> I don't understand people who think the Sacklers are villains who destroyed lives, but Purdue should continue operating more-or-less as-is. Which is, I think,

> I don't understand people who think the Sacklers are villains who destroyed lives, but Purdue should continue operating more-or-less as-is. Which is, I think, the conclusion from this settlement. If this is you, can you help me understand? Do you think there is/was a realistic way to prescribe opioids routinely and safely? This is an extremely easy answer that doesn’t require any details of the case. The supreme court clarifies what the law is, not if the Sacklers are villains and if Purdue should continue. So the people who think the the Sacklers are Villains and that Pursue should continue are people who believe the settlement is not legal and dont believe in legislating from the bench.