5 ms·

> 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

> 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.
    - curtis3389 5y ago
      In this case, they were intentionally misrepresenting the risk of addiction to doctors: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2622774/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2622774/ If your doctor tells you it's safe and non-addictive and will ease your suffering, I'm willing to bet you'll believe them.
      - sneak 5y ago
        I wonder how much of this overall problem in society is a result of this misinformation they spread via the sales channel, and how much is just that opiates are super fucking addictive (regardless of what you do or don't know about them beforehand).
- salawat 5y ago
  This is completely irrelevant, and detracts from the issue at hand. You could see precedent from a non-settlement in the case of opioids bend back around and open up the avenue for meaningful tobacco reform. That all just got sacrificed.
- lostmsu 5y ago
  I believe this ratio would be smaller if you count opportunity cost: drugs kill more younger people.
JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> state gave up...the death penalty. Life without parole. Life with parole. Long sentences. Any sentences. Did it? This settles the Sacklers’ civil claims. I don’t think you can discharge criminal liability in bankruptcy court.
- scottlamb 5y ago
  > > state gave up...the death penalty. Life without parole. Life with parole. Long sentences. Any sentences. > Did it? This settles the Sacklers’ civil claims. I don’t think you can discharge criminal liability in bankruptcy court. I'm confused on that point. What you're saying makes sense but the article mentions "a bankruptcy deal with Purdue Pharmaceuticals that allows the Sackler family to avoid criminal prosecution," suggesting otherwise. [edit: and that 15 states have signed on in some way adds to the plausibility of consequences of this deal extending beyond bankruptcy decisions.]
tptacek 5y ago
The death penalty, life without parole, and life with parole were never on the table. Contrary to (very) popular belief, federal prosecutors can't just make up sentences; the offenses where the death penalty can be sought are spelled out in specific statutes, and the elements of those offenses are further spelled out. You may, perhaps reasonably, believe the Sacklers are culpable for "murder", but federal murder has a legal definition (18 USC 1111, I think, for starters), and those definitions are imported into jury instructions. A reason these kinds of things tend to get sorted out in civil court (where no sentence is on the table whatsoever) is that criminal cases are much harder to win. Criminal defendants are presumed innocent, which isn't just a platitude, but also a principle reflected in a bunch of ways in the law and rules of the court.
- fwsgonzo 5y ago
  The state can do anything it well wants. Laws have never been much of a blocker in the long run if the US had any ambition of stamping down mass murderers who just happens to have enough money to play games in the court rooms. There are plenty of places where people have disappeared for less, including in the US. Now, I'm not advocating anything extrajudicial here, but let's not be naive and pretend like there's nothing that could be done.
  - id5j1ynz 5y ago
    Are you advocating for some form of extrajudicial punishment here?
    - tptacek 5y ago
      Yes.
      - wolverine876 5y ago
        Are you speaking for yourself or interpreting the GGP?
at_a_remove 5y ago
The death penalty would be laughed out of the court. I can present you with just one argument that would seal the deal, and it's in the form of a Socratic question: when in the several decades have we not understood that opiates (as painkillers, I am not talking about Loperamide although one could make that case as well) are often addictive? You know it. I know it. Every doctor knows it. Every nurse knows it. Some people just have problems with that whole arena of medications, and we stopped selling laudanum at the corner store some time ago. OxyContin not addictive -- whom are you trying to kid? Everyone just nudged and winked each other, then wrote the scripts. The culpability is diffuse. Everyone going "Shucks golly, we had no idea!" is not convincing. They made it, but we all bought it: hook, line and sinker. And we wanted to. And we knew better.

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.
  - curtis3389 5y ago
    In this case, they were intentionally misrepresenting the risk of addiction to doctors: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2622774/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2622774/ If your doctor tells you it's safe and non-addictive and will ease your suffering, I'm willing to bet you'll believe them.
    - sneak 5y ago
      I wonder how much of this overall problem in society is a result of this misinformation they spread via the sales channel, and how much is just that opiates are super fucking addictive (regardless of what you do or don't know about them beforehand).
salawat 5y ago
This is completely irrelevant, and detracts from the issue at hand. You could see precedent from a non-settlement in the case of opioids bend back around and open up the avenue for meaningful tobacco reform. That all just got sacrificed.
lostmsu 5y ago
I believe this ratio would be smaller if you count opportunity cost: drugs kill more younger people.

JumpCrisscross 5y ago

> state gave up...the death penalty. Life without parole. Life with parole. Long sentences. Any sentences. Did it? This settles the Sacklers’ civil claims. I don’t think you can discharge criminal liability in bankruptcy court.

scottlamb 5y ago
> > state gave up...the death penalty. Life without parole. Life with parole. Long sentences. Any sentences. > Did it? This settles the Sacklers’ civil claims. I don’t think you can discharge criminal liability in bankruptcy court. I'm confused on that point. What you're saying makes sense but the article mentions "a bankruptcy deal with Purdue Pharmaceuticals that allows the Sackler family to avoid criminal prosecution," suggesting otherwise. [edit: and that 15 states have signed on in some way adds to the plausibility of consequences of this deal extending beyond bankruptcy decisions.]

tptacek 5y ago

The death penalty, life without parole, and life with parole were never on the table. Contrary to (very) popular belief, federal prosecutors can't just make up sentences; the offenses where the death penalty can be sought are spelled out in specific statutes, and the elements of those offenses are further spelled out. You may, perhaps reasonably, believe the Sacklers are culpable for "murder", but federal murder has a legal definition (18 USC 1111, I think, for starters), and those definitions are imported into jury instructions. A reason these kinds of things tend to get sorted out in civil court (where no sentence is on the table whatsoever) is that criminal cases are much harder to win. Criminal defendants are presumed innocent, which isn't just a platitude, but also a principle reflected in a bunch of ways in the law and rules of the court.

fwsgonzo 5y ago
The state can do anything it well wants. Laws have never been much of a blocker in the long run if the US had any ambition of stamping down mass murderers who just happens to have enough money to play games in the court rooms. There are plenty of places where people have disappeared for less, including in the US. Now, I'm not advocating anything extrajudicial here, but let's not be naive and pretend like there's nothing that could be done.
- id5j1ynz 5y ago
  Are you advocating for some form of extrajudicial punishment here?
  - tptacek 5y ago
    Yes.
    - wolverine876 5y ago
      Are you speaking for yourself or interpreting the GGP?

at_a_remove 5y ago

The death penalty would be laughed out of the court. I can present you with just one argument that would seal the deal, and it's in the form of a Socratic question: when in the several decades have we not understood that opiates (as painkillers, I am not talking about Loperamide although one could make that case as well) are often addictive? You know it. I know it. Every doctor knows it. Every nurse knows it. Some people just have problems with that whole arena of medications, and we stopped selling laudanum at the corner store some time ago. OxyContin not addictive -- whom are you trying to kid? Everyone just nudged and winked each other, then wrote the scripts. The culpability is diffuse. Everyone going "Shucks golly, we had no idea!" is not convincing. They made it, but we all bought it: hook, line and sinker. And we wanted to. And we knew better.