8 ms·

A slap on the wrist. After a half million Americans have died from a crisis they helped kickstart, they should be facing criminal charges and jail time. The ric

A slap on the wrist. After a half million Americans have died from a crisis they helped kickstart, they should be facing criminal charges and jail time. The rich and powerful once again are allowed to buy their freedom.

rajup 2y ago
> The rich and powerful once again are allowed to buy their freedom. Well... have you seen the news lately?
- dartos 2y ago
  Or… ever?
  - ternnoburn 2y ago
    The rich and powerful are pretty famous for not saving the consequences of their actions, I'm not sure what you are implying....
    - TheOtherHobbes 2y ago
      Health insurance and some elements of healthcare are literally farming human illness and death for cash. Opioids are just the most obvious and egregious example of how the system is abusively hostile.
    - dartos 2y ago
      Yeah, that fact is evident if you look at the news… ever… Hunter Biden pardoned, Trump’s convictions not resulting in punishment, high ranking executives getting bonuses for layoffs, etc…
      - ternnoburn 2y ago
        Rajup had posted about a CEO getting unalived, as an example of the rich facing consequences. I had misread your post as agreeing with him, like this Luigi thing was a continuation of a phenomena. My bad. I see you were disagreeing with the poster sarcastically.
        dartos 2y ago
        All good. I reread my comment and it does kind of read in the opposite way I intended.
  - datavirtue 2y ago
    Buy, borrow, die.
JPKab 2y ago
My mom got hooked in 99 after she slipped on ice at her house in Bluefield, WV. Became a full blown addict after getting prescribed for the subsequent back injury. She lost everything, disappeared, became a homeless addict drifting from DC to Baltimore to NYC and back, until she died of an overdose of heroin in a parking lot of a 7-11 in DC in December 2015. Her story and the impact on me and my 4 siblings is a drop in an ocean of suffering these smug assholes inflicted on this country. This slap on the wrist is an insult to all of us, especially us Appalachians, who saw this starting in the 90s and got ignored because “hillbillies are genetically prone to addiction” as Purdue told the FDA.
- haltingproblem 2y ago
  I am so sorry to hear what happened to your Mom. This is a slap on the wrist to those who suffered and to those who loved them. How do companies like McKinsey get away with this?
  - davidw 2y ago
    > How do companies like McKinsey get away with this? Money. Any other questions?
    - hooli_gan 2y ago
      Why doesnt money work for Kim Dotcom?
      - wesselbindt 2y ago
        Because of more money
        Cumpiler69 2y ago
        Money alone won't buy your entry inside the elite circles of the people with real influence. Joe Biden just pardoned his son from crimes that would have gotten you and me in jail already. Similarly, your Clintons, Bushs, Blairs, Bidens, Trumps, none of them or their friends and family will ever see a day in jail no matter their crimes. That's influence money alone can't buy. Those are the 1% of the 1%. They can kill or pardon people, start and end wars without answering to anyone. Kim Dotcom is a nobody compared or those guys.
dogboat 2y ago
[flagged]
spenczar5 2y ago
I still don’t think it’s enough, but let’s be clear. They are facing criminal charges and jail time. See the DOJ press release: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-resolution-criminal-and-civil-investigations-mckinsey-companys https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-... > Today’s resolution marks the first time a management consulting firm has been held criminally responsible for advice resulting in the commission of a crime by a client and reflects the Justice Department’s ongoing efforts to hold actors accountable for their roles in the opioid crisis. The resolution is also the largest civil recovery for such conduct. > Additionally, a former McKinsey senior partner who worked on Purdue matters has been charged with obstruction of justice in federal court in Abingdon, Virginia. Martin E. Elling, 60, a U.S. citizen currently residing in Bangkok, Thailand, has been charged with one count of knowingly destroying records, documents and tangible objects with the intent to impede, obstruct and influence the investigation and proper administration of a matter within the jurisdiction of the Justice Department. Elling has agreed to plead guilty and is expected to appear in federal court in Abingdon to enter his plea and for sentencing at later dates. … > Elling faces a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison, three years of supervised release and a fine up to $250,000 for the obstruction of justice charge
- ternnoburn 2y ago
  They aren't facing prison for this, they are facing prison for trying to cover this up. That's a subtle but important difference.
- genocidicbunny 2y ago
  If you or I killed a half a million people, we wouldn't be facing 20 years in prison. We'd be lucky to not be facing a firing squad or a noose. All I ask is that the leadership of McKinsey be treated to that same standard. Let their golden parachutes be literal.
  - duped 2y ago
    The only way to kill 500,000 people practically is to do it by the letter of the law. Murder (especially for money) doesn't scale without being a state or quasi state actor, or something on that tier.
gonzobonzo 2y ago
> A slap on the wrist. After a half million Americans have died from a crisis they helped kickstart, they should be facing criminal charges and jail time. I keep reading people who say, over and over again, that the war on drugs is a failure and that it's a mistake to try criminally prosecute suppliers and send them to prison. People will always find a way to get the drugs if they want them, we're told. But then I see the same people turn around that McKinsey is responsible for millions of deaths from the opioid crisis, and the execs involved should be held criminally responsible. It's hard to reconcile the calls for criminal prosecution against McKinsey execs with the argument that drugs should be legalized and that we shouldn't go after other suppliers of drugs.
- genocidicbunny 2y ago
  I'm not sure most people are against going after the suppliers, even if they support decriminalization. Decriminalization should mean that users are not prosecuted for simply using drugs, but those participating in the manufacture and distribution are still held responsible.
  - gonzobonzo 2y ago
    > I'm not sure most people are against going after the suppliers I see the claim made often, it even commonly pops up on HN. The claim is that the War on Drugs is a failure, because any prohibition efforts are doomed. Laws against a substance merely push it into the criminal sector and don't actually disrupt the supply. So the only outcome is that we get more crime and suffering, but the amount of people using the drug doesn't change. We saw a similarly argument often used when marijuana legalization was being discussed - legalization wouldn't actually impact the number of people who used the drugs, because prohibition laws don't stop people from acquiring a substance. Naturally, the validity of marijuana legalization goes well beyond it's impact on the number of users, but there were many claims that it wouldn't impact the number of users. Of course, one can make the argument that the War on Drugs is a good thing but that it's implementation has often been wrong (for instance, that there should be more effort made on going after suppliers rather than users). But it's very common to see people claim that any attempts at prohibition are doomed to failure and cause more harm with little to no benefit. Edit: To give an example, here's a HN discussion where most of the people are in favor of fully legalizing all drugs: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10424099 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10424099
refurb 2y ago
[flagged]
- BSDobelix 2y ago
  You are not wrong here, capitalism is the rule to make as much money as possible (be it by selling legal drugs, weapons, food, gambling, insurance). The role of a state and it's laws is to control and limit these companies. A lot of people think it's good to assassinate the CEO of an insurance company, but then I ask, where are the checks and balances, where is the state? If you have to have insurance, the state has to make rules where it's almost impossible for the insurance company not to pay the necessary actions (like in Europe). With McKinsey...what did the FDA do wrong here would be my first question. Don't hate the companies, criticise the state (who is the responsible blob to keep a society healthy).
  - refurb 2y ago
    > If you have to have insurance, the state has to make rules where it's almost impossible for the insurance company not to pay the necessary actions (like in Europe). Exactly. Capitalism without rules ends up with situations that we would like to avoid as a society. Thus the government should step in create guard rails and enforce them. The government, through the FDA and DEA, played a large role in the huge increase in the abuse of Oxycontin during the 90's. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2622774/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2622774/ When OxyContin entered the market in 1996, the FDA approved its original label, which stated that iatrogenic addiction was “very rare” if opioids were legitimately used in the management of pain. In July 2001, to reflect the available scientific evidence, the label was modified to state that data were not available for establishing the true incidence of addiction in chronic-pain patients. The 2001 labeling also deleted the original statement that the delayed absorption of OxyContin was believed to reduce the abuse liability of the drug.19
RicoElectrico 2y ago
Exactly, if anyone is shocked at what happened to that insurance CEO, there is a reason. Elites never face personal consequences beyond fines, maybe expect when they defraud investors.
- ryandrake 2y ago
  And in this case, as is almost always the case, the "elites" are not even paying the fine. The Company is. No human being inside the company who made any of the relevant decisions and did any of the wrongdoing will suffer in any way, or have to pay anything. If you want to kill people and get away with it, just form a corporation and have your CxO and SVP staff make decisions that kill people.
  - gruez 2y ago
    >If you want to kill people and get away with it, just form a corporation and have your CxO and SVP staff make decisions that kill people. Note this only works for indirect deaths. If you form a corporation and then order a hit on someone, that's still illegal and you'll still go to jail. If you form a corporation, build a coal power plant that follows all regulations, and the particulate pollution sends a few hundred people to their early deaths that's fine.
    - lazide 2y ago
      Notably, what is even a viable alternative?
  - FloNeu 2y ago
    Also - they already plan for the Fine and put that peanuts on the side… just a nice tax deduction… it would be hilarious if it wasn’t so sad
ekianjo 2y ago
Also I fail to understand why doctors who prescribed opoids are getting away with it. It's well documented by now that many of them were getting bribes, and could clearly see that their patients were becoming addicted which went against the claims that the said opoids were not addictive. Responsibility is not just on the manufacturer and consultants' side...
jkolio 2y ago
It makes the incredulity over the recent unpleasantness all the more... something. What world do you have to live in NOT to see the rationale? People have set themselves on fire over causes they felt passionately about, to get essentially no attention from the media. Hurting powerful people appears to many the only remaining avenue. Even that seems less impactful than the gleeful memes that followed. The elite are having their "Okay Boomer" moment and they really don't like it.
mschuster91 2y ago
On the other hand a lot of drug abuse among the homeless is self-medication because of the stress associated with living on the streets or due to untreated mental health issues. As long as housing and mental health remains an open issue, personally I'd rather have them consume stuff made by an actual pharmaceutical company at pharmaceutical grade instead of completely unregulated dark market stuff that can have absolutely wild (and deadly!) swings in dosage, even from the same batch.

rajup 2y ago

> The rich and powerful once again are allowed to buy their freedom. Well... have you seen the news lately?

dartos 2y ago
Or… ever?
- ternnoburn 2y ago
  The rich and powerful are pretty famous for not saving the consequences of their actions, I'm not sure what you are implying....
  - TheOtherHobbes 2y ago
    Health insurance and some elements of healthcare are literally farming human illness and death for cash. Opioids are just the most obvious and egregious example of how the system is abusively hostile.
  - dartos 2y ago
    Yeah, that fact is evident if you look at the news… ever… Hunter Biden pardoned, Trump’s convictions not resulting in punishment, high ranking executives getting bonuses for layoffs, etc…
    - ternnoburn 2y ago
      Rajup had posted about a CEO getting unalived, as an example of the rich facing consequences. I had misread your post as agreeing with him, like this Luigi thing was a continuation of a phenomena. My bad. I see you were disagreeing with the poster sarcastically.
      - dartos 2y ago
        All good. I reread my comment and it does kind of read in the opposite way I intended.
- datavirtue 2y ago
  Buy, borrow, die.

JPKab 2y ago

My mom got hooked in 99 after she slipped on ice at her house in Bluefield, WV. Became a full blown addict after getting prescribed for the subsequent back injury. She lost everything, disappeared, became a homeless addict drifting from DC to Baltimore to NYC and back, until she died of an overdose of heroin in a parking lot of a 7-11 in DC in December 2015. Her story and the impact on me and my 4 siblings is a drop in an ocean of suffering these smug assholes inflicted on this country. This slap on the wrist is an insult to all of us, especially us Appalachians, who saw this starting in the 90s and got ignored because “hillbillies are genetically prone to addiction” as Purdue told the FDA.

haltingproblem 2y ago
I am so sorry to hear what happened to your Mom. This is a slap on the wrist to those who suffered and to those who loved them. How do companies like McKinsey get away with this?
- davidw 2y ago
  > How do companies like McKinsey get away with this? Money. Any other questions?
  - hooli_gan 2y ago
    Why doesnt money work for Kim Dotcom?
    - wesselbindt 2y ago
      Because of more money
      - Cumpiler69 2y ago
        Money alone won't buy your entry inside the elite circles of the people with real influence. Joe Biden just pardoned his son from crimes that would have gotten you and me in jail already. Similarly, your Clintons, Bushs, Blairs, Bidens, Trumps, none of them or their friends and family will ever see a day in jail no matter their crimes. That's influence money alone can't buy. Those are the 1% of the 1%. They can kill or pardon people, start and end wars without answering to anyone. Kim Dotcom is a nobody compared or those guys.

dogboat 2y ago

[flagged]

spenczar5 2y ago

I still don’t think it’s enough, but let’s be clear. They are facing criminal charges and jail time. See the DOJ press release: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-resolution-criminal-and-civil-investigations-mckinsey-companys https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-... > Today’s resolution marks the first time a management consulting firm has been held criminally responsible for advice resulting in the commission of a crime by a client and reflects the Justice Department’s ongoing efforts to hold actors accountable for their roles in the opioid crisis. The resolution is also the largest civil recovery for such conduct. > Additionally, a former McKinsey senior partner who worked on Purdue matters has been charged with obstruction of justice in federal court in Abingdon, Virginia. Martin E. Elling, 60, a U.S. citizen currently residing in Bangkok, Thailand, has been charged with one count of knowingly destroying records, documents and tangible objects with the intent to impede, obstruct and influence the investigation and proper administration of a matter within the jurisdiction of the Justice Department. Elling has agreed to plead guilty and is expected to appear in federal court in Abingdon to enter his plea and for sentencing at later dates. … > Elling faces a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison, three years of supervised release and a fine up to $250,000 for the obstruction of justice charge

ternnoburn 2y ago
They aren't facing prison for this, they are facing prison for trying to cover this up. That's a subtle but important difference.
genocidicbunny 2y ago
If you or I killed a half a million people, we wouldn't be facing 20 years in prison. We'd be lucky to not be facing a firing squad or a noose. All I ask is that the leadership of McKinsey be treated to that same standard. Let their golden parachutes be literal.
- duped 2y ago
  The only way to kill 500,000 people practically is to do it by the letter of the law. Murder (especially for money) doesn't scale without being a state or quasi state actor, or something on that tier.

gonzobonzo 2y ago

> A slap on the wrist. After a half million Americans have died from a crisis they helped kickstart, they should be facing criminal charges and jail time. I keep reading people who say, over and over again, that the war on drugs is a failure and that it's a mistake to try criminally prosecute suppliers and send them to prison. People will always find a way to get the drugs if they want them, we're told. But then I see the same people turn around that McKinsey is responsible for millions of deaths from the opioid crisis, and the execs involved should be held criminally responsible. It's hard to reconcile the calls for criminal prosecution against McKinsey execs with the argument that drugs should be legalized and that we shouldn't go after other suppliers of drugs.

genocidicbunny 2y ago
I'm not sure most people are against going after the suppliers, even if they support decriminalization. Decriminalization should mean that users are not prosecuted for simply using drugs, but those participating in the manufacture and distribution are still held responsible.
- gonzobonzo 2y ago
  > I'm not sure most people are against going after the suppliers I see the claim made often, it even commonly pops up on HN. The claim is that the War on Drugs is a failure, because any prohibition efforts are doomed. Laws against a substance merely push it into the criminal sector and don't actually disrupt the supply. So the only outcome is that we get more crime and suffering, but the amount of people using the drug doesn't change. We saw a similarly argument often used when marijuana legalization was being discussed - legalization wouldn't actually impact the number of people who used the drugs, because prohibition laws don't stop people from acquiring a substance. Naturally, the validity of marijuana legalization goes well beyond it's impact on the number of users, but there were many claims that it wouldn't impact the number of users. Of course, one can make the argument that the War on Drugs is a good thing but that it's implementation has often been wrong (for instance, that there should be more effort made on going after suppliers rather than users). But it's very common to see people claim that any attempts at prohibition are doomed to failure and cause more harm with little to no benefit. Edit: To give an example, here's a HN discussion where most of the people are in favor of fully legalizing all drugs: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10424099 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10424099

refurb 2y ago

[flagged]

BSDobelix 2y ago
You are not wrong here, capitalism is the rule to make as much money as possible (be it by selling legal drugs, weapons, food, gambling, insurance). The role of a state and it's laws is to control and limit these companies. A lot of people think it's good to assassinate the CEO of an insurance company, but then I ask, where are the checks and balances, where is the state? If you have to have insurance, the state has to make rules where it's almost impossible for the insurance company not to pay the necessary actions (like in Europe). With McKinsey...what did the FDA do wrong here would be my first question. Don't hate the companies, criticise the state (who is the responsible blob to keep a society healthy).
- refurb 2y ago
  > If you have to have insurance, the state has to make rules where it's almost impossible for the insurance company not to pay the necessary actions (like in Europe). Exactly. Capitalism without rules ends up with situations that we would like to avoid as a society. Thus the government should step in create guard rails and enforce them. The government, through the FDA and DEA, played a large role in the huge increase in the abuse of Oxycontin during the 90's. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2622774/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2622774/ When OxyContin entered the market in 1996, the FDA approved its original label, which stated that iatrogenic addiction was “very rare” if opioids were legitimately used in the management of pain. In July 2001, to reflect the available scientific evidence, the label was modified to state that data were not available for establishing the true incidence of addiction in chronic-pain patients. The 2001 labeling also deleted the original statement that the delayed absorption of OxyContin was believed to reduce the abuse liability of the drug.19

RicoElectrico 2y ago

Exactly, if anyone is shocked at what happened to that insurance CEO, there is a reason. Elites never face personal consequences beyond fines, maybe expect when they defraud investors.

ryandrake 2y ago
And in this case, as is almost always the case, the "elites" are not even paying the fine. The Company is. No human being inside the company who made any of the relevant decisions and did any of the wrongdoing will suffer in any way, or have to pay anything. If you want to kill people and get away with it, just form a corporation and have your CxO and SVP staff make decisions that kill people.
- gruez 2y ago
  >If you want to kill people and get away with it, just form a corporation and have your CxO and SVP staff make decisions that kill people. Note this only works for indirect deaths. If you form a corporation and then order a hit on someone, that's still illegal and you'll still go to jail. If you form a corporation, build a coal power plant that follows all regulations, and the particulate pollution sends a few hundred people to their early deaths that's fine.
  - lazide 2y ago
    Notably, what is even a viable alternative?
- FloNeu 2y ago
  Also - they already plan for the Fine and put that peanuts on the side… just a nice tax deduction… it would be hilarious if it wasn’t so sad

ekianjo 2y ago

Also I fail to understand why doctors who prescribed opoids are getting away with it. It's well documented by now that many of them were getting bribes, and could clearly see that their patients were becoming addicted which went against the claims that the said opoids were not addictive. Responsibility is not just on the manufacturer and consultants' side...

jkolio 2y ago

It makes the incredulity over the recent unpleasantness all the more... something. What world do you have to live in NOT to see the rationale? People have set themselves on fire over causes they felt passionately about, to get essentially no attention from the media. Hurting powerful people appears to many the only remaining avenue. Even that seems less impactful than the gleeful memes that followed. The elite are having their "Okay Boomer" moment and they really don't like it.

mschuster91 2y ago

On the other hand a lot of drug abuse among the homeless is self-medication because of the stress associated with living on the streets or due to untreated mental health issues. As long as housing and mental health remains an open issue, personally I'd rather have them consume stuff made by an actual pharmaceutical company at pharmaceutical grade instead of completely unregulated dark market stuff that can have absolutely wild (and deadly!) swings in dosage, even from the same batch.