4 ms·

Let me know when they start going after executives at these companies and throwing them in jail. Otherwise, this isn't justice. It's business as usual.

bilbo0s 6y ago
This is just political theater. Purdue is responsible for what? 8% of the opioids that were pumped into the medical industry by Big Pharma. Max. (And that's being generous.) That means 92% of the problem was not sanctioned at all by our "Justice" Department. So they slap the hands of one of the small fries come election time, and we're dumb enough to keep voting for them. Both sides engage in this nonsense too, that's what's so disheartening. There is obviously too much money up there to go after the big guys. I get that. But at some point, man, can't we strap on the gloves and try to do the right thing? For once? This whole "Justice" Department action is a slap in the face to communities dealing with the opioid crisis out here in flyover country.
- skellera 6y ago
  While small to the current scale of things, Purdue is a massive reason why it even became this scale. The executives and the family should be jailed. They won’t be and that’s why this is sad. They will all continue to live wealthy lives off the deaths of so many people. A fine is nothing and it just tells anyone who is thinking of doing the same that it’s still potentially worth doing.
- pradn 6y ago
  What would the share of responsibility be if we adjust for the potency of the various kinds of opioids?
DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
> throwing them in jail I hear this a lot - but what actual, specific crime did they commit that warrants a custodial sentence? What exact law or regulation in the US Federal Code did they break? The evidence of their malfeasance is plain to see, but malfeasance itself isn't illegal - nor is harming the public-at-large indirectly through legal business planning and legal business deals. As it is, I don't believe there is a law against establishing corporate sales targets for harmful prescription drugs or fostering an internal company culture that encourages their overprescription. Nor do I believe is it illegal for drugs companies to give unintentionally misleading - or even intentionally misleading - marketing material to doctors and pharmacists because there's so much current legal leeway (for reasons I won't get into).
- Judgmentality 6y ago
  > what actual, specific crime did they commit that warrants a custodial sentence? As another commenter pointed out: > Conviction of 3 felonies including conspiracy to defraud the United States and yet no one is going to jail. Those are crimes punishable by prison sentences, if the judge so chooses to enforce the law. I bet nobody lost their right to vote either, despite the felonies. Admittedly I am not a lawyer, and I am definitely not an expert on Citizens v. United (which is essential to the arguments being made here), but I still don't believe they couldn't be put in jail - all it would take is for the judge to have a motivation to do so.
tathougies 6y ago
Well, they are going after them, if you read the article: > The resolutions do not include the criminal release of any individuals, including members of the Sackler family, nor are any of the company’s executives or employees receiving civil releases. That means Justice is leaving open the possibility of bringing criminal charges against the Sackler family. The felonies they mention in the article are felonies committed by the corporation, which cannot be jailed, but -- due to the fact that Justice has forced the company to dissolve in its current state (pending approval) -- has been essentially sentenced to death. The company's assets (which are valuable and vital to public health) will be owned by a new legal person, a trust operating a public benefit corporation.
- ciarannolan 6y ago
  Where are you seeing that they are going after individuals criminally? I did read the article, and it says nothing of the sort. Just that they're not ruling it out.
  - tathougies 6y ago
    Well, that's how it starts right? The claim that they are not going after the family is not truthful. The possibility is out there, and given that they have just secured one fo the largest judgements ever against a pharma company, Justice is clearly not afraid of the Sackler family.

bilbo0s 6y ago

This is just political theater. Purdue is responsible for what? 8% of the opioids that were pumped into the medical industry by Big Pharma. Max. (And that's being generous.) That means 92% of the problem was not sanctioned at all by our "Justice" Department. So they slap the hands of one of the small fries come election time, and we're dumb enough to keep voting for them. Both sides engage in this nonsense too, that's what's so disheartening. There is obviously too much money up there to go after the big guys. I get that. But at some point, man, can't we strap on the gloves and try to do the right thing? For once? This whole "Justice" Department action is a slap in the face to communities dealing with the opioid crisis out here in flyover country.

skellera 6y ago
While small to the current scale of things, Purdue is a massive reason why it even became this scale. The executives and the family should be jailed. They won’t be and that’s why this is sad. They will all continue to live wealthy lives off the deaths of so many people. A fine is nothing and it just tells anyone who is thinking of doing the same that it’s still potentially worth doing.
pradn 6y ago
What would the share of responsibility be if we adjust for the potency of the various kinds of opioids?

DaiPlusPlus 6y ago

> throwing them in jail I hear this a lot - but what actual, specific crime did they commit that warrants a custodial sentence? What exact law or regulation in the US Federal Code did they break? The evidence of their malfeasance is plain to see, but malfeasance itself isn't illegal - nor is harming the public-at-large indirectly through legal business planning and legal business deals. As it is, I don't believe there is a law against establishing corporate sales targets for harmful prescription drugs or fostering an internal company culture that encourages their overprescription. Nor do I believe is it illegal for drugs companies to give unintentionally misleading - or even intentionally misleading - marketing material to doctors and pharmacists because there's so much current legal leeway (for reasons I won't get into).

Judgmentality 6y ago
> what actual, specific crime did they commit that warrants a custodial sentence? As another commenter pointed out: > Conviction of 3 felonies including conspiracy to defraud the United States and yet no one is going to jail. Those are crimes punishable by prison sentences, if the judge so chooses to enforce the law. I bet nobody lost their right to vote either, despite the felonies. Admittedly I am not a lawyer, and I am definitely not an expert on Citizens v. United (which is essential to the arguments being made here), but I still don't believe they couldn't be put in jail - all it would take is for the judge to have a motivation to do so.

tathougies 6y ago

Well, they are going after them, if you read the article: > The resolutions do not include the criminal release of any individuals, including members of the Sackler family, nor are any of the company’s executives or employees receiving civil releases. That means Justice is leaving open the possibility of bringing criminal charges against the Sackler family. The felonies they mention in the article are felonies committed by the corporation, which cannot be jailed, but -- due to the fact that Justice has forced the company to dissolve in its current state (pending approval) -- has been essentially sentenced to death. The company's assets (which are valuable and vital to public health) will be owned by a new legal person, a trust operating a public benefit corporation.

ciarannolan 6y ago
Where are you seeing that they are going after individuals criminally? I did read the article, and it says nothing of the sort. Just that they're not ruling it out.
- tathougies 6y ago
  Well, that's how it starts right? The claim that they are not going after the family is not truthful. The possibility is out there, and given that they have just secured one fo the largest judgements ever against a pharma company, Justice is clearly not afraid of the Sackler family.