8 ms·

It's a settlement. That means that both sides give something up. The Sacklers would have to be complete morons(indeed, self-destructive morons) to have a sett

It's a settlement. That means that both sides give something up. The Sacklers would have to be complete morons(indeed, self-destructive morons) to have a settlement that did not include legal immunity, because otherwise they will get sued again and again and again. "Sure, we will give you this money and then someone else can file a lawsuit against us later" is not a stance you can reasonably expect out of anyone. Instead, we ought to be asking "Why settle?" If you want to understand what's going on instead of feeding the outrage beast that the media has been nurturing in you for the last couple of decades, ask that question. And it's a good question: if it is such a slam-dunk, why did the government say, "Sure, we'll settle?" Possible answers -- ones that someone could maybe do something about -- would include "Because the lawyers would eat up all of the money" and "There was a payoff to the right parties" and "The government wants the money now instead of later" (this one can be thrown out given the fine repayment period) and "the government feared losing its case." Feel free to add more. It's a lot more constructive than being pointlessly angry.

tomdell 5y ago
The media doesn’t need to feed my outrage - I have multiple relatives and friends who have died from OxyContin. The Sacklers should have the entirety of their wealth confiscated, at the very least - it’s all blood money. This agreement is infuriating.
- jessaustin 5y ago
  This case might be appealed outside of the courts? Given the general antipathy for them, perhaps the Sacklers would be well-advised to pay special attention to their personal security in the decades to come... I don't have a dog in this fight, but I know where my sympathies will lie when it happens.
  - birdyrooster 5y ago
    I doubt anyone will ever render their justice, the blame is too diffuse. There is so much vigilantism against the pushers on the street that it never gets all the way to the top.
  - xxxtentachyon 5y ago
    I had the same thought when I heard of the settlement. There are millions of people with loved ones who have died of OxyContin overdose, and rarely do you have a case like this where a good deal of such visceral suffering was planned and profited off of by such a small and identifiable group
- sweetheart 5y ago
  I'm sorry that you're personally affected so greatly by this, and presumably have been for some time. That sounds incredibly difficult and I can't imagine how frustrating this lack of justice is to you.
  - gutitout 5y ago
    Most Americans know someone who died from opioids. I know 4 people close to me who’ve over dosed and died. Many more who’s lives were ruined.
papercrane 5y ago
Much of the controversy is that this immunity deal grants them immunity from parties not involved in this lawsuit. So, its not just "both sides compromise", there are parties affected by this that are giving up something without getting anything in return.
- canttestthis 5y ago
  What is the legal mechanism that allows this? If I’m not a party to the agreement that says they won’t be sued in the future, how can the agreement enforce that I won’t sue them? Or is it the judges that are saying they won’t hear the case?
  - papercrane 5y ago
    It's called a "non-consensual third-party release". They're not very common and pretty controversial.
  - samizdis 5y ago
    There's a decent description of so-called third-party releases, consensual and non-consensual, in an article from May this year; the site is that of a law firm: https://www.hirschlerlaw.com/newsroom-publications-chapter-11-third-party-releases https://www.hirschlerlaw.com/newsroom-publications-chapter-1...
scottlamb 5y ago
> It's a settlement. That means that both sides give something up. The state gave up...the death penalty. Life without parole. Life with parole. Long sentences. Any sentences. It's too much! I don't accept that we should be completely unable to make white-collar criminals go to prison even when their willful actions caused or contributed to the deaths of maybe half a million people. [1] Why did the state need to settle? Or is this just immunity from civil cases, and not criminal? I'm actually not clear on that very important distinction. [1] That number is a guess. <https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/deaths/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/deaths/index.html> says "Nearly 841,000 people have died since 1999 from a drug overdose. ... Opioids were involved in 49,860 overdose deaths in 2019 (70.6% of all drug overdose deaths)." If we assume that year is representative, that's over half a million opioid deaths in total. If that year is not representative, there still were a lot of opioid deaths, and my greater point stands.
- sneak 5y ago
  This is only because "drugs" and "tobacco" are different and distinct categories. Tobacco use kills >7x as many people in the US every day/week/month as all opiate overdoses.
  - scottlamb 5y ago
    I hate tobacco, and don't get me started on last century's Big Tobacco debacle, but at least in this century the people who choose to start using tobacco should know what they are getting into. Many of the people who started on legally prescribed opioids didn't know how addictive and dangerous they were, and the Sacklers are responsible for that.
    - sneak 5y ago
      I find it hard to believe that any adult that knows smoking is dangerous and addictive doesn't know that opiate prescription pain pills are addictive and dangerous.
      - 5y ago
CyberRabbi 5y ago
They cynically manipulated the American medical system so that they could sell the equivalent of Opium (a historical highly addictive narcotic) to the American populace. Not only did they harm the public for their own material benefit, they have irreparably harmed the trust the American people have in their medical system. The Chinese literally declared war on Great Britain because they sold Opium to the Chinese population and refused to stop[1]. That's how serious and nation-ending this drug is. I cannot imagine how much lack of respect, if not open contempt, one must have for the law to do what the Sacklers did. Given the seriousness of their crime and the untold amount of destruction it has done to America, why should they not be endlessly sued? Or face a worse punishment? This settlement communicates to me that our legal system is actually not able to prosecute them to the fullest and is acknowledging that, which should really concern everyone. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars
JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> government wants the money now instead of later This is likely most of it. The other shoe, which has yet to drop, is criminal prosecution of the Sacklers who were involved in the company’s day-to-day affairs.
- TomSwirly 5y ago
  The ones who are now immune from criminal prosecution?
colechristensen 5y ago
Prosecutors don’t have spines, plain and simple. There is also often a revolving door for nonexplicit corruption where both parties look for a “win” with minimal consequences so they can declare victory while keeping their potential future employers happy.
belter 5y ago
https://judgeforyourselves.com/ https://judgeforyourselves.com/ vs https://judgeforyourselves.info https://judgeforyourselves.info
TomSwirly 5y ago
I'm sorry, but this comment is one of the most morally empty things I've read in a long, long time. The Sacklers deliberately and cynically killed hundreds of thousands of people. They made over $10 billion dollars. And the punishment? They have to put a couple of billion back. They still made billions. I would note that opioids have cost America a trillion dollars: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/12/economic-cost-of-the-opioid-crisis-1-trillion-and-growing-faster.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/12/economic-cost-of-the-opioid-... Their $2 billion fine would pay for two weeks of the damage they have caused over a decade. ---- They completely won. Complete victory for them. Complete loss for justice. The law is supposed to act as a deterrent. This is the reverse of a deterrent.

tomdell 5y ago

The media doesn’t need to feed my outrage - I have multiple relatives and friends who have died from OxyContin. The Sacklers should have the entirety of their wealth confiscated, at the very least - it’s all blood money. This agreement is infuriating.

jessaustin 5y ago
This case might be appealed outside of the courts? Given the general antipathy for them, perhaps the Sacklers would be well-advised to pay special attention to their personal security in the decades to come... I don't have a dog in this fight, but I know where my sympathies will lie when it happens.
- birdyrooster 5y ago
  I doubt anyone will ever render their justice, the blame is too diffuse. There is so much vigilantism against the pushers on the street that it never gets all the way to the top.
- xxxtentachyon 5y ago
  I had the same thought when I heard of the settlement. There are millions of people with loved ones who have died of OxyContin overdose, and rarely do you have a case like this where a good deal of such visceral suffering was planned and profited off of by such a small and identifiable group
sweetheart 5y ago
I'm sorry that you're personally affected so greatly by this, and presumably have been for some time. That sounds incredibly difficult and I can't imagine how frustrating this lack of justice is to you.
- gutitout 5y ago
  Most Americans know someone who died from opioids. I know 4 people close to me who’ve over dosed and died. Many more who’s lives were ruined.

papercrane 5y ago

Much of the controversy is that this immunity deal grants them immunity from parties not involved in this lawsuit. So, its not just "both sides compromise", there are parties affected by this that are giving up something without getting anything in return.

canttestthis 5y ago
What is the legal mechanism that allows this? If I’m not a party to the agreement that says they won’t be sued in the future, how can the agreement enforce that I won’t sue them? Or is it the judges that are saying they won’t hear the case?
- papercrane 5y ago
  It's called a "non-consensual third-party release". They're not very common and pretty controversial.
- samizdis 5y ago
  There's a decent description of so-called third-party releases, consensual and non-consensual, in an article from May this year; the site is that of a law firm: https://www.hirschlerlaw.com/newsroom-publications-chapter-11-third-party-releases https://www.hirschlerlaw.com/newsroom-publications-chapter-1...

scottlamb 5y ago

> It's a settlement. That means that both sides give something up. The state gave up...the death penalty. Life without parole. Life with parole. Long sentences. Any sentences. It's too much! I don't accept that we should be completely unable to make white-collar criminals go to prison even when their willful actions caused or contributed to the deaths of maybe half a million people. [1] Why did the state need to settle? Or is this just immunity from civil cases, and not criminal? I'm actually not clear on that very important distinction. [1] That number is a guess. <https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/deaths/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/deaths/index.html> says "Nearly 841,000 people have died since 1999 from a drug overdose. ... Opioids were involved in 49,860 overdose deaths in 2019 (70.6% of all drug overdose deaths)." If we assume that year is representative, that's over half a million opioid deaths in total. If that year is not representative, there still were a lot of opioid deaths, and my greater point stands.

sneak 5y ago
This is only because "drugs" and "tobacco" are different and distinct categories. Tobacco use kills >7x as many people in the US every day/week/month as all opiate overdoses.
- scottlamb 5y ago
  I hate tobacco, and don't get me started on last century's Big Tobacco debacle, but at least in this century the people who choose to start using tobacco should know what they are getting into. Many of the people who started on legally prescribed opioids didn't know how addictive and dangerous they were, and the Sacklers are responsible for that.
  - sneak 5y ago
    I find it hard to believe that any adult that knows smoking is dangerous and addictive doesn't know that opiate prescription pain pills are addictive and dangerous.
    - 5y ago

CyberRabbi 5y ago

They cynically manipulated the American medical system so that they could sell the equivalent of Opium (a historical highly addictive narcotic) to the American populace. Not only did they harm the public for their own material benefit, they have irreparably harmed the trust the American people have in their medical system. The Chinese literally declared war on Great Britain because they sold Opium to the Chinese population and refused to stop[1]. That's how serious and nation-ending this drug is. I cannot imagine how much lack of respect, if not open contempt, one must have for the law to do what the Sacklers did. Given the seriousness of their crime and the untold amount of destruction it has done to America, why should they not be endlessly sued? Or face a worse punishment? This settlement communicates to me that our legal system is actually not able to prosecute them to the fullest and is acknowledging that, which should really concern everyone. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars

JumpCrisscross 5y ago

> government wants the money now instead of later This is likely most of it. The other shoe, which has yet to drop, is criminal prosecution of the Sacklers who were involved in the company’s day-to-day affairs.

TomSwirly 5y ago
The ones who are now immune from criminal prosecution?

colechristensen 5y ago

Prosecutors don’t have spines, plain and simple. There is also often a revolving door for nonexplicit corruption where both parties look for a “win” with minimal consequences so they can declare victory while keeping their potential future employers happy.

belter 5y ago

https://judgeforyourselves.com/ https://judgeforyourselves.com/ vs https://judgeforyourselves.info https://judgeforyourselves.info

TomSwirly 5y ago

I'm sorry, but this comment is one of the most morally empty things I've read in a long, long time. The Sacklers deliberately and cynically killed hundreds of thousands of people. They made over $10 billion dollars. And the punishment? They have to put a couple of billion back. They still made billions. I would note that opioids have cost America a trillion dollars: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/12/economic-cost-of-the-opioid-crisis-1-trillion-and-growing-faster.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/12/economic-cost-of-the-opioid-... Their $2 billion fine would pay for two weeks of the damage they have caused over a decade. ---- They completely won. Complete victory for them. Complete loss for justice. The law is supposed to act as a deterrent. This is the reverse of a deterrent.