3 ms·

From everything I've heard, Purdue Pharma knew about the street abuse and at best did nothing, from their end, it probably drove up their sales too. People goin

From everything I've heard, Purdue Pharma knew about the street abuse and at best did nothing, from their end, it probably drove up their sales too. People going through their legit Rx slightly faster because some of their pills were resold (yes, illegally) refilled sooner. Plus, let's not forget Purdue Pharma marketed these as not as addictive - which likely created and sustained the street markets. Also, just because something else (tobacco) is more deadly doesn't mean we should turn a blind eye to everything to that is less deadly.

sneak 5y ago
My point is that the tobacco companies did all of this stuff, too, including the marketing-via-doctors route. They're still around, operating, and legitimate, and causing 7x the destruction of human life of this so-called "epidemic". Either both are wrong, or neither are. Personally I have an extremely unpopular opinion regarding culpability for the damage here, but I'll be satisfied if we as a society can simply agree that both are wrong, or neither are, but if one is wrong, then so must the other be. If they're both wrong, we should be at least 7x as angry and actionable against big tobacco (but rationally, quite a bit more, as they have been killing people, including those nearby who don't choose to consume the drug, at a higher rate for a much longer period of time). If neither of them are wrong (and cigarettes should still be available for sale) then we should put down the Purdue pitchforks.
- bigmattystyles 5y ago
  I think you have a valid point - I guess you could argue that Big Tobacco, while still in existence and still a huge enterprise did have somewhat of a reckoning in the 1990s. With that in mind, Purdue Pharma did this after the legal boundaries had been tested and defined by prior caselaw. I also don't believe cigarettes can kill you or make your life and the lives of those around horrible as fast as opiates can. There are many offramps for cigarettes. But, to your point, I don't know that that should make a difference.

sneak 5y ago

My point is that the tobacco companies did all of this stuff, too, including the marketing-via-doctors route. They're still around, operating, and legitimate, and causing 7x the destruction of human life of this so-called "epidemic". Either both are wrong, or neither are. Personally I have an extremely unpopular opinion regarding culpability for the damage here, but I'll be satisfied if we as a society can simply agree that both are wrong, or neither are, but if one is wrong, then so must the other be. If they're both wrong, we should be at least 7x as angry and actionable against big tobacco (but rationally, quite a bit more, as they have been killing people, including those nearby who don't choose to consume the drug, at a higher rate for a much longer period of time). If neither of them are wrong (and cigarettes should still be available for sale) then we should put down the Purdue pitchforks.

bigmattystyles 5y ago
I think you have a valid point - I guess you could argue that Big Tobacco, while still in existence and still a huge enterprise did have somewhat of a reckoning in the 1990s. With that in mind, Purdue Pharma did this after the legal boundaries had been tested and defined by prior caselaw. I also don't believe cigarettes can kill you or make your life and the lives of those around horrible as fast as opiates can. There are many offramps for cigarettes. But, to your point, I don't know that that should make a difference.