9 ms·

Looks like they got a golden escape hatch. Sounds like this arm of the company will end up controlled by a government trust. The best outcome would probably be

by gibolt 7y ago

Looks like they got a golden escape hatch. Sounds like this arm of the company will end up controlled by a government trust. The best outcome would probably be the government running the operation at break even, lowering costs, and heavily regulating how much product it could give to hospitals.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
simplecomplex 7y ago
The best outcome would be directing resources at preventing and treating opioid addiction, not at punishing the drug manufacturer.
- MegaButts 7y ago
  That just sends the message that the rich can get rich by ruining the lives of however many thousands of people and will just seek new ways to get rich by ruining the lives of however many thousands of people.
  - jrochkind1 7y ago
    I agree with you both.
    - jrochkind1 7y ago
      that is, the important thing is directing resources at preventing and treating opioid addictions and ODs, and if there's any justice the entire Sackler family fortune would be used to do so. Fortunately, these two goals are not in conflict, the Sackler's have a net worth upwards of $13 billion, which would be quite helpful resources to direct at preventing and treating opioid addiction and health effects.
      - bilbo0s 7y ago
        13 billion won't be nearly enough. The damage to people, to families, and to communities has been extensive. And it's a big problem in most counties across all 50 states. But also the Sacklers are only like 8% of the problem. All the rest of the opioids, (92%), came from other companies. So, theoretically, if we confiscated all of the wealth of all of the owners and stockholders in all of these companies we'd get the money we need to at least ameliorate some of the carnage. Because we'd have at least 90% more than we'd have by just confiscating the Sackler wealth alone. All that's just theory though. I don't even know if it's possible to hold ownership responsible? Because wouldn't that put people who buy stock in whatever company at risk if the company was doing something sufficiently untoward?
  - simplecomplex 7y ago
    Purdue never prescribed opioids to anyone. They only sold them to hospitals and doctors, after the FDA let them do it. Not sure what message punishing them is supposed to send? But I get it. Someone dies and it’s the drug dealers fault, and punishing them will make everyone feel better. Except it doesn’t do anything about the actual problem (opioid addiction). It feels to me like the elation here is because the Sacklers are rich and people really don’t like that, rather than any sort of victory in combating opiate addiction.
    - Retric 7y ago
      They lied about the drugs which they actively marketed to doctors. That’s far more than just manufacturing and opened them up to significantly increased liability.
      - loeg 7y ago
        After 2001? The lying in marketing, over the period 1995-2001, was already litigated in 2007.
        Retric 7y ago
        Yes, though they used intermediaries. https://katherineclark.house.gov/_cache/files/a/a/aaa7536a-6db3-4192-b943-364e7c599d10/818172D42793504DD9DFE64B77A77C0E.5.22.19-who-purdue-report-final.pdf https://katherineclark.house.gov/_cache/files/a/a/aaa7536a-6...
    - MegaButts 7y ago
      I do not believe that Purdue is innocent of anything, and I would love for more evidence to be brought forward to a court of law. https://www.statnews.com/2016/09/22/abbott-oxycontin-crusade/ https://www.statnews.com/2016/09/22/abbott-oxycontin-crusade...
    - jrochkind1 7y ago
      The Sackler's $13 billion could be used to do quite a lot about the actual problem.
- prepend 7y ago
  The resources from the lawsuits are designated to go toward preventing and treatment of opioid addiction. The purpose of the lawsuits, I think, is not to punish manufacturers but to fund needed health programs.
throwawayjava 7y ago
Pierce the veil and go after the family.
- i_feel_great 7y ago
  They are wealthy Americans. They are untouchable.
  - rosybox 7y ago
    This is not true, the Sackler families have already put up $4 billion dollars of their own money as part of one settlement in this and they're still being sued by others not part of the settlement. There's also a criminal investigation into members of the Sackler family.
    - braindead_in 7y ago
      There was a criminal investigation into Epstien as well. Look what happened to him. They even got his dead mans switch.
      - riffraff 7y ago
        Assuming Epstein was killed, he was killed while he was in prison, both things hardly make him seem untouchable.
        i_feel_great 7y ago
        The Epstein affair was not just Epstein the single individual. He could not have operated alone all these years in the way that he did. He got lenient sentences whenever he was brought to justice. The people who supported him remain untouchable.
        darawk 7y ago
        Ok, but he was rich. And he got "touched". Therefore the rich are not untouchable, which was the original point under discussion. Just like the Sackler family does not appear to be immune from prosecution and confiscation of their property.

by gibolt 7y ago

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

simplecomplex 7y ago

The best outcome would be directing resources at preventing and treating opioid addiction, not at punishing the drug manufacturer.

MegaButts 7y ago
That just sends the message that the rich can get rich by ruining the lives of however many thousands of people and will just seek new ways to get rich by ruining the lives of however many thousands of people.
- jrochkind1 7y ago
  I agree with you both.
  - jrochkind1 7y ago
    that is, the important thing is directing resources at preventing and treating opioid addictions and ODs, and if there's any justice the entire Sackler family fortune would be used to do so. Fortunately, these two goals are not in conflict, the Sackler's have a net worth upwards of $13 billion, which would be quite helpful resources to direct at preventing and treating opioid addiction and health effects.
    - bilbo0s 7y ago
      13 billion won't be nearly enough. The damage to people, to families, and to communities has been extensive. And it's a big problem in most counties across all 50 states. But also the Sacklers are only like 8% of the problem. All the rest of the opioids, (92%), came from other companies. So, theoretically, if we confiscated all of the wealth of all of the owners and stockholders in all of these companies we'd get the money we need to at least ameliorate some of the carnage. Because we'd have at least 90% more than we'd have by just confiscating the Sackler wealth alone. All that's just theory though. I don't even know if it's possible to hold ownership responsible? Because wouldn't that put people who buy stock in whatever company at risk if the company was doing something sufficiently untoward?
- simplecomplex 7y ago
  Purdue never prescribed opioids to anyone. They only sold them to hospitals and doctors, after the FDA let them do it. Not sure what message punishing them is supposed to send? But I get it. Someone dies and it’s the drug dealers fault, and punishing them will make everyone feel better. Except it doesn’t do anything about the actual problem (opioid addiction). It feels to me like the elation here is because the Sacklers are rich and people really don’t like that, rather than any sort of victory in combating opiate addiction.
  - Retric 7y ago
    They lied about the drugs which they actively marketed to doctors. That’s far more than just manufacturing and opened them up to significantly increased liability.
    - loeg 7y ago
      After 2001? The lying in marketing, over the period 1995-2001, was already litigated in 2007.
      - Retric 7y ago
        Yes, though they used intermediaries. https://katherineclark.house.gov/_cache/files/a/a/aaa7536a-6db3-4192-b943-364e7c599d10/818172D42793504DD9DFE64B77A77C0E.5.22.19-who-purdue-report-final.pdf https://katherineclark.house.gov/_cache/files/a/a/aaa7536a-6...
  - MegaButts 7y ago
    I do not believe that Purdue is innocent of anything, and I would love for more evidence to be brought forward to a court of law. https://www.statnews.com/2016/09/22/abbott-oxycontin-crusade/ https://www.statnews.com/2016/09/22/abbott-oxycontin-crusade...
  - jrochkind1 7y ago
    The Sackler's $13 billion could be used to do quite a lot about the actual problem.
prepend 7y ago
The resources from the lawsuits are designated to go toward preventing and treatment of opioid addiction. The purpose of the lawsuits, I think, is not to punish manufacturers but to fund needed health programs.

throwawayjava 7y ago

Pierce the veil and go after the family.

i_feel_great 7y ago
They are wealthy Americans. They are untouchable.
- rosybox 7y ago
  This is not true, the Sackler families have already put up $4 billion dollars of their own money as part of one settlement in this and they're still being sued by others not part of the settlement. There's also a criminal investigation into members of the Sackler family.
  - braindead_in 7y ago
    There was a criminal investigation into Epstien as well. Look what happened to him. They even got his dead mans switch.
    - riffraff 7y ago
      Assuming Epstein was killed, he was killed while he was in prison, both things hardly make him seem untouchable.
      - i_feel_great 7y ago
        The Epstein affair was not just Epstein the single individual. He could not have operated alone all these years in the way that he did. He got lenient sentences whenever he was brought to justice. The people who supported him remain untouchable.
        darawk 7y ago
        Ok, but he was rich. And he got "touched". Therefore the rich are not untouchable, which was the original point under discussion. Just like the Sackler family does not appear to be immune from prosecution and confiscation of their property.