18 ms·
The Sackler Family Wins Immunity from Future Opioid Lawsuits
- f8f6dhdherb 5y agoI'd be more enraged if the litigants weren't part of the movement that's resulted in pain medicine being harder to get prescribed for everyone. Good! I'm glad you greedy assholes that resulted in the elderly having to live in pain got short changed.
- scarmig 5y agoClearly, if you want to be a drug dealer, the best way to get into the drug business is to be a white American. See also: Warren Delano Jr. (grandfather of FDR) and Frances Forbes (grandfather of John Kerry), who made their fortunes smuggling opiates into China.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- throwaway27981 5y agothere's more than meets the eye
- bsksi 5y agoThe Sackler family is not white.
- BrianOnHN 5y agoFalse.
- bsksi 5y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sackler_family#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sackler_family#History
- COGlory 5y agoAre Jews not considered white?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- throwjd764glug 5y agoIf it's okay to point out they're white, then it's okay to point out they're Jewish, regardless of if you consider Jews to be white.
- bsksi 5y agoDepends on whether they are victims or perpetrators.
- CrazyPyroLinux 5y agoThat's the punchline of "When Wokes and Racists Actually Agree on Everything" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ev373c7wSRg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ev373c7wSRg
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- ryan93 5y agoThey didnt deal drugs really. Doctors did. Wonder why the medical establishment hasnt taken a reputation hit like the sacklers justifiably did.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- s5300 5y agoSomething tells me you've either read absolutely nothing about what occurred or you're attempting to troll on HN.
- dillondoyle 5y agoJust don't put anything on paper lol. Kapoor was just the dumber version of these evil human suffering profiteers.
- realce 5y ago"The Sacklers, who admit no wrongdoing and who by their own reckoning earned more than $10 billion from opioid sales, will remain one of the wealthiest families in the world."
- coldcode 5y agoWhere is that wealth now, I wonder if it's really all that secure. History has shown that ill-gotten wealth can be made transitory, if someone tries hard enough. Seen any Medici lately?
- dillondoyle 5y agoWe can't even carve their names off museums...
- alistairSH 5y agoThe Medici family continues to exist and is still wealthy.
- sofixa 5y agoThe main branch, the ones with the money and power, did die off, and their lands were given to Maria-Theresa's husband as compensation for him losing his ancestral lands ( Lorraine, because the French king didn't want Austria to have land even closer to him) after the war of the Austrian Succession.
- BoiledCabbage 5y agoNot even certain what to say. Yes this is a low value comment but I'm speechless. The argument "We potentially screwed up so much that there would be so many people suing us that it would cause legal chaos. So as a result we should be granted full waivers of liability to avoid the lawsuits." Is so brazen as to be absurd. But the fact it was a successful argument and won is what's astounding. Unchecked corporate power is a phenomenal national liability.
- MattGaiser 5y agoI suspect it won as the other option is having the entire thing destroyed and there being nothing left to settle over. Sure, you can embroil the company in 1000 lawsuits, but the end result will be lawyers getting all the money.
- caslon 5y agoThat's ideal, isn't it? No one gets a reward, but the criminals lose what they have. Instead, the criminals are basically getting rewarded.
- Natsu 5y agoWell, they appear to be going bankrupt already unless I'm missing something and turning over all these assets to the bankruptcy court? At least that's what the article seemed to indicate, it wasn't overly clear on the details.
- wmf 5y agoThis settlement allows the Sackler family to keep some assets (billions?); many people have proposed that they deserve to lose everything.
- magicalist 5y ago> Well, they appear to be going bankrupt already unless I'm missing something and turning over all these assets to the bankruptcy court? At least that's what the article seemed to indicate, it wasn't overly clear on the details. No, none of the people getting immunity are filing for bankruptcy, which is one of the absolutely ridiculous parts of this settlement. Why should a bankruptcy settlement even apply to them if that's the case?
- baron816 5y agoIf you ever wondered how you could kill half a million people and get away with it, here you go.
- N1H1L 5y agoBut no, we will hyperventilate about the Taliban. But let US billionaires off with mass murder
- toomuchtodo 5y agoAnd in China, when executives commit willfully harmful acts at this scale, they’re executed (6 children dead, hundreds of thousands harmed in my example from citations below). The actions of the Sacklers caused the deaths of over 500k people, and they walk away with a large fine and civil judgment immunity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Chinese_milk_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Chinese_milk_scandal http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8375638.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8375638.stm
- rhizome 5y agoEvery family of every person who has an interest in the fortune should be followed by hecklers wherever they go for the rest of their lives.
- heavyset_go 5y agoThese people don't mingle with the riff raff. The only middle and lower class people they see are their employees, and that's usually only through a screen or several sheets of glass.
- N1H1L 5y agoThey still remain billionaires after the settlement. This is immoral and disgusting
- s5300 5y agoChina sent a cute little state execution van to execute a billionaire on the spot, and I think they billed his family for the cost of sending the van to him and the execution materials. They really don't fuck around, and if the CCP doesn't fall apart from internal strife, they've probably got the 21st century in the bag. Might end up being the best for the survival of humanity and exploration of the universe, who knows.
- N1H1L 5y agoAfter all this, you sometimes do wonder that the guys with the guillotines did have a point
- JohnWhigham 5y agoThis would have easily had a different outcome 200 years ago, absolutely no doubt. Hell, 100 years ago even.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- 1MachineElf 5y agoIt was less of a point and more of a sharpened edge.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- Corrado 5y agoNo joke, I'm really starting to understand the mentality around public execution. I don't condone violence in any form, but given these acts of non-action by the government, it brings to light, in a real-world sense, why these uprisings occurred. I no longer read about the past with wonder; I wonder about our future.
- rubyfan 5y agoHow is this justice?
- elliekelly 5y agoWell I suspect the Sacklers feel pretty justified with all of their reprehensible “business” decisions.
- Causality1 5y agoThese days I pretty much just assume every single billionaire deserves to get stood up against a wall for the things they did to become one. I've seen very little evidence to the contrary. Even the best of them fall into the "probably worth having around even if they are a raging jackass" category.
- gruez 5y ago>These days I pretty much just assume every single billionaire deserves to get stood up against a wall for the things they did to become one. alright I'll bite. What did bill gates do? Sure, he engaged in some anti-competitive practices, but does that deserve to be "stood up against a wall"?
- toiletfuneral 5y agoI think anyone who hung out with Epstein after his conviction and continued to gave him money is an absolute fucking villain. Not to mention his work to enforce vaccine IP to keep poorer countries from manufacturing their own medicine is truly evil. Given the chance, I'd probably beat his nerd ass
- xref 5y agoDefinitely sexism, possibly bordering on misogyny. During the Gates era he avoided hiring female execs because “they’ll get pregnant and leave” Not worth standing against a wall, but Gates is a bad person.
- thunkshift1 5y agoSince you asked - Have you heard 'Episode 45: The Not-So-Benevolent Billionaire - Bill Gates and Western Media' by Citations Needed Podcast on SoundCloud? https://soundcloud.com/citationsneeded/episode-45-the-not-so-benevolent-billionaire-bill-gates-and-western-media https://soundcloud.com/citationsneeded/episode-45-the-not-so... Transcript: https://link.medium.com/FXbDzrWDdjb https://link.medium.com/FXbDzrWDdjb
- morpheos137 5y agoThese comments frighten me. Seems like we are on the verge of a woke cultural revolution. No, violence is not the answer for poor personal decisions.
- gwilikers 5y ago> NPR reported on Tuesday that Purdue Pharma and its attorneys launched a behind-the-scenes pressure campaign aimed at convincing the DOJ not to challenge the plan in court. > NPR acquired an early draft of a letter distributed by the drug company to groups supportive of the bankruptcy deal. > The letter is framed as a direct appeal to DOJ officials and purports to be written by those injured by the company and members of the Sackler family. > "We collectively speak for the overwhelming majority of the state and local governments, organizations, and individuals harmed by Purdue and the Sacklers," the letter states. > There is no mention in the document of the company's role launching the effort or crafting the message. Not shocking that the group largely responsible for the opioid crisis would lie like this, but still disgusting. I'm hoping the DOJ appeals.
- 1024core 5y ago> I'm hoping the DOJ appeals. "Hoping" won't make it happen; but writing to your Representatives just might have an effect.
- kcatskcolbdi 5y agoSure Mr.Smith, you head on down to Washington and write them a very strongly worded letter while you're at it!
- dillondoyle 5y agoHell this might be the one instance where Joe Manchin's current stranglehold could prove powerful. Give him a ring.
- m0zg 5y agoBut Big Pharma and the FDA (which approved these opioids) are totally trustworthy, folks. Don't you dare ask any questions, or you'll be banned from Facebook.
- garyfirestorm 5y agoFDA doesn’t hand out prison sentences. FDAs role is to understand if a certain drug is safe and effective. You could argue that FDA should do more in monitoring situations like these and have more control/funding to prevent outcomes like these. I don’t think you or anyone will be banned for saying that.
- m0zg 5y agoOn what planet are opioids "safe" outside a hospital in any way? Incredibly easy to OD, highly addictive, and severely exacerbated by alcohol consumption. They _knew_ ahead of time people would die, and approved this garbage anyway. Then looked the other way when the Sacklers bought the doctors to hand the pills out like candy.
- seattle_spring 5y agoThere are plenty of ways opioids are an appropriate tool outside of a hospital setting. You act like the only form available is high dose fentanyl.
- m0zg 5y agoAppropriate? Maybe, in some cases. But certainly not "safe". There's no non-cynical explanation for banning marijuana at the federal level (an effective and non-addictive pain mangement tool), while allowing addictive opioids. The cynical explanation is that this is done specifically to let the Sacklers of the world (rather than some farm hippies in WA) take the profits (and then offer the former government officials do-nothing jobs paying millions of dollars a year). As an aside, I wonder why, in spite of abundant and blindingly obvious evidence, people in the US have a hard time believing that deep seated corruption exists in US government. When something gets done (or, as the case may be, not done) by e.g. Russian government everyone in Russia knows money is changing hands under the table, in 100% of the cases. What makes anyone in the US think it's any different here? This case in particular is an obvious mockery of justice, and yet we have people on this forum rejecting this reality and substituting it with their own.
- dwohnitmok 5y ago> [DELETE THIS SENTENCE] One remaining question for the settlement is whether the Justice Department will file an appeal. Is this article a draft that somehow got published before it was ready?
- BrianOnHN 5y agoI noticed that, too. It's a rather interesting sentence to remove. Given that it signals that it's up to the Justice Department to make the next move. That will turn a lot of heads their direction.
- google234123 5y agoI think they already announced they will file an appeal
- BrianOnHN 5y agoMaybe that's the reason for the deletion.
- weeweww32 5y agohava nagila intensifies
- shrewduser 5y agoThis is disgusting. Basically outright admitting that there are a class of people who are above the law. I wish i were surprised. Knowingly peddle highly addictive substances, lie about their nature, kill millions, destroy countless lives, and get to keep billions of dollars. it is just hard to fathom. America will be suffering the consequences of these actions for a generation.
- AndrewBissell 5y agoThe worst part of it all is that the Sacklers/Purdue were just one of many predatory actors behind the opioid crisis, the vast majority of whom are escaping public outrage completely by offering up the Sacklers as (somewhat) sacrificial lambs.
- shrewduser 5y agoI'm sure there were others, but it does seem that the products from the sacklers were the main ones responsible.
- gruez 5y ago> This is disgusting. Basically outright admitting that there are a class of people who are above the law. I wish i were surprised. >Knowingly peddle highly addictive substances, lie about their nature, kill millions, destroy countless lives, and get to keep billions of dollars. it is just hard to fathom. AFAIK the problem isn't that Sacklers is "above the law", it's that what the Sacklers wasn't (probably couldn't be) convicted under the law. If they actually were convicted of wrongdoing, going after the money would be easy.
- Barraketh 5y agoThis is being framed is as miscarriage of justice, and from a moral perspective it definitely is. The problem is that the legal grounds on which Purdue (and the Sacklers) can be sued are actually kind of weak. Broadly, the things Purdue is accused of are 1) Aggressively marketing opioids to doctors, and 2) Lobbying the states to change various laws around prescription and marketing of opioids The problem is that for direct liability, there are two more actors that need to be considered - the doctors, and the patients themselves. Doctors are considered to be experts, and patients are often breaking the law when they misuse opioids. Both of these facts break the chain of liability, and so arguing that Purdue is legally liable for the ultimate addiction of the patient is difficult. As a result, people have tried to sue Purdue under more general "public nuisance" statutes, rather than regular tort liability. A public nuisance is when someone interferes with a right that the general public shares in common. However, this area of law is not very well developed - a lot of it is carryover from old British law, and winning those cases isn't a slam dunk. So there are certain objectors to the settlement, but I don't know why people think that it would be easy to hold the Sacklers criminally responsible or to get more money than this settlement.
- shrewduser 5y ago> the doctors, and the patients themselves. Doctors are considered to be experts, and patients are often breaking the law when they misuse opioids. The doctors were fed dodgy studies and information that what they were prescribing was safe. And you can hardly blame a patient who receives pain treatment and gets addicted to opiates when they were also informed they were safe.
- Barraketh 5y agoI totally agree. I'm just saying that from the point of view of legal liability the doctor is considered an expert. Purdue would argue that the doctor is getting information from a variety of sources (including the FDA), and so when they prescribe a medication and then the patient gets addicted, the responsibility lies with the doctor. And I also agree that you can't blame a patient for getting addicted. However, in US law there is something called the "clean hands doctrine", which denies remedies if the accuser has acted in bad faith wrt the subject of the claim. In practice this might translate to arguing that because the patient is breaking the law in misusing opioids, they don't deserve damages. All I'm trying to say is that while Purdue is definitely morally responsible, legally it's kinda difficult.
- anm89 5y agoi still dont really understand what they are accused of. did they lie about something in the trials or something?
- jacobr1 5y agoThey family both owned and controlled (in the sense that the board was stacked with family members) the company that manufactured OxyContin. The _company_ has been found in prior cases to be liability for criminal marketing practices leading to deaths. This has ultimately lead to the company going bankrupt under all it legal obligations as fallout from various suits. The family is losing their equity in the bankruptcy. The question is if the family, as both owners and/or directors of the company, need to give back funds they received as dividends from the company, back to the company (under the bankruptcy courts guidance to give out to its creditors, including parties owed money due to harm). There hasn't been a specific criminal case against the family, so the prosecutors can't just seize the profits as proceeds of a criminal enterprise. But the family clearly benefited from and directed a company the willfully sold opioids that lead to the deaths of so many, and the corporate malfeasance is something that has been adjudicated.
- scotty79 5y agoWhy hasn't there been a specific criminal case? At least those people that served as board members should be criminally charged with something.
- Drunk_Engineer 5y agoBecause higher-ups in Congress, the DEA and DOJ were almost certainly paid off to ignore the Sacklers. So if the Sacklers were prosecuted, they would bring down other powerful insiders. Here is a 60-minutes interview with DEA agents who were inexplicably taken off cases: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hd-43K-rdQA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hd-43K-rdQA
- dillondoyle 5y agoYes https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-global-resolution-criminal-and-civil-investigations-opioid https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-... Because the Sacklers weren't just board members, it's privately held, and they actively micro managed and directed their criminal actions. Kapoor went to jail, but he was dumb enough to put on paper the reality of what all these 'marketing' tactics are: bribes and lies.
- coding123 5y agoHonest question. We're knocking over a lot of drug laws: MJ, mushrooms... I'm assuming there's a group that's pushing for legalization of everything under the sun. I mean, is there something in Opiods that is like 10 times worse or something?
- lupire 5y agoYes. Opioids are extremely addictive.
- BrianOnHN 5y agoPretty straightforward compared to cannabis and mushrooms: 1. 10X-100X more addictive 2. Infinite more likelihood of death from over consumption. Strong opioids should only be used under careful supervision.
- betwixthewires 5y agoI'd be one of those people that advocates for the legalization of everything. Opioids in general don't all have the same addictive potential or acute danger, and most of the ones commonly used don't have severe chronic effects (besides addiction) and are generally considered safe to use if used with proper moderation. The problem with this case though is not someone is liable for selling addictive drugs to willing participants. The problem is that someone deliberately marketed a highly addictive substance (more addictive than morphine) as a less addictive alternative to existing opiate drugs. This is not the first time this happened, Bayer marketed Heroin as a less addictive alternative to morphine, and it was widely used on civil war veterans in the US which led to widespread addiction and we still live with the legacy of that today in the form of widespread heroin use. BTW heroin, like oxycontin (the drug being discussed in this thread), is far more addictive than morphine.
- dillondoyle 5y agoI don't think there is any evidence to suggest any opiate is more or less addictive than any other, as you say have made that mistake many times (relevant: purdue claimed this, there's evidence showing they knew it was a lie). They are basically all pro-drugs to morphine from what I understand. some evidence I've read that the longer term, higher dose the great % of abuse. On the order of 4-26% ..... i think ROA makes a difference but i can't find a quick source for that, and if you're shooting it you're already an addict lol. https://www.drugabuse.gov/drug-topics/opioids/opioid-overdose-crisis https://www.drugabuse.gov/drug-topics/opioids/opioid-overdos... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3280085/#R10 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3280085/#R10
- blaise99 5y agoIts easy to criticize the Sackler settlement, but I have yet to hear anyone criticize the US Government that received nearly $4bln in taxes (profit) from the $10Bln their enterprise earned. How come the US Govt's $4bln "take" is not considered ill-gotten gain, particularly given it was the US FDA (Woodcock, in her prior role at agency) that essentially sanctioned rampant opioid prescriptions?
- betwixthewires 5y agoI don't know about what shady dealings the FDA was involved in with this case, but governments generally tax all economic activity within their jurisdiction. There are even guidelines for reporting income on stolen goods on the IRS website. Lying to people about addictive potential, causing many of them to die, for a profit is far and away from a government collecting collecting taxes on economic activity.
- lifeisstillgood 5y agoAn argument from 2008 was that as the CEOs and bankers were careful, no one had actually broken any laws and so no one (important) went to jail. I agreed with the Bank Of England governer that this presented a huge moral hazard. A similar moral hazard is seen here. Maybe no laws were broken. But the moral hazard argument suggests laws similar to those that targeted Robber barons (ie tax on those with incomes over 5 billion dollars)
- intricatedetail 5y agoThe thing is, billionaires are in control of laws, so this is a weak argument. Of course there will be nothing to charge them with.
- JohnFen 5y agoWell, the Sacklers get off free. I was hoping that something like actual justice would come of this, but I guess I was hoping for too much.
- 1024core 5y ago> In return, they have agreed to pay roughly $4.3 billion. ... by their own reckoning earned more than $10 billion from opioid sales Who says crime doesn't pay? Kill 100s of 1000s of people, destroy millions of lives, and walk away with a cool 6 Billion dollars.. what's not to like? When the Law fails to be just, no wonder Vigilantes step in.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- olivermarks 5y agoThere's an alarming legal trend with big pharma that they are blameless, not unlike the way big tech hides behind Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act when it's convenient to them for profit but also exploit their censorship and free speech meddling power unchecked. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/16/covid-vaccine-side-effects-compensation-lawsuit.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/16/covid-vaccine-side-effects-c... This is not healthy on so many levels. We urgently need credible politicians who are by, of and for the people instead of the career lobbyist controlled bureaucrats currently in power in the western world
- reureu 5y agoFor anyone that's just getting up to speed on this, John Oliver had a really good video specifically about this issue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaCaIhfETsM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaCaIhfETsM
- Forge36 5y agohttps://www.house.gov/representatives/find-your-representative https://www.house.gov/representatives/find-your-representati... https://www.senate.gov/senators/senators-contact.htm https://www.senate.gov/senators/senators-contact.htm If you disagree share your opinion. Best place to do that is too your representative.
- toiletaccount 5y agoI've got a settlement for them, and it only cost about $.70 a head. I swear they'll be immune from future legal action.
- hamburgerwah 5y agoI'm not sure we can say at what point the rule of law was abandoned for aristocracy in the US but this is absolute proof that it has happened. The Sackler family is conclusively and directly responsible for at least 18,000 deaths in the united states and instead of complete seizure of their entire assets and life in prison we let them keep 70% of their fortune and give them a "do better next time pat on the head". I don't want to hear that the cases weren't strong enough blah blah. In the next room we just extradited a guy from the UK for copying bits. There is no longer rule of law, if there was the will there would be flash bangs and some parallel construction that could easily accomplish whatever level of justice was desired.
- prossercj 5y ago> The Sackler family is conclusively and directly responsible for at least 18,000 deaths in the united states Do you have a good source for this? I'm genuinely curious. I've heard about the opioid crisis and Purdue Pharma but not this particular family. I see that they were on the board of Purdue. How were they directly connected to the deaths?
- tafda 5y agoHere's an article: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/10/30/the-family-that-built-an-empire-of-pain https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/10/30/the-family-tha... >>> In 1952, the Sackler brothers bought a small patent-medicine company, Purdue Frederick, which was based in Greenwich Village and made such unglamorous staples as laxatives and earwax remover. According to court documents, each brother would control a third of the company, but Arthur, who was occupied with his publishing and advertising ventures, would play a passive role. The journalist Barry Meier, in his 2003 book, “Pain Killer: A ‘Wonder’ Drug’s Trail of Addiction and Death,” remarks that Arthur treated his brothers “not as siblings but more like his progeny and understudies.” Now Raymond and Mortimer, who became joint C.E.O.s, had a company of their own. ... Richard Sackler worked tirelessly to make OxyContin a blockbuster, telling colleagues how devoted he was to the drug’s success.
- spaetzleesser 5y ago“Too big to fail” really need ma to be abolished. Wealthy insiders can hide behind large corporations and always issue the thread that jobs will be lost if somebody goes after them. The bailouts of 2008 did enormous damage to people’s trust in justice, so do the constantly too low fines for corporate wrongdoing. The Sackler settlement is just another step in the erosion of trust. No wonder people are clamoring for populist strongmen who will “drain the swamp”.
- spamizbad 5y agoSeems odd how we spent billions locking up low level offenders - and high-level traffickers and dealers - but basically let them slide with 4.5B and forfeiting ownership. Also the opioid epidemic has done way more damage to this nation than what a few billion can fix.
- micromacrofoot 5y agoThe Sacklers are objectively worse than the people who boarded a few 747's and crashed them into the world trade center... we should be declaring war on the Koch brothers over this.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- morpheos137 5y agoThe sacklers manufactured a legal product that sold (legally) via perscription only. If anybody should be sued it is the individual doctors who made millions operating pill mills. Meanwhile real patients suffering from chronic pain now have more difficult access to effective treatments due to the moral panic. How about some individual responsibility? If you choose to misuse your pain medication so that you develop addiction and then go further and transfer to using street drugs and overdose on heroin cut with fentanyl then it is your own fault. Though I will note the transfer to street drugs is often impelled by the above mentioned moral panic restricting supply. I say this as somebody who had a family member die of an "heroin" (who knows what's in it) overdose after starting with perscribed painkillers.
- AbrahamParangi 5y agoWhere is the "individual responsibility" from the Sackler family?
- benrapscallion 5y agoRelevant article from last year: These WhatsApp Messages Show the Opioid Crisis Was Just a Big PR Headache for the Sackler Family https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/12/these-whatsapp-messages-show-the-opioid-crisis-was-just-a-big-pr-headache-for-the-sackler-family/ https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/12/these-whatsapp-...
- walrus01 5y agoThere are hundreds of thousands, or possibly millions of BIPOC individuals out there in the USA who have felonies on their record and ruined lives for selling marijuana, or other trivial low level personal-usage-amount drug crimes, and these guys get to walk?
- kieselguhr_kid 5y agoAt what point does this cross the line from "selling a legal product" to "mass murder"?
- dillondoyle 5y agoI'd say when you know of the damage you are causing but still double down to increase sales with lies & bribes. you pay a criminal fine, but the fine is far less than your profits so why not ;( You might know you've gone too far when you have to sneak in a law change to get rid of the only enforcement mechanism DEA had to stop (pause) such an insanely huge volume of pills through distributors. Thousands upon thousands at once to tiny towns. One feature of our for-profit marketable drug industry is they know exactly who is prescribing and where. They then go after those doctors to push more. They also knew it was all a lie from the start. They put the FDA employee in charge of approving the label in a hotel to write it together with their corporate staff. Relying on the most flimsy, misrepresented single scientific piece of paper to pretend their pills might be less addictive. Then using those few words to launch a marketing assault of death and pain. It's just like this settlement! Get your own lawyers to write it up and the government will rubber stamp it. https://archive.is/VYOeM https://archive.is/VYOeM
- bmn__ 5y agoThe crime classification manual puts the threshold at three victims. Mass murder is concentrated in time, so this qualification does not apply, instead this is serial. Murder requires intent to kill, but the Sacklers only let the deaths recklessly happen, so this is manslaughter.
- kieselguhr_kid 5y agoI think there's a case that this is depraved-heart murder, at least in some states. And since this occurred in all 50 states, I'd contend there's a good case for serial murder in at least a few of them.
- raman162 5y agoSo what did we learn today? You can build a massive fortune by: 1) creating addictive painkillers 2) push the company to promote the drug to sales reps 3) cause an epidemic responsible for killing 50,000 Americans 4) blame it on the company 6) get granted immunity from the problem you created if you decide to donate a fraction of your fortune (John Oliver explained how the spackler family can donate periodically based on surplus from investments) At the same time I think this is unbelievable but I'm also not surprised.
- hikerclimber1 5y agoEverything is subjective.
- mikewarot 5y agoI imagine these are the sort of tactics that worked right up until the end of the Ancien Régime. Then suddenly, they didn't... and things rapidly devolved. FDR managed to stop his fellow class members from pushing too far, and got the New Deal passed. Now that is unwound, and the tipping point is far too near, again.
- Dumblydorr 5y agoI've been thinking a lot about pre-revolutionary France and it's parallels. Higher tax rates for poor people than ultra rich, over-powerful Christian influence on politics, court system that is localized by state and district, and partisan life-appointed supreme court, the list goes on. The main differences? Street mobs won't be a thing, mob justice and guillotines won't be a thing, monarchy isn't existent, no foreign neighbors about to invade us opportunistically, it's a lot of differences. Fundamentally, I don't see getting out of the status quo peacefully anytime soon. I think division and partisanship will remain until the boomers die out, at which point we have a chance to leave behind our current quagmire.
- mikewarot 5y ago>Street mobs won't be a thing, mob justice and guillotines won't be a thing There were "mostly peaceful" protests that destroyed many of the larger city centers last year. The very real threat to the normally peaceful suburbs that had police closing the Indiana/Illinois border near me made me strongly reconsider my need to be able to respond to such violence, and it created a large spike in gun sales across the US >monarchy isn't existent The donor class runs the Federal Government by proxy >no foreign neighbors about to invade us opportunistically Unless of course, you count 9/11
- refurb 5y agoPretty standard and it was done with tobacco companies. The goal is to reach a final resolution. You’d have to be out of your mind to enter into any such agreement if it left you open to future risk of liability. Would you agree to a plea bargain if the DA said “ok, you agree to a 1 year jail term and if we decide to prosecute you in the future for another related crime, well tough”.
- dillondoyle 5y agoWhat pisses me off most is they have 10 years to pay off what I consider a puny settlement. I would guess their investments appreciation over that time frame could be even more than what they end up paying out. Especially if they go forward with their India misadventure.
- hiyer 5y agoI get that they get to keep most of their money, but how come nobody's going to jail for this?
- scotty79 5y agoValium, Opioids ... oh well, see you on the next one.
- js2 5y agoThis is a gross miscarriage of justice. "The law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone; and it cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone." – Frank Wilhoit
- TheCoelacanth 5y agoHow is it even legal to get blanket immunity from civil lawsuits? Isn't that a violation of potential plaintiffs' 7th amendment right to a jury trial in civil cases.
- GeekyBear 5y agoThe notion that billionaire criminals can be allowed hide from prosecution behind a bankruptcy court judge when they are not bankrupt is just a mind blowing departure from the rule of law.
- DisjointedHunt 5y ago500,000 people at the least who are known to have overdosed and died from opioids between 1999 and 2019 and this family gets away with paying just $4.5 Billion from their personal wealth for immunity from all civil pursuits in the Justice System? Forget fair, how is this even legal? Why have we not seen criminal charges levied?
- Friedduck 5y agoIf you haven’t, I urge you to watch The Crime Of The Century on HBO. The title is not hyperbolic, and this outcome speaks to just how unequal justice is for the wealthy.