7 ms·

How judges added to the grim toll of opioids

104 points by SolaceQuantum 7y ago

empath75 7y ago
Meanwhile joe weed dealer on the corner got 20 years in prison. The next story we’ll be hearing about is how adderall and Ritalin made a generation of kids addicted to speed.
- Nuzzerino 7y ago
  > The next story we’ll be hearing about is how adderall and Ritalin made a generation of kids addicted to speed. Didn't it though?
  - skyyler 7y ago
    Oh, it did.
- Circuits 7y ago
  Big Pharma: Mind keeping those records private? Judge: I would never... Big Pharma: 'Hands judge 2mil' Judge: ..consider anything but keeping them private. I meant to say. ^You don't believe this kind of thing happens, then your living in a dream world Alice: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/texas-judge-arrested-and-charged-bribery https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/texas-judge-arrested-and-char... https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2011/08/11/139536686/pa-judge-sentenced-to-28-years-in-massive-juvenile-justice-bribery-scandal https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2011/08/11/139536686... https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/feds-judge-admitted-taking-bribes-from-indicted-lobbyist/ https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/feds-judge-admitte... just to name a few.
  - hvhsb 7y ago
    https://reddit.com https://reddit.com
- eecc 7y ago
  Weed might also be an effective pain killer but we’ll never know. The Reactionaries - God bless them - have already decided there’s no good use for it, there’s no need for controlled experiments and all that scientific devilry
  - nostrademons 7y ago
    We do know, and it is. Medical marijuana is legal in about half the states, and is commonly prescribed for cancer, glaucoma, and MS.
    - bluGill 7y ago
      It is legal and commonly prescribed, but that doesn't mean it is effective. Anecdotes say it is, and the enjoyment of being high is worth it to some but no doctor should prescribe it until the alternatives we know work have been tried and found to not work. Proper medical treatments goes through many rounds of studies to prove that it works and is safe (which is unlikely in this case: smoke causes cancer in general). If someone were to do a proper study (I'm not aware of any, but many countries don't have the US ban so I'd be shocked if none have been done) I'd change my position. For now it is a last resort though.
      - rufugee 7y ago
        until the alternatives we know work have been tried Oh, you mean the alternatives Big Pharma claims to be effective? Because as TFA shows, they can totally be trusted...
        bluGill 7y ago
        Two wrongs do not make a right.
      - smileysteve 7y ago
        > until the alternatives we know work have been tried and found to not work. I mean, opioids clearly work; but they come at an extremely high in terms of addiction and risk of overdose. Morphine works; we just only prescribe it at EOL now because we know its so addictive it will kill. Where if cannabis or cbd have even an anecdotal placebo effect, it is not currently leading to high risk of overdose.
thorwasdfasdf 7y ago
There's so many people that get these drugs completely legally then get hooked on them and next thing you know their on heroin which is illegal. I really think we need to restore some balance and get rid of the legal stuff (like the so called harmless back-ache medicine, etc) people are getting addicted to in the first place.
- xyzzy_plugh 7y ago
  This is the attitude that gets us in this mess in the first place. It should all be legal, but the controls in place are harmful. Too much oversight in the wrong places, not enough in the right places.
- freedomben 7y ago
  Have you ever needed opioid pain killers to deal with either an acute or chronic pain condition?
  - seattle_spring 7y ago
    I can answer that for you: no, they haven't.
  - merpnderp 7y ago
    If they'd witnessed someone they love, living for weeks in mind shattering pain, sobbing just getting up to go to the bathroom, unable to sleep or think through the pain, waiting on a doc to prescribe real painkillers, but the doc is too afraid of the DEA, maybe they'd change their minds. Or maybe they'd point to some random overdose in the newspaper and tell their spouse/mother/father/child to suck it up and stop crying, it's only major nerve branches slowly dying, and who can't rub some dirt on that?
    - thorwasdfasdf 7y ago
      Being addicted to heroin is even worse. You should see how the people addicted to drugs end up: they have all the pain you just mentioned but with the additional burden of having to buy 150$ worth of drugs everyday, just so they can function.
eecc 7y ago
How is this allowable? What law or procedure allows this to happen? Scrap it, unseal everything and let evidence wash away all the rhetoric and grand-standing
Meekro 7y ago
> Judge Stephens was bound by West Virginia law to weigh secrecy against transparency and provide in the court record his reasoning. Like many judges in his position, he did neither. "This case was sealed because both sides agreed and asked me to seal it," he told Reuters. As a practical matter, this is why it happens: the court system is inherently adversarial. If the two sides agree that something should happen in their case, the judge is likely to rubber-stamp it. Judges don't want to waste time litigating something that isn't actually disputed.
- sampleinajar 7y ago
  Thank you. I would add to this that prior to it coming before the judge there is the leverage of "We can get 600 mil now or go into years and years of litigation that we have a non-zero chance of losing, and all we have to do is agree to let them hide their documents." hindsight is 20/20, how many would really choose the years and years of litigation over the payout?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- inflatableDodo 7y ago
  There are at least four sides when it comes to sealing documents though, the two parties in court, the state and the public. edit - or maybe at least five, if you count the law.
- CalChris 7y ago
  If there were criminal charges as in the Perdue case then the court has a public interest to consider.
- rstuart4133 7y ago
  > If the two sides agree that something should happen in their case, the judge is likely to rubber-stamp it. Except of course that isn't what happens in most cases. One side wants the details of the case kept secret, the other may not care but more likely (as in this case) would prefer the details to be made public so others can at least learn from their experience. But if there is a power imbalance (which there is this case because $X has far more effect on one side than the other), the side with the most money can simply buy their way out of the unwanted publicity. It's effectively a bribe, but since it's tied up with the settlement and the negotiations are also secret that's impossible to prove. I can't see how this is the judges fault. If every case was forced to be public there would be all sorts of unpleasant consequences. If judges were forced to go through all the evidence in these cases and rule on which bits should be made public it would increase their work load considerably.
gnicholas 7y ago
Somewhat related: there's apparently some question as to whether the availability of Naloxone actually increases risky behavior among drug users, based on a concept called 'moral hazard': https://www.annemergmed.com/article/S0196-0644(18)30457-8/fulltext https://www.annemergmed.com/article/S0196-0644(18)30457-8/fu...
alexandercrohde 7y ago
> In fact, court records are presumed to be public as a matter of law. They can only be sealed for valid concerns about privacy, including personal medical records, and to protect company trade secrets. Yet > In practice, secrecy has become so ingrained in the system that judges rarely question it. In 85 percent of the cases where Reuters found health and safety information under seal, judges provided no explanation for allowing the secrecy. Sounds like this needs oversight.
- reallydude 7y ago
  > Sounds like this needs oversight. That's what the record is for. There needs to be consequences
  - hotgoldminer 7y ago
    Really dude? Semantic much.
    - reallydude 7y ago
      There are no consequences. You don't need additional oversight. This is not semantics, at the core of the issue. The idea that oversight (ie another layer of bureaucracy) is a solution to a problem is what the US legal system has to avoid, to stay effective.

104 points by SolaceQuantum 7y ago

Meanwhile joe weed dealer on the corner got 20 years in prison. The next story we’ll be hearing about is how adderall and Ritalin made a generation of kids addicted to speed.

Nuzzerino 7y ago
> The next story we’ll be hearing about is how adderall and Ritalin made a generation of kids addicted to speed. Didn't it though?
- skyyler 7y ago
  Oh, it did.
Circuits 7y ago
Big Pharma: Mind keeping those records private? Judge: I would never... Big Pharma: 'Hands judge 2mil' Judge: ..consider anything but keeping them private. I meant to say. ^You don't believe this kind of thing happens, then your living in a dream world Alice: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/texas-judge-arrested-and-charged-bribery https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/texas-judge-arrested-and-char... https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2011/08/11/139536686/pa-judge-sentenced-to-28-years-in-massive-juvenile-justice-bribery-scandal https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2011/08/11/139536686... https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/feds-judge-admitted-taking-bribes-from-indicted-lobbyist/ https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/feds-judge-admitte... just to name a few.
- hvhsb 7y ago
  https://reddit.com https://reddit.com
eecc 7y ago
Weed might also be an effective pain killer but we’ll never know. The Reactionaries - God bless them - have already decided there’s no good use for it, there’s no need for controlled experiments and all that scientific devilry
- nostrademons 7y ago
  We do know, and it is. Medical marijuana is legal in about half the states, and is commonly prescribed for cancer, glaucoma, and MS.
  - bluGill 7y ago
    It is legal and commonly prescribed, but that doesn't mean it is effective. Anecdotes say it is, and the enjoyment of being high is worth it to some but no doctor should prescribe it until the alternatives we know work have been tried and found to not work. Proper medical treatments goes through many rounds of studies to prove that it works and is safe (which is unlikely in this case: smoke causes cancer in general). If someone were to do a proper study (I'm not aware of any, but many countries don't have the US ban so I'd be shocked if none have been done) I'd change my position. For now it is a last resort though.
    - rufugee 7y ago
      until the alternatives we know work have been tried Oh, you mean the alternatives Big Pharma claims to be effective? Because as TFA shows, they can totally be trusted...
      - bluGill 7y ago
        Two wrongs do not make a right.
    - smileysteve 7y ago
      > until the alternatives we know work have been tried and found to not work. I mean, opioids clearly work; but they come at an extremely high in terms of addiction and risk of overdose. Morphine works; we just only prescribe it at EOL now because we know its so addictive it will kill. Where if cannabis or cbd have even an anecdotal placebo effect, it is not currently leading to high risk of overdose.

thorwasdfasdf 7y ago

There's so many people that get these drugs completely legally then get hooked on them and next thing you know their on heroin which is illegal. I really think we need to restore some balance and get rid of the legal stuff (like the so called harmless back-ache medicine, etc) people are getting addicted to in the first place.

xyzzy_plugh 7y ago
This is the attitude that gets us in this mess in the first place. It should all be legal, but the controls in place are harmful. Too much oversight in the wrong places, not enough in the right places.
freedomben 7y ago
Have you ever needed opioid pain killers to deal with either an acute or chronic pain condition?
- seattle_spring 7y ago
  I can answer that for you: no, they haven't.
- merpnderp 7y ago
  If they'd witnessed someone they love, living for weeks in mind shattering pain, sobbing just getting up to go to the bathroom, unable to sleep or think through the pain, waiting on a doc to prescribe real painkillers, but the doc is too afraid of the DEA, maybe they'd change their minds. Or maybe they'd point to some random overdose in the newspaper and tell their spouse/mother/father/child to suck it up and stop crying, it's only major nerve branches slowly dying, and who can't rub some dirt on that?
  - thorwasdfasdf 7y ago
    Being addicted to heroin is even worse. You should see how the people addicted to drugs end up: they have all the pain you just mentioned but with the additional burden of having to buy 150$ worth of drugs everyday, just so they can function.

eecc 7y ago

How is this allowable? What law or procedure allows this to happen? Scrap it, unseal everything and let evidence wash away all the rhetoric and grand-standing

Meekro 7y ago

> Judge Stephens was bound by West Virginia law to weigh secrecy against transparency and provide in the court record his reasoning. Like many judges in his position, he did neither. "This case was sealed because both sides agreed and asked me to seal it," he told Reuters. As a practical matter, this is why it happens: the court system is inherently adversarial. If the two sides agree that something should happen in their case, the judge is likely to rubber-stamp it. Judges don't want to waste time litigating something that isn't actually disputed.

sampleinajar 7y ago
Thank you. I would add to this that prior to it coming before the judge there is the leverage of "We can get 600 mil now or go into years and years of litigation that we have a non-zero chance of losing, and all we have to do is agree to let them hide their documents." hindsight is 20/20, how many would really choose the years and years of litigation over the payout?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
inflatableDodo 7y ago
There are at least four sides when it comes to sealing documents though, the two parties in court, the state and the public. edit - or maybe at least five, if you count the law.
CalChris 7y ago
If there were criminal charges as in the Perdue case then the court has a public interest to consider.
rstuart4133 7y ago
> If the two sides agree that something should happen in their case, the judge is likely to rubber-stamp it. Except of course that isn't what happens in most cases. One side wants the details of the case kept secret, the other may not care but more likely (as in this case) would prefer the details to be made public so others can at least learn from their experience. But if there is a power imbalance (which there is this case because $X has far more effect on one side than the other), the side with the most money can simply buy their way out of the unwanted publicity. It's effectively a bribe, but since it's tied up with the settlement and the negotiations are also secret that's impossible to prove. I can't see how this is the judges fault. If every case was forced to be public there would be all sorts of unpleasant consequences. If judges were forced to go through all the evidence in these cases and rule on which bits should be made public it would increase their work load considerably.

gnicholas 7y ago

Somewhat related: there's apparently some question as to whether the availability of Naloxone actually increases risky behavior among drug users, based on a concept called 'moral hazard': https://www.annemergmed.com/article/S0196-0644(18)30457-8/fulltext https://www.annemergmed.com/article/S0196-0644(18)30457-8/fu...

alexandercrohde 7y ago

> In fact, court records are presumed to be public as a matter of law. They can only be sealed for valid concerns about privacy, including personal medical records, and to protect company trade secrets. Yet > In practice, secrecy has become so ingrained in the system that judges rarely question it. In 85 percent of the cases where Reuters found health and safety information under seal, judges provided no explanation for allowing the secrecy. Sounds like this needs oversight.

reallydude 7y ago
> Sounds like this needs oversight. That's what the record is for. There needs to be consequences
- hotgoldminer 7y ago
  Really dude? Semantic much.
  - reallydude 7y ago
    There are no consequences. You don't need additional oversight. This is not semantics, at the core of the issue. The idea that oversight (ie another layer of bureaucracy) is a solution to a problem is what the US legal system has to avoid, to stay effective.