3 ms·

> Any consumer who took opiates and got addicted has exactly one person to blame - themselves for being uninformed. You greatly overestimate the reasoning abil

> Any consumer who took opiates and got addicted has exactly one person to blame - themselves for being uninformed. You greatly overestimate the reasoning abilities of suffering humans. Manufacturer promotes, doctor prescribes, patient ingests. Doctors should know better than to assume that the mfr is motivated only by the patients' well-being, but the patient should be able to trust their doctor. In some cases, the medical team does not ask you whether you want opioids. Are you going to get "NoOps" tattooed on your forearms and butt where the IVs might be placed during your unconsciousness? This has nothing to do with firearms.

anonym29 4y ago
>This has nothing to do with firearms. Way to completely miss the point. That's an analogy that explains that manufacturers can't reasonably be held responsible for the actions of independent consumers. The manufacturer didn't make that decision, the consumer did. Now you can argue that the manufacturer was manipulative in effort to achieve greater profit, and thus has partial liability, but do we collectively feel as angry at Facebook for all the suicides that were influenced from deliberate psychological manipulation campaigns the company performed to shift people's feelings? If so, where's the outrage? Sacklers are an easy target because people hold bias against "old rich white conservatives". I hear more people complaining about this than I hear complaining about 3M & DuPont, who have managed to put small amounts of a known carcinogen in the bloodstream of about 99.9% of the population of the entire planet with PFOA/PFOS in Teflon & related chemicals, and then proceeded to basically change 1 atom in the molecule and create an entirely new product that thus far appears to be identically harmful (GenX) after PFOA was banned - and spun off a holding company to sell that product to completely shield themselves from legal culpability. Where's the outrage at that? Statistically speaking, DuPont harmed you, the Sacklers didn't. Why the popular anger at one and popular indifference towards the other? Answer: people are stupid. Stupid doctors trusted an untrustworthy company. Stupid patients trusted their stupid doctors. They're mad at themselves for falling for something that dumb. Also so stupid that many who were harmed by DuPont but not harmed by the Sacklers don't even realize that fact.
- quesera 4y ago
  I didn't miss the point. The firearms thing was tangential at best. The rest of your follow up comment is also tangential, although much more interesting than the firearms junk.
  - orangepurple 4y ago
    At what point is it useful to blame a manufacturer for making a tool available which can lead to serious bodily harm? This is the fundamental question behind drugs and firearms. It all boils down to how stupid, informed, impulsive, and gullible people are at various layers of the sales, distribution, and usage stack. For firearms city dwellers generally believe the buck stops with manufacturers because if they didn't exist then nobody would shoot each other anymore (sic). For drugs many believe the buck stops with doctors because they are the patient's advocate and authority figures perpetually repeat that doctors always know best because they are educated in the matter and the average person isn't. Americans have generally internalized this propaganda.
    - anonym29 4y ago
      expertise != good decision making https://www.rutgers.edu/news/expertise-liability-experts-may-overcompensate-decisions-when-told-they-are-wrong https://www.rutgers.edu/news/expertise-liability-experts-may...
- gusgus01 4y ago
  I've seen outrage about PFAS, eg the recent rainwater isn't safe to drink according to the EPA articles. There's also been many campaigns over the years about various chemical additives, eg BPA. You've also got lots of people rallying against user/overuse of pesticides and herbicides. I'd wager it's less that the Sacklers are an easy target (as shown by the continued lack of any consequences), but more that it's a slow build up of anger over the continued abuse of people for profit. Also, people are not stupid for trusting doctors. Are you not supposed to listen to professionals with usually more than a decade more of education in a specific field than you?

anonym29 4y ago

>This has nothing to do with firearms. Way to completely miss the point. That's an analogy that explains that manufacturers can't reasonably be held responsible for the actions of independent consumers. The manufacturer didn't make that decision, the consumer did. Now you can argue that the manufacturer was manipulative in effort to achieve greater profit, and thus has partial liability, but do we collectively feel as angry at Facebook for all the suicides that were influenced from deliberate psychological manipulation campaigns the company performed to shift people's feelings? If so, where's the outrage? Sacklers are an easy target because people hold bias against "old rich white conservatives". I hear more people complaining about this than I hear complaining about 3M & DuPont, who have managed to put small amounts of a known carcinogen in the bloodstream of about 99.9% of the population of the entire planet with PFOA/PFOS in Teflon & related chemicals, and then proceeded to basically change 1 atom in the molecule and create an entirely new product that thus far appears to be identically harmful (GenX) after PFOA was banned - and spun off a holding company to sell that product to completely shield themselves from legal culpability. Where's the outrage at that? Statistically speaking, DuPont harmed you, the Sacklers didn't. Why the popular anger at one and popular indifference towards the other? Answer: people are stupid. Stupid doctors trusted an untrustworthy company. Stupid patients trusted their stupid doctors. They're mad at themselves for falling for something that dumb. Also so stupid that many who were harmed by DuPont but not harmed by the Sacklers don't even realize that fact.

quesera 4y ago
I didn't miss the point. The firearms thing was tangential at best. The rest of your follow up comment is also tangential, although much more interesting than the firearms junk.
- orangepurple 4y ago
  At what point is it useful to blame a manufacturer for making a tool available which can lead to serious bodily harm? This is the fundamental question behind drugs and firearms. It all boils down to how stupid, informed, impulsive, and gullible people are at various layers of the sales, distribution, and usage stack. For firearms city dwellers generally believe the buck stops with manufacturers because if they didn't exist then nobody would shoot each other anymore (sic). For drugs many believe the buck stops with doctors because they are the patient's advocate and authority figures perpetually repeat that doctors always know best because they are educated in the matter and the average person isn't. Americans have generally internalized this propaganda.
  - anonym29 4y ago
    expertise != good decision making https://www.rutgers.edu/news/expertise-liability-experts-may-overcompensate-decisions-when-told-they-are-wrong https://www.rutgers.edu/news/expertise-liability-experts-may...
gusgus01 4y ago
I've seen outrage about PFAS, eg the recent rainwater isn't safe to drink according to the EPA articles. There's also been many campaigns over the years about various chemical additives, eg BPA. You've also got lots of people rallying against user/overuse of pesticides and herbicides. I'd wager it's less that the Sacklers are an easy target (as shown by the continued lack of any consequences), but more that it's a slow build up of anger over the continued abuse of people for profit. Also, people are not stupid for trusting doctors. Are you not supposed to listen to professionals with usually more than a decade more of education in a specific field than you?