a lifetime of pain.
(2) Pain is being adequately treated, we have these new non-addictive pills "Pain as the 5th vital sign" [1]
(3) Doctors are experiencing litigation due to OD-by-misuse and patients doctor shopping, dropping of "Pain as a 5th vital sign" [2]
(4) Doctors recoiling in general from any type of narcotic prescriptions, issuing very tiny doses, doses which cannot be used for, sending the patients onto a pain management doctor that has become the de facto only doctor willing to withstand the DEA scrutiny [3]
[1] https://www.bjanaesthesia.org/article/S0007-0912(17)54182-3/...
[2] https://www.painnewsnetwork.org/stories/2016/6/16/ama-drops-...
[3] https://www.hcrcenters.com/blog/doctor-refuses-to-prescribe-...
I think you may want to consider the doctors' perspectives, by general theme, that may or may not coincide with groups of years, but maybe not quite decades.
(1) Pain is inadequately treated, some patients are in a lifetime of pain.
(2) Pain is being adequately treated, we have these new non-addictive pills "Pain as the 5th vital sign" [1]
(3) Doctors are experiencing litigation due to OD-by-misuse and patients doctor shopping, dropping of "Pain as a 5th vital sign" [2]
(4) Doctors recoiling in general from any type of narcotic prescriptions, issuing very tiny doses, doses which cannot be used for, sending the patients onto a pain management doctor that has become the de facto only doctor willing to withstand the DEA scrutiny [3]
[1] https://www.bjanaesthesia.org/article/S0007-0912(17)54182-3/...
[2] https://www.painnewsnetwork.org/stories/2016/6/16/ama-drops-...
[3] https://www.hcrcenters.com/blog/doctor-refuses-to-prescribe-...
There were a handful of doctors that behaved absolutely reprehensibly by running pill mills and prescribing Oxy to anyone who would walk in the front door. These were purely cynical ventures and the doctors that engaged in this knew that these patients were just addicts. These were a minority of doctors but they definitely deserve a small slice of the blame for what happened.
Definitely there were a number doctors operating pill mills, and they have become DEA scalps, rightly so.
But now, we have swung too far to the opposite extreme.
Get a major surgery, and a 3 day script for the weakest narcotic.
But now, we have swung too far to the opposite extreme.
Get a major surgery, and a 3 day script for the weakest narcotic.
Incidentally, similar arguments are going to play out around trying to sue oil & gas companies for climate change (and will probably use the same public nuisance statutes). The o&g companies lobby against emissions standards / carbon regulations, but ultimately selling oil and gas is legal, and it's the job of the government to regulate, so there isn't a simple legal doctrine to say "hey, you guys bought off a bunch of politicians and thus are still liable for damages".
Hopefully nobody decides in a decade that cryptocurrency or social media damaged society, I guess?
The reason it’s hard to prosecute somebody for something that was legal at the time is because that’s a giant can of worms to open.
The reason it’s hard to prosecute somebody for something that was legal at the time is because that’s a giant can of worms to open.
I'm guessing that in a civil tort suit, going in front of a jury would not work out well for the Sacklers. Too many prospective jurors know of someone damaged by, or lost to opioids.
Many of those doctors were nothing more than "pill-mill" outlets. Building a criminal case would have been easy.
I don't want to hear that the cases weren't strong enough blah blah. In the next room we just extradited a guy from the UK for copying bits. There is no longer rule of law, if there was the will there would be flash bangs and some parallel construction that could easily accomplish whatever level of justice was desired.