5 ms·

The thing is they did not do all bad. What the woke cannabis pushing media ignores is that millions of chronic pain patients had access to effective treatments

The thing is they did not do all bad. What the woke cannabis pushing media ignores is that millions of chronic pain patients had access to effective treatments that improved and in some cases saved their lives thanks to oxycotin because older opioids like morphine had already been stigmatised in previous moral panics.

jrochkind1 5y ago
So that you suggest it was useful only because other opiates had been "stigmatized" is telling. But anyway, they could have done all that good without the despicable practices they used to ensure that it got over-prescribed with under-awareness of it's dangers. Those were in no way necessary for supplying a useful pain relief drug. Those things were only about greed and lack of concern for who it hurt, not some kind of necessary collateral damage of trying to do good. Nobody that does harm is without some redeeming qualities. (Not anyone we send to prison either). But those who do serious harm need to make restitution and repair for it. That starts, just starts, with giving up the fruits of that harm.
dillondoyle 5y ago
I don't think that's the case, unless you go back many decades. Purdue was in part so effective because they spent millions 'educating' (and bribing) doctors and making up a '5th vital sign' in order to push huge quantities of drugs. This was on purpose. Those face in pain posters you see still originally came from Purdue. This always comes up in these threads, that perhaps we've swung too far in the direction of limiting access to pain meds for legit patients. Which definitely has merit. But that doesn't take away from what Sacklers and Kappor et al did. from my understanding long term prescription of opiates in modern medicine wasn't really a thing before Purdue's marketing (and still isn't outside of late stage cancer in most countries). So that's what I was getting at in responding to 'other opiates having been stigmatized in previous moral panics,' I think you'd have to go back to prohibition to find a similar time of heavy long term use 'medically'

jrochkind1 5y ago

So that you suggest it was useful only because other opiates had been "stigmatized" is telling. But anyway, they could have done all that good without the despicable practices they used to ensure that it got over-prescribed with under-awareness of it's dangers. Those were in no way necessary for supplying a useful pain relief drug. Those things were only about greed and lack of concern for who it hurt, not some kind of necessary collateral damage of trying to do good. Nobody that does harm is without some redeeming qualities. (Not anyone we send to prison either). But those who do serious harm need to make restitution and repair for it. That starts, just starts, with giving up the fruits of that harm.

dillondoyle 5y ago

I don't think that's the case, unless you go back many decades. Purdue was in part so effective because they spent millions 'educating' (and bribing) doctors and making up a '5th vital sign' in order to push huge quantities of drugs. This was on purpose. Those face in pain posters you see still originally came from Purdue. This always comes up in these threads, that perhaps we've swung too far in the direction of limiting access to pain meds for legit patients. Which definitely has merit. But that doesn't take away from what Sacklers and Kappor et al did. from my understanding long term prescription of opiates in modern medicine wasn't really a thing before Purdue's marketing (and still isn't outside of late stage cancer in most countries). So that's what I was getting at in responding to 'other opiates having been stigmatized in previous moral panics,' I think you'd have to go back to prohibition to find a similar time of heavy long term use 'medically'