patrick.net

Skip the money in several veins sequentially through dozens of shell corporations and banks in foreign countries, to make sure the legal entanglements are so vast, lengthy and absurdly expensive nobody even wants to go after it any more.

The Sacklers should have hired these Israeli guys to help hide their money:

https://theworldnews.net/il-news/mexico-says-assassination-of-israelis-linked-to-money-laundering-drug-cartels

But too late, they're dead.

Probably an occupational hazard of being a professional money launderer. The last step in hiding money is to kill the guys who know where it is.

I have to admit that I think that fines are in order but at the end its caveat emptor. Most drugs are habit forming and nobody held a gun to their head. Getting hooked on oxycontin doesn't happen after one or two prescriptions from the MD. It's not that different than getting hooked on booze or cigarettes. If you take anything any company tells you these days for the absolute truth then you're naive. What's next suing faceborg and twatter for all the psychological damage? They sure are ruining a lot of lives without even a slight warning.

Ripped off from another fourm:

"Many states and municipalities have filed lawsuits against opioid drug makers that they blame for a national addiction crisis."

This is becoming the new norm. People are killing themselves left and right because they are misusing the product. And right away we have to blame the manufacturer. It's happening with firearms. Now it's with pain killers. It's completely insane. Oxycodone has existed since 1916. It was first introduced to America in 1939. Percodan came on the market in 1950.

Most all of these opiate pain killers have all been around in one form or another for close to a century. Now, all of a sudden, we have a big problem with people dropping dead to the tune of over 40,000 a year because they either can't, or won't follow the instructions that are printed on the bottle of every one of them that is prescribed.

What has changed? Obviously not the medication. So it's the attitude and behavior of the consumer who is taking it. When I had major knee, inner ear, as well as 2 hernia surgeries, I was prescribed narcotic pain killers for all of them. I followed the directions precisely. I never had a single issue. I quit taking them after the pain subsided enough to where I could go without them. With my first major knee surgery back in 1972, that was for over 4 months because I had complications.

It didn't matter because I never became addicted. Again, I followed the directions on the prescription bottle. "Every 4 hours, with no more than 4 pills in a 24 hour period", does not mean take 15 a day, and you'll get a great buzz on. This is what is happening.

Doctors are now forced to change how they prescribe this medication. Even to elderly patients who have never had an issue with it. And who many have been on for months. Even years on end because they live in constant pain. They now have to suffer, or else have to go through some B.S. "Pain Management" class, before their doctor can even write a refillable prescription for them.

Even then they have strict limitations they did not have to deal with before. As a result they now have to live in pain, when before they did not. They use the drugs properly, and without issues. But are now forced to suffer because others do not.

None of this nonsense is going to change anything. Any more than including these stupid "gun locks" will prevent firearm accidents. The easy way out never solves the problem. All of this falls under the, "Well, we have to do something!" pretext. Much like gun control, "Something" is rarely if ever the right thing.

Following the instructions and precautions on the bottle are no fun at all.

"Many states and municipalities have filed lawsuits against opioid drug makers that they blame for a national addiction crisis."

Like the tobacco lawsuits, this is about the cash. People freely chose to abuse these products, and now opportunists are looking to score some coin. In twenty years, we will see the pot industry giants sued in the same way - somehow choosing to smoke pot will be brushed aside while the lawyers for the burnouts blame "corporations" for their clients becoming ambition-less, memory impared dullards

The class action wolf packs are always hunting for 'incitement verdicts' to satisfy the lottery appetites of the self inflicted. I hate to defend billionaires, and I doubt the Sacklers are angels, but they are just a convenient target for the wolf packs.

Booger says

Ripped off from another fourm:

"Many states and municipalities have filed lawsuits against opioid drug makers that they blame for a national addiction crisis."

This is becoming the new norm. People are killing themselves left and right because they are misusing the product. And right away we have to blame the manufacturer. It's happening with firearms. Now it's with pain killers. It's completely insane. Oxycodone has existed since 1916. It was first introduced to America in 1939. Percodan came on the market in 1950.

Most all of these opiate pain killers have all been around in one form or another for close to a century. Now, all of a sudden, we have a big problem with people dropping dead to the tune of over 40,000 a year because they either can't, or won't follow the instructions that are printed on the bottle of every one of them that is prescribed.

What has changed? Obviously not the medication. So it's the attitude and behavior of the consumer who is tak...

Couldn't agree more. What you're witnessing isn't evil pharma but the end of an empire of strong men and (in their femininity) women. It's a great drug for short term big pain killing, possibly unrivaled. Mid to long term it's addictive that has been known forever. Sure Purdue promoted and bent the truth about it. All BP does. But those billion dollar fines are just bankrupt states shoring up their funds using the villain du jour.

If a boozer stops drinking his so called "disease" is cured..... Until he starts again. Once again, it's his or her choice. The fact many do not possess the will power to stop because of their, "neuro-chemistry", flat out weak constitution, selfishness, and / or lack of caring for their families, friends, relatives, or what or whoever fails to motivate them, changes nothing. They made the decision to pick up that bottle every single time they did it.

A cancer patient never had any choice in the matter. That was taken from them the instant they were stricken. They're doomed. Yes, they can attempt to fight it with modern expensive medicine, and hope and pray for the best. People who drink to excess and destroy their own health, marriages, and jobs all did so by swallowing something excessively they had zero business touching in the first place. They knew it, but chose to do it anyway. Over and over. For years and years. That's not a "disease". It is simply a bad habit that reflects a complete lack of personal responsibility and control. Something there is far too much of in this country. And it's why we're up to 40,000+ deaths a year from Opioids, and still counting.

So naturally they're going to jump at any name tag that puts their personal bad decision into a different light. By tagging it as a, "disease". Which inserts the possibility that it just might not be their fault...... By comparing it to actual deadly diseases like cancer, that people have no choice in contracting in the first place. "Yeah, yeah, that's it. I have a DISEASE!! Let's blame it on that!" Sounds better than to be labeled a worthless drunk, pill popper, or bloody nosed Cocaine snorter. Everyone loves pity when they're down and out. The difference is the cancer patient earned it. The boozer did not.

HeadSet says

In twenty years, we will see the pot industry giants sued in the same way - somehow choosing to smoke pot will be brushed aside while the lawyers for the burnouts blame "corporations" for their clients becoming ambition-less, memory impared dullards

I am thinking that it will take more than 20 years.

Booger says

"Something" is rarely if ever the right thing.

But it does signal how virtuous you are.

It's funny now I see Naloxone or Narcan commercials on TV. They sell (someone does) the disease and the elixir.

Vicks - better late than never - finally entered the melatonin market for kids with gummies to help sleep. The ad goes like "drug free low dose melatonin..." While I'm def a fan of melatonin over other sleeping aids to claim that it's drug free just because melatonin is natural is bs. Everything is a drug, sola dosis fact venenum.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/01/purdue-pharma-sackler-family-settlement-judge-approves-opioid-crisis

The Sackler family got away with killing half a million Americans with opioid drugs and, sadly, will escape being hanged by the government as they rightly should be for a crime so massive. Not only that, but they will remain billionaires.

Each of the dead probably has 10 close relatives who rightly consider the government to have fail once again to do anything to bring organized crime to justice.

People on opiates effectively no longer have free will as the drugs take over their biology. It's the Sackler family's fault that they died.

The Sackler family will:

Admit no wrongdoing
Receive complete immunity from future lawsuits

The judge described the outcome as “bitter,” expressing frustration that the family will retain $11 billion of their allegedly ill-gotten fortune, but closed by saying it was the best deal negotiators could get.

Patrick says

People on opiates effectively no longer have free will as the drugs take over their biology. It's the Sackler family's fault that they died.

Not FDAs? Didn't FDA approve the drug?

How can a legal producer of a legal product be held accountable for illegal use of said product?

What about people shot daily in Chicago? Is it Glock's/SIG's/S&W's/Beretta's fault? How?

Eric Holder says

How can a legal producer of a legal product be held accountable for illegal use of said product?

Clearly they are paying billions already in the case, and not voluntarily, so they do have some legal liability.

The difference is that with guns it is truly voluntary whether or not you shoot someone.

Once you're addicted to Oxycontin, your free will directly and biologically inhibited by the drug.

But yes, the FDA probably should have some liability in this as well.

Patrick says

Eric Holder says

How can a legal producer of a legal product be held accountable for illegal use of said product?

Clearly they are paying billions already in the case, and not voluntarily, so they do have some legal liability.

The difference is that with guns it is truly voluntary whether or not you shoot someone.

Once you're addicted to Oxycontin, your free will directly and biologically inhibited by the drug.

But yes, the FDA probably should have some liability in this as well.

I honestly didn't follow the case: were they convicted or they took plea deal and paying money to make the shit go away, just like "Jan 6th insurrectionists" take plea deals to put the whole covfefe behind them?

As for shit being addictive - well, duh. It's not like it was not known to the FDA, prescribing doctors and such. I'm sure the warning was there on the label too. It feels like it should fall on doctors who prescribed that shit and nobody else. They are the people best equipped and paid handsomely to exercise judgement as to what medication use, how long and at what dosage.

OK, I agree, doctors who keep prescribing it for patients who become addicted should have liability.

But iirc the Sackler family actively lobbied and promoted false research claiming that it was not particularly addictive even in the face overwhelming evidence to the contrary, such as mass death (on the order of half a million people).

Patrick says

But iirc the Sackler family actively lobbied and promoted false research claiming that it was not particularly addictive even in the face overwhelming evidence to the contrary, such as mass death (on the order of half a million people).

I looked into wikipedia (I know, I know). This is what they have there as the most damning thing:

".... lawsuit – which was filed by the Massachusetts attorney general, Maura Healey – claiming that Purdue Pharma and members of the Sackler family knew that high doses of OxyContin over long periods would increase the risk of serious side effects...."

Honestly, wouldn't it be true for pretty much any drug? Even fucking Aspirin. I could kinda assign some fault if the shit was OTC and was misrepresented in ads (aren't these regulated and required to list side effects?), but it was prescription-only. As for fake research - isn't it FDA's job to review it and weed out fake studies? Did they really grant their approval based on forged research?

I think the FDA is quite corrupt.

Patrick says

I think the FDA is quite corrupt.

Our entire government is corrupt. all deals are made through kickbacks and bribes, it's who you know and whose cousin, child, or themselves are going to get a cushy job in the industry for huge pay and stocks. Most people don't pay attention to this, they think it's all kosher and regulated, when in reality it's all corruption. And we just have to find a way to make it in this messy world.

Also:

General

Oxycodone is subject to international conventions on narcotic drugs. In addition, oxycodone is subject to national laws that differ by country. The 1931 Convention for Limiting the Manufacture and Regulating the Distribution of Narcotic Drugs of the League of Nations included oxycodone.[101] The 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of the United Nations, which replaced the 1931 convention, categorized oxycodone in Schedule I.[102] Global restrictions on Schedule I drugs include "limit[ing] exclusively to medical and scientific purposes the production, manufacture, export, import, distribution of, trade in, use and possession of" these drugs; "requir[ing] medical prescriptions for the supply or dispensation of [these] drugs to individuals"; and "prevent[ing] the accumulation" of quantities of these drugs "in excess of those required for the normal conduct of business".[102]
....
United States

Under the Controlled Substances Act, oxycodone is a Schedule II controlled substance whether by itself or part of a multi-ingredient medication.[120] The DEA lists oxycodone both for sale and for use in manufacturing other opioids as ACSCN 9143 and in 2013 approved the following annual aggregate manufacturing quotas: 131.5 metric tons for sale, down from 153.75 in 2012, and 10.25 metric tons for conversion, unchanged from the previous year.[121] In 2020, oxycodone possession was decriminalized in the U.S. state of Oregon.[122]

So it's not like everybody thought these were candy and it's not like eeevil pharma companies could produce more than DEA quota. Shouldn't the latter be held responsible for allowing too much of that shit being produced?

DEA is also corrupt imho, basically a way to feed the for-profit private prisons. This is especially true with respect to cannabis, which is far less harmful than alcohol.

Patrick says

DEA is also corrupt imho, basically a way to feed the for-profit private prisons.

They set the quota. Unless Purdue was in cahoots with DEA no amount of marketing on their part would increase the whole pie - only their part of the allowed pie.

The whole things is getting more and more bizarre.

Patrick says

DEA is also corrupt imho, basically a way to feed the for-profit private prisons. This is especially true with respect to cannabis, which is far less harmful than alcohol.

Everything happens when there is big money attached to it somewhere for someone. Even all the stupid woke shit being sold to us, it's all attached to money.

Eric Holder says

Purdue was in cahoots with DEA

They were, and are.

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-care/former-dea-official-now-working-oxycontin-maker-purdue-pharma-n984646

Patrick says

Eric Holder says

Purdue was in cahoots with DEA

They were, and are.

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-care/former-dea-official-now-working-oxycontin-maker-purdue-pharma-n984646

Solves it completely. They are guilty of bribing their regulators.

Why would you think they're not?

Patrick says

Why would you think they're not?

I think this is the only thing they're guilty of. The rest is fluff since no amount of aggressive marketing and sales incentives would increase the total amount of that junk in circulation. They needed the DEA to be on board with increasing the overall quota. Hiring that cunt is a smoking gun.

They were actually paying kickbacks to doctors to prescribe that stuff.

The criminal violations included conspiring to defraud US officials and pay illegal kickbacks to both doctors and an electronic healthcare records vendor called Practice Fusion, all to help keep opioid prescriptions flowing.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/nov/24/purdue-pharma-oxycontin-pleads-guilty-opioid-crisis

Patrick says

They were actually paying kickbacks to doctors to prescribe that stuff.

The criminal violations included conspiring to defraud US officials and pay illegal kickbacks to both doctors and an electronic healthcare records vendor called Practice Fusion, all to help keep opioid prescriptions flowing.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/nov/24/purdue-pharma-oxycontin-pleads-guilty-opioid-crisis

Yep, guilty AF.

I forget which specific opiate it was, I think oxycontin, but like Patrick said, there was a long period of time where the manufacturer claimed it wasnt addictive, even though it was painfully obvious that it was to laymen who had experience with it. It's not like the fact that opiates can be addictive is modern knowledge - opiates have been addictive for hundreds of years, and well known. In the 1800s I think they called it "soldiers disease" or something, because injured soldiers would get hooked on morphine or opium.

Anyway, they almost certainly falsified whatever research or human studies showed oxy wasnt addictive. That's very serious fraud, and many doctors believed "the science" and prescribed the pills and many refills thinking chance of addiction was very low, and that the few patients complaining of addiction was just "in their head", and they weren't actually physically addicted.

I'm not absolving the end users who get addicted, as they do have responsibility in it too, at least some of the more recent ones do, because it's now fairly common knowledge that all opiates are addictive (although, many people still dont understand the diff between opiates and otc painkillers). As the addiction starts to take hold, and their refill-seeking behavior starts increasing, the user is aware of their fondness for pills, and for many this is before the addiction has truly taken a choke hold on them. It may be getting uncomfortable to turn back, but they still have a choice early on. I think the user can be moderately blamed here during this transition period. But there's also people who get injured and take the pills for months before they realize how hopelessly addicted they are, and I feel sorry for them, although I question how many people end up in this scenario without being warned they will become addicted if they choose to keep taking the pills.

I've been prescribed various opiates (usually vicodin) many times in my life, and so have friends and family. I'm not sure a DR ever warned me of their addictiveness, although the longest script was only 3 weeks worth. Sure, the pill bottle mentions this in the typical fine print packet of legalese that everyone tends to skip, but I don't think its sufficient. Just because something exists in fine print doesn't mean its sufficient warning, and some people are MUCH more prone to opiate addiction than others.

Anyway, to me it seems the vast majority of addictions are from a willing user, usually coupled with a willing DR. My friend was seriously injured and has been on pain killers for a decade, and the recent new laws are interfering with his ability to get pain meds. Some of the new laws and rules are so restrictive that many docs are scared to write larger scripts needed by long term patients with high dosage tolerances, and this is really unfortunate that legit patients are being affected by haphazard attempts to reduce illicit scripts. Reminds me of stupid gun laws that dont actually solve the problem.

Addiction can be subtle, to the point where some addicted people don't even know they are addicted and when it is pointed out to them, they don't clearly know how they got that way. It isn't always just a rebellious indulgence.
Oxycontin was marketed for years as having very little or no addiction liability compared to traditional narcotics. That, of course, was deceptive marketing akin to saying cigarettes are good for your health.

Hircus says

I'm not absolving the end users who get addicted, as they do have responsibility in it too,

At first, OK. But later, it literally fucks with your brain, the mechanisms which motivate every action you make every day.

Eventually, you are literally a slave to it without free will.

Ceffer says

deceptive marketing akin to saying cigarettes are good for your health.

Science says cigs are fine:

I'm a little confused about the extent of the Sacklers' liability, or if people are just resentful that they are RichFucks and the legal hordes are after the money.

There is likely some kind of liability, but it would require intricate forensic examination rather than wholesale demonization based on the deaths of end users. People will always seek these drugs and routinely die from them.

It's a bit hypocritical when we have Rockefellers, government and Intel agencies running arms, trafficking and drugs around the world.

Many chronic pain sufferers need to learn mind-body techniques to actually get better. Otherwise they’re doomed to a life of half-measures where they’re half conscious because of drugs they’re using to control the pain, or functionally crippled and living lives of quiet desperation. It’s sad, but mind-body therapy holds hope. Not only can you learn to deal with the pain, but you might find that you are in a mindset that promotes more pain than you should otherwise have. For me, once I learned a few things, the pain steadily receded until I was pain free most days. I still have relapses, but it’s growing more and more rare as I know how to deal with the pain when it presents itself. I’m no longer helpless against it. I have tools in my tool chest to deal with it, to minimize it, and ultimately to make it go away.

If I ever get Chronic Pain, I would move outside of the USA and get the full dose of painkilling drugs to function. Esp. if my time was limited and I needed to be pain free to tie up loose ends.

Patrick says

Hircus says

I'm not absolving the end users who get addicted, as they do have responsibility in it too,

At first, OK. But later, it literally fucks with your brain, the mechanisms which motivate every action you make every day.

Eventually, you are literally a slave to it without free will.

Agreed. Most have an idea they're on the road to addiction, but don't realize how slippery and steep the slope can be. The brain does its amazing ability to rationalize good reasons why you should keep taking them for "just 1-2 more weeks", over and over. A little time passes, and suddenly they're in deep and things change, and "just stopping" becomes the very last thing their subconscious wants to do, and they're officially hooked then.

I feel like companies could probably make a good non-addictive pain med, but nobody tries, because addictions are so incredibly profitable. But I also think it might be very difficult to grant the euphoria w/o addiction. I think the euphoria is a major reason so many people like pills. Pain is one thing, but making people "feel good" and happy when they may be dying or going through tough times also has medical value.