4 ms·

Which specific crimes were committed by which specific Sacklers? I'm sympathetic to the idea that they might have done something wrong, but the impulse to throw

Which specific crimes were committed by which specific Sacklers? I'm sympathetic to the idea that they might have done something wrong, but the impulse to throw people we don't like in jail now and figure out what they did wrong later is very dangerous, and even if other people are treated that way it isn't an excuse to further indulge it.

javajosh 5y ago
The wealthy should suffer no more, or less, than ordinary folk. Our justice system is broken, and yet that breakage does not touch the Saklers. Maybe if it did, there'd be a cry for change from the people who can afford to spend the dollars needed to change the system.
- SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
  I think this comment clearly illustrates the danger I mentioned; "they must have committed some crime" inevitably and often immediately turns into "it doesn't matter whether they committed any specific crime". If we turn the justice system into a purely political exercise, not even aspiring to the ideal of punishing people for specific crimes they've committed, what would the basis of a cry for change be?
  - javajosh 5y ago
    They knew Oxycontin was addictive and claimed that it wasn't. They knew the deadly impact their drug was having on large groups of people, and yet did nothing to mitigate the impact. These are very serious crimes. Indeed, even if they were not, harming society in this way should be criminalized. I say this despite being pro-legalization. The issue isn't the drug itself, it's the lying, the undermining use of institutions like your family doctor, the FDA, to push this drug as if it were harmless, and to sit back and watch it take its toll, rolling in dough. It hurts.
avgDev 5y ago
https://www.judgeforyourselves.com/info/ https://www.judgeforyourselves.com/info/
- gruez 5y ago
  >3 john oliver videos >8 hour video deposition pass >"transcripts of calls to the bankruptcy court from those impacted by the opiod crisis" People calling in and saying that oxycotin ruined their lives doesn't really count as a "specific crime".
dillondoyle 5y ago
From everything I've read - which is a lot - I think the criminal case under the law is less clear than say John Kapoor & Insys (who are in jail). But it seems the civil cases are much stronger, which is why this settlement is so shocking. the Sacklers have tight control and micro managed decisions it's their intention & action. But Purdue was smart enough not to make spreadsheets tracking doctor bribe ROIs ... I'm interested in why there isn't more info/investigation on the revelation in Gibney's doc that a Purdue exec sat in a motel room with the regulator in charge to write the original oxycontin label, which was then approved with very very questionable language. That potentially less addictive language was the entire lynchpin of their (minimally moral) crimes. Especially with any future revolving doors or benefits.
- SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
  Completely agreed in that regard.

javajosh 5y ago

The wealthy should suffer no more, or less, than ordinary folk. Our justice system is broken, and yet that breakage does not touch the Saklers. Maybe if it did, there'd be a cry for change from the people who can afford to spend the dollars needed to change the system.

SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
I think this comment clearly illustrates the danger I mentioned; "they must have committed some crime" inevitably and often immediately turns into "it doesn't matter whether they committed any specific crime". If we turn the justice system into a purely political exercise, not even aspiring to the ideal of punishing people for specific crimes they've committed, what would the basis of a cry for change be?
- javajosh 5y ago
  They knew Oxycontin was addictive and claimed that it wasn't. They knew the deadly impact their drug was having on large groups of people, and yet did nothing to mitigate the impact. These are very serious crimes. Indeed, even if they were not, harming society in this way should be criminalized. I say this despite being pro-legalization. The issue isn't the drug itself, it's the lying, the undermining use of institutions like your family doctor, the FDA, to push this drug as if it were harmless, and to sit back and watch it take its toll, rolling in dough. It hurts.

avgDev 5y ago

https://www.judgeforyourselves.com/info/ https://www.judgeforyourselves.com/info/

gruez 5y ago
>3 john oliver videos >8 hour video deposition pass >"transcripts of calls to the bankruptcy court from those impacted by the opiod crisis" People calling in and saying that oxycotin ruined their lives doesn't really count as a "specific crime".

dillondoyle 5y ago

From everything I've read - which is a lot - I think the criminal case under the law is less clear than say John Kapoor & Insys (who are in jail). But it seems the civil cases are much stronger, which is why this settlement is so shocking. the Sacklers have tight control and micro managed decisions it's their intention & action. But Purdue was smart enough not to make spreadsheets tracking doctor bribe ROIs ... I'm interested in why there isn't more info/investigation on the revelation in Gibney's doc that a Purdue exec sat in a motel room with the regulator in charge to write the original oxycontin label, which was then approved with very very questionable language. That potentially less addictive language was the entire lynchpin of their (minimally moral) crimes. Especially with any future revolving doors or benefits.

SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
Completely agreed in that regard.