Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

Post by denton-scratch » Fri, Jun 28, 2024, 8:29 AM UTC

12_throw_away wrote: post #113

psunavy03 wrote: post #25

For those claiming the Supreme Court is a political institution, I'd like to note that this was indeed a 5-4 decision. But one with Justices in the majority who were appointed by Biden, Trump, Bush 43, and Bush 41, and in the minority who were appointed by Bush 43, Obama, and Trump. It was Jackson, Gorsuch, Barrett, Alito, and Thomas in the majority and Sotomayor, Kagan, Roberts, and Kavanaugh in the minority.

> For those claiming the Supreme Court is a political institution, I'd like to note that this was indeed a 5-4 decision. Is there a name for this type of fallacy, in which a single data point is used to argue that a global trend does not exist? (Another prominent example is "it snowed somewhere, therefore climate change is not real.")

Post by lupusreal » Fri, Jun 28, 2024, 8:36 AM UTC

beaeglebeachedd wrote: post #575

Retric wrote: post #574

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This wasn’t just marketing, this was drug labeling approved by the FDA and new guidelines for pain management they where teaching in med schools.

It's a valid point. Another valid point is at that time it was known the FDA had a history of approving addictive drugs. It is not evidence based to trust FDA over hundreds of years of history countering otherwise. I knew LOTS of people who turned down or tossed opiate scripts during that time because the long history was obvious to anyone with half a brain.

Post by disillusioned » Fri, Jun 28, 2024, 9:34 AM UTC

checkyoursudo wrote: post #596

mktemp-d wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A good book to read regarding this topic is "Death in Mud Lick" by Eric Eyre who was a reporter for a local newspaper in WV during the early discovery phase of the epidemic. The book details the methods used by the drug companies to pedal these drugs into small communities, the tragic victims, and lastly the refusal of drug suppliers to admit any wrong doing. There's also a slight dose (no pun intended) of WV AG's sh…

*peddle

Post by holoduke » Fri, Jun 28, 2024, 10:05 AM UTC

jhgvh wrote: post #590

sneak wrote: post #585

Earlier quoted context omitted.

7x as many people in the US die from cigarettes every hour, day, week, month, and year as from all opioids combined. Cigarettes don’t even require a prescription. If there is an opioid crisis, there is a 7x larger tobacco crisis, too.

Tobacco companies have paid out countless nine figure sums, smoking in public has gone from universal to mostly illegal, cig taxes have skyrocketed, etc… Tobacco has been treated as a crisis, and I have no doubt that if cigarettes had been invented by one specific family, that family would be hated. Weird that you don’t know any of this.

Post by neffy » Fri, Jun 28, 2024, 10:07 AM UTC

addicted wrote: post #425

janalsncm wrote: post #398

Pound for pound, the Sacklers probably did more damage to America than any other drug dealers in history. More damage than any serial killer or mass shooter. In my mind they should be considered public enemies 1 through N. I sincerely hope they face civil and criminal liabilities for what they’ve done.

I’d argue it’s the opposite. Look at what’s happened since Oxycontin was heavily regulated. Opioid deaths in America have exploded by an order of magnitude. There’s a direct correlation between higher regulation of OxyContin and opioid deaths in the U.S. The Sacklers have done illegal stuff. Misrepresenting the addictiveness of their drugs (well, it was immoral and wrong…it’s not clear how illegal it was). But it’s q…