Not dead yet!
Well-Known Member
This is absurd: https://www.npr.org/2019/03/28/7077...amily-illegally-profited-from-opioid-epidemic
They had to go up to 2 decades to find enough deaths to show a big number?
Oxycontin: 200,000 deaths over 20 years , that's got to be approximate because it's such a nice round number, but it's 1,000 deaths per year
Car crashes: 1.3 million per year
Cancer: 590,000 per year
Is it just me, or are we missing something in this news? Maybe the Sacklers are a mob family, or maybe Cuomo's child died tragically by overdosing? Either way, this seems bizarre to me. The headline too.. sued for "peddling" it just hits a confusion note. Should they not have sold a product that's legal to prescribe? Or do they refuse to help fund the critically underfunded addiction programs in the state?
I'm not really clear on why all this opioid hysteria right now. It started around the second half of Obama's presidency. I know because at the time I was still taking pain meds. I remember that suddenly all the family doctors started referring people to pain centers. I had always had to request that before. Then the pain centers started with the "we drug test you every visit" crap. Treating patients like potential criminals. I put up with it because I didn't have a choice.
(Note: I found out the cause of my pain and it lessened so I don't need opioids anymore. But I'm not the only one who ever needed them to function.)
Now they're suing the family. About 15 days ago, Purdue settled out of court for a ridiculously low amount. I think the blood should've been drawn from the corporation, but they let them settle it and went after the family. That seems a bit bizarre. Surely Purdue was a corp, so it can't really stand legally.
It seems vindictive and personal and not at all about punishing a corporation for bad marketing. Which is what it should be.
I'm wondering if people are just afraid to say anything about it because it might imply that you don't care about addicts or don't want to punish corporations for bad behavior. That's not it for me at all, the situation just seems to get more and more hairy by the minute. Any minute now they're going to start name calling. Or it seems that way.
I wish they were twice this aggressive when going after the money laundering in certain banks I could name. That would put a serious crimp in the style of many more real dope pushers.
They had to go up to 2 decades to find enough deaths to show a big number?
Oxycontin: 200,000 deaths over 20 years , that's got to be approximate because it's such a nice round number, but it's 1,000 deaths per year
Car crashes: 1.3 million per year
Cancer: 590,000 per year
Is it just me, or are we missing something in this news? Maybe the Sacklers are a mob family, or maybe Cuomo's child died tragically by overdosing? Either way, this seems bizarre to me. The headline too.. sued for "peddling" it just hits a confusion note. Should they not have sold a product that's legal to prescribe? Or do they refuse to help fund the critically underfunded addiction programs in the state?
I'm not really clear on why all this opioid hysteria right now. It started around the second half of Obama's presidency. I know because at the time I was still taking pain meds. I remember that suddenly all the family doctors started referring people to pain centers. I had always had to request that before. Then the pain centers started with the "we drug test you every visit" crap. Treating patients like potential criminals. I put up with it because I didn't have a choice.
(Note: I found out the cause of my pain and it lessened so I don't need opioids anymore. But I'm not the only one who ever needed them to function.)
Now they're suing the family. About 15 days ago, Purdue settled out of court for a ridiculously low amount. I think the blood should've been drawn from the corporation, but they let them settle it and went after the family. That seems a bit bizarre. Surely Purdue was a corp, so it can't really stand legally.
It seems vindictive and personal and not at all about punishing a corporation for bad marketing. Which is what it should be.
I'm wondering if people are just afraid to say anything about it because it might imply that you don't care about addicts or don't want to punish corporations for bad behavior. That's not it for me at all, the situation just seems to get more and more hairy by the minute. Any minute now they're going to start name calling. Or it seems that way.
I wish they were twice this aggressive when going after the money laundering in certain banks I could name. That would put a serious crimp in the style of many more real dope pushers.