3 ms·
Clearly people in your community are addicted. The fact they're still being enabled is bad. It seems hard to fix. Meanwhile I think we should punish the Sackler
by bagacrap 7y ago
Clearly people in your community are addicted. The fact they're still being enabled is bad. It seems hard to fix. Meanwhile I think we should punish the Sacklers for causing the addiction in the first place, regardless of whether other pharma jumped on the bandwagon.
OP is actually stretching the truth to say they got away with a few fines as several states' AGs are still hounding the Sacklers for the money they funneled out of Purdue.
- bilbo0s 7y agoOK and yet still, you're not doing anything to the people pushing 80% of the poison onto our communities? I mean really, are we supposed to thank you for that? Maybe it would be more illustrative if I called it crack instead of opioids. You, in your magnanimity, are willing to show your concern for us by shutting down one of the twelve crack houses. And you expect us to thank you? Think of it this way, not one of you have mentioned, even once, doing a single thing about the other eleven crack houses on the block. Do you not see how we might have kind of a problem with that? You keep asking me to be happy about that crack house you shut down last year. Almost like you don't want me even bringing up the other eleven gangs slinging crack and killing people in the neighborhood.
- bagacrap 7y agoWhy do you keep using the second person? I am not in charge of federal drug policy. You can lump me into a category that's neither "us" nor "them", thanks. And the proper analogy wrt crack would be to hold the CIA accountable for unleashing it on urban communities, which is clearly never going to happen, but if it did, then yes I would expect it to satisfy/validate affected communities to some extent.
- bilbo0s 7y agoWell you're wrong. It doesn't satisfy us at all. But shutting down all crack houses would.