3 ms·

I'll bite. I strongly support legalization and simultaneously feel that purdue is seriously in the wrong here. the crime isn't selling oxycodone. pharmaceutica

I'll bite. I strongly support legalization and simultaneously feel that purdue is seriously in the wrong here. the crime isn't selling oxycodone. pharmaceutical companies are allowed to do that. they're not allowed to make claims about how their time-release formulation makes oxycodone much less addictive, when they know that isn't true (or at least lack sufficient evidence). on top of that, they gave financial incentives to doctors to write prescriptions. while I don't think it would be appropriate to have heroin for sale at CVS, I do think people should have some way of purchasing pure forms of the drug after being educated on the risks. that doesn't imply that I have to accept fraudulent marketing of a dangerous product and corruption of the doctor-patient relationship.

hash872 5y ago
I can basically agree with this, and I was being slightly provocative. On the other hand, it's become accepted wisdom that the Sacklers are Literally Hitler, and I guess I don't think puffery in marketing is really that horrendous of a moral crime. I also don't really believe that anyone who became addicted to opioids did so specifically because of their marketing practices, and would never have started without said marketing- sorry, I think that's patently absurd. We have centuries of human beings becoming extremely addicted to hard drugs with no marketing campaigns required
- leetcrew 5y ago
  I still judge them a bit more harshly, but I do think the sacklers have essentially become the scapegoat for a problem that went far beyond perdue. painkiller prescriptions in the '00s were really wild. I remember a classmate got a thirty day supply of percocet (IR, no time release) when he got his wisdom teeth out. that's simply reckless. nowadays you would probably get less than a weeks worth or even just a recommendation to try ibuprofen first. the government crackdown on overprescription didn't help either. that was when people started overdosing from fentanyl-laced heroin en masse.

hash872 5y ago

I can basically agree with this, and I was being slightly provocative. On the other hand, it's become accepted wisdom that the Sacklers are Literally Hitler, and I guess I don't think puffery in marketing is really that horrendous of a moral crime. I also don't really believe that anyone who became addicted to opioids did so specifically because of their marketing practices, and would never have started without said marketing- sorry, I think that's patently absurd. We have centuries of human beings becoming extremely addicted to hard drugs with no marketing campaigns required

leetcrew 5y ago
I still judge them a bit more harshly, but I do think the sacklers have essentially become the scapegoat for a problem that went far beyond perdue. painkiller prescriptions in the '00s were really wild. I remember a classmate got a thirty day supply of percocet (IR, no time release) when he got his wisdom teeth out. that's simply reckless. nowadays you would probably get less than a weeks worth or even just a recommendation to try ibuprofen first. the government crackdown on overprescription didn't help either. that was when people started overdosing from fentanyl-laced heroin en masse.