Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sacklers–who made $11B off opioid crisis–to pay $225M in damages

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 109 posts

Re: Sacklers–who made $11B off opioid crisis–to pay $225M in damages

#81

Post by api »

bredren wrote: post #55
bananabreakfast wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While you're clearly in pain and vindictive for lack of access to effective treatment, putting "crisis" in quotes like it's a manufactured epidemic with no real impact is extremely disingenuous. In 2018 ~130 people died every day in the US overdosing on opioids[1]. I'm sure they're effective for you but if people are not responsible enough to be trusted taking them without killing themselves then you might as well be…

Just so this doesn’t come off like too radical an idea: legalization of all drugs has been a position of The Economist since 1989. “Legalize, Control, Discourage.” https://www.economist.com/leaders/1989/01/21/hooked-on-just-...

The majority of opioid deaths are due to fentanyl or cut opioids, something that would not exist if there were a regulated legal market.

Re: Sacklers–who made $11B off opioid crisis–to pay $225M in damages

#82

Post by qppo »

spaetzleesser wrote: post #41
wombatmobile wrote: post #19

Dupont made more than $30 billion profit selling Teflon for almost 50 years, polluting the environment by dumping untreated toxic waste from the manufacturing process into virgin West Virginia landscapes the whole time. In February 2017, DuPont settled over 3,550 lawsuits for $671 million. Dark Waters Trailer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvAOuhyunhY

We really have to stop letting wealthy people and corporations buy their way out of legal problems. Fines and settlements clearly don't stop bad behavior as banks and polluters have been showing repeatedly. The whole thing feels like a protection racket where it's ok to do illegal stuff as long as the government gets its cut. Either somebody has to go to jail or the fines have to be on a level that they lose all of t…

Seriously. This still leaves the door open for the next drug crisis to make a (literal) killing and get a slap on the wrist in ten years.

What's next? I wouldn't be surprised if Pfizer started pushing Xanax and other benzodiazepines as a way to tie patients over while they wait the 2-6 weeks from talking to their PCP for a psychiatry referral and actually seeing a therapist.

Re: Sacklers–who made $11B off opioid crisis–to pay $225M in damages

#83

Post by ryder9 »

ars wrote: post #16
ineedasername wrote: post #2

In their defense, they really wanted make a ton of money, really didn't want to pay a huge fine. So, you know, it all kind of worked out. For them.

What happened to all that money they made? I find it hard to believe they can spend that much money.

offshore bank accounts and tax avoidance schemes

Re: Sacklers–who made $11B off opioid crisis–to pay $225M in damages

#85

Post by rhizome »

elipsey wrote: post #60
BaronVonSteuben wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a reasonable point, although if they hadn't helped make doctors more comfortable with using them, then I may not have ever gotten them in the first place as they would be stingy with them like they are now. Hard to know where I would have landed.

TL;DR: I think it is reasonable to blame Purdue for the reduced access to opioids we are now stuck with. Purdue caused more addiction to occur, which in turn caused reduced access to the opioids that existed prior to the creation of Purdue's nuisance product. Also, perverse incentives caused by the patent and licensing system motivated them to make OxyContin unnecessarily addictive in it's formulation and dosing sche…

I think it might be even worse than that, that everything they did rolled back pain care. Law enforcement was already on a moralizing crackdown on pain doctors in the 90s and 2000s, and any ground that was gained in justifying pain care in that context was then stomped on by Purdue. It's one thing if they burned their own bridges, but to burn the bridges of all of your customers is a new level in retail aggression. "If we aren't the ones to give it to you, you can't have it at all."

Re: Sacklers–who made $11B off opioid crisis–to pay $225M in damages

#86

Post by chrisweekly »

titzer wrote: post #65
spaetzleesser wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We really have to stop letting wealthy people and corporations buy their way out of legal problems. Fines and settlements clearly don't stop bad behavior as banks and polluters have been showing repeatedly. The whole thing feels like a protection racket where it's ok to do illegal stuff as long as the government gets its cut. Either somebody has to go to jail or the fines have to be on a level that they lose all of t…

IMHO, If corporations are people, then corporations can go to jail.

^ THIS! So much this. Citizen's United is an abomination, but while it stands its tenets should at least be applied consistently. Also, there's a difference between capitalism and corporatism. I say that as the owner of a C-Corp.

Re: Sacklers–who made $11B off opioid crisis–to pay $225M in damages

#87

Post by greatwave1 »

wombatmobile wrote: post #19

Dupont made more than $30 billion profit selling Teflon for almost 50 years, polluting the environment by dumping untreated toxic waste from the manufacturing process into virgin West Virginia landscapes the whole time. In February 2017, DuPont settled over 3,550 lawsuits for $671 million. Dark Waters Trailer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvAOuhyunhY

The Sackler's settlement doesn't even scratch the top 10 of the largest corporate fines of the last two years, and is less than 1/20th of what Facebook paid for privacy violations in 2019.

Source: https://www.quiverquant.com/sources/violations

Re: Sacklers–who made $11B off opioid crisis–to pay $225M in damages

#88

Post by [deleted] »

titzer wrote: post #65
spaetzleesser wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We really have to stop letting wealthy people and corporations buy their way out of legal problems. Fines and settlements clearly don't stop bad behavior as banks and polluters have been showing repeatedly. The whole thing feels like a protection racket where it's ok to do illegal stuff as long as the government gets its cut. Either somebody has to go to jail or the fines have to be on a level that they lose all of t…

IMHO, If corporations are people, then corporations can go to jail.

[deleted]

Re: Sacklers–who made $11B off opioid crisis–to pay $225M in damages

#89

Post by dodobirdlord »

ska wrote: post #76
Chozenlaruso wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From your link: "including prescription pain relievers, heroin, and synthetic opioids such as fentanyl" So recreational drug abusers are included in the count? I believe the OP was only taking prescription drugs. Is there a count somewhere of just the overdoses on prescribed opioids?

It's tricky to meaningfully separate these cases, as many opioid addictions start with prescriptions and move to more available opioids when the prescriptions end.

This is substantially less common than is widely believed.

Re: Sacklers–who made $11B off opioid crisis–to pay $225M in damages

#90

Post by dividedbyzero »

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #7

The Sacklers engaged in unethical behavior to get people hooked on something that made them money. Easy opioid prescriptions created thousands of (mostly) functional addicts who were getting their fix in a high-quality control form via their doctor on a monthly basis. That's bad but that's not an opioid "crisis". You don't get a crisis because of a few evil billionaires. More things have to go wrong. What really turn…

What the hell, they lured millions into a long-term addiction to a very potent drug that is brutally hard to break in the best of cases, knowingly and out of naked greed. How on earth can you call that merely "unethical, arguably evil"? How can not call that a freaking crisis? Millions of addicts that you can't get off their substance without terrible suffering? Sure, more things have to go wrong to let it get THIS bad, but once you get that many people hooked, you're at least 90% there, because I really don't think there is a way out that doesn't imply immense suffering. This is a crime against humanity, not just an "unethical" business move.
Post reply on HN