SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for Runaway1956
Drug companies reach $260 million settlement, averting first federal opioid trial
Four large drug companies could resume talks on Tuesday to try to reach a $48 billion settlement of all opioid litigation against them, after agreeing with two Ohio counties to a $260 million deal to avert the first federal trial over their role in the U.S. opioid epidemic.
Drug distributors AmerisourceBergen Corp, Cardinal Health Inc and McKesson Corp and drugmaker Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd agreed to the deal that removed the immediate threat of a trial that was to begin on Monday in Cleveland.
The parties could resume talks as soon as Tuesday aimed at a broader settlement of thousands of opioid lawsuits brought by states and local governments, according to Paul Hanly, an attorney for the towns and counties.
Under Monday's local settlement, the distributors, which handle around 90% of U.S. prescription drugs, will pay a combined $215 million immediately to Ohio's Cuyahoga and Summit counties that were plaintiffs in Monday's trial.
Israel-based Teva said it was paying $20 million in cash and will contribute $25 million worth of Suboxone, an opioid addiction treatment.
Teva, the world's largest maker of generic drugs, said it will make its contribution over three years.
[Ed Note - Since the time of submission it appears that most, if not all of the linked article has been revised with no indication that one or more updates have been made.]
(Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday October 23 2019, @12:26AM (18 children)
I realize you love your trolling, and usually, it's pretty funny. But, that's pretty far out there. All the rest of the companies involved share however much responsibility, but the Sacklers were the real pushers behind the opioid crisis. They can't be made to pay enough. The company needs to die a painful death, and all the Sackler's wealth needs to be taken.
If all that wealth were distributed to the victims, it would begin to make up for the suffering that has been caused. Just begin.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 23 2019, @12:35AM (2 children)
If all that wealth were distributed to the "victims", wouldn't they just use it to score some heroin from the local Mexican cartel franchise? It would be better to take the Sackler money and give it to Bill Gates... Sacklers would be poor, as you want, and Gates can use the money to improve the world.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday October 23 2019, @12:38AM (1 child)
I didn't specify that addicts each recieve a thousand dollars in cash. The "victims" include local governments such as Cuyahoga County, which have had to deal with addicts doing stupid shit to get their fix. Victims also include people who have had to bury their loved ones. I'm not even part of the victim culture that everyone loves today, but I recognize that a lot of people have paid a high price to make those Sacklers wealthier than they already were.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday October 23 2019, @02:26AM
Ok, now you start to show traces of a.proper thinking process in motion.
I know it must be hard for you, but don't give up, you still have chances. (grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday October 23 2019, @12:43AM (14 children)
Your reflex arc is still firing - you continue to refuse thinking - and there is nothing funny about it.
Providing money may or may not solve the problem - money will be a mean, but it won't be enough no matter how much money you throw in.
Driving the Purdues into destitution just of the sake of "justice" surely doesn't solve the problem they created in the first place.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 23 2019, @01:31AM (4 children)
Less rich drug pushers aren't let go just because sending them to jail won't help addicts. By your logic there is no reason for prison at all, as sending a criminal there never helps the victims.
One of the stated reason for prison is deterrence. Well, runaway's justice provides an example to other rich bastards not to be too evil in their pursuit of money.
Have you been taking lessons from other soylentils? Your defense of the Sacklers is starting to sound like khallow's idolization of the rich.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday October 23 2019, @02:20AM (3 children)
Should've been a bountiful season for straws, you seem to construct on reflex already.
Nowhere did I say don't throw them in jail. I only said that doing so won't solve the problem. As in "it is not enough for a solution", it's an "intellectual shortcut" which will let those affected in the same state of addiction and the families of those who ODed with no recourse.
Tell you what: instead of throwing the Purdues in jail, put them to work in the social care services created for addiction rehabilitation with the money taken from Purdues. Don't tell me this isn't enough a deterrent.
Now, even this won't be enough either, but it shows willingness to solve the problem instead of the "let's just take their money as a warning for the future".
Finally, you don't like my 2mins-of-thought proposal above, please feel free to think at other solutions. But for the sake of human intellect, do think about the problem, don't come with a knee jerk and call it "justice".
Sheesh, mate, you righteous kind can be so dumb at times.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday October 23 2019, @02:40AM
Should've been a bountiful season for straws
Not plastic, I hope
You are right, putting them to work is much better than putting them in jail. Prison is for dangerous people. The only real deterrent is the fear of getting caught.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 23 2019, @03:29AM (1 child)
No, I'm an egalitarian.* Nobody takes the time to make low-level drug-pushers into social workers. We toss them into prison.
You are arguing that the rich should have special treatment, just by virtue of being rich. I'm not saying that doesn't happen, because it obviously does, but I don't have to agree with it.
Poor Leroy Brown selling a couple of ounces of weed gets caught for the third time, he's going away for 20 years, and it won't be to college to get a degree in social work. What makes the Sacklers so special that society should make an effort for them and not for Leroy Brown, when it is obvious that they did many orders of magnitude more damage?
*Actually I'm a libertarian and I think all drugs should be legal, but that's a separate argument. As long as we have laws they should apply to all equally.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday October 23 2019, @06:17AM
Does washing the addicts after they shat themselves and washing their cloths and keeping them fed and taking care of the addicts during their psychotic episodes sounds like a better faith than being just thrown in a prison?
Having the purdues working, at subsistence cost, for their entire life to mitigate the effects of their wrongdoing sounds to me like of a bigger social value than having me to pay (by taxes) the cost their jailing. If your "sense of justice" trumps the value the society can derive, that's your choice, I can't stop you of being irrational just to feel satisfied.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Wednesday October 23 2019, @02:20AM (1 child)
"Driving the Purdues into destitution just of the sake of "justice" surely doesn't solve the problem they created in the first place."
No...they should go to jail, too. That's what happens with drug pushers on the street. It won't solve the problem but it would be a start. Far too many rich people get slaps on the wrist while poor people get jail time.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday October 23 2019, @02:37AM
Did I say otherwise.
Are you sure it won't be an end actually, with no attempt to do more to solve the problem?
Show me you considered "and then... what" and I'll retract the 'accusation' of 'intellectual shortcut in action'.
Because, sure as death and taxes, Runaway's
is a honest admission of abdication from thinking (in a thread misleadingly titled "initial thought").
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by Sally_G on Wednesday October 23 2019, @05:10AM (6 children)
Is there anything "wrong" with wanting to see the guilty punished? How likely is it, that morally corrupt people who made their wealth by getting people addicted are going to contribute significantly to the recovery of those addicts?
Removing the power, wealth, and influence of the Sackler family actually does seem like part of a long term solution. I also noticed that original poster did not call for the executions of the Sacklers, or even for long term imprisonment. Take their stuff, and distribute it to those agencies most likely to help the addicts recover is likely more effective than expecting the Sacklers to become addiction specialists.
(Score: 3, Touché) by deimtee on Wednesday October 23 2019, @05:32AM
They are addiction specialists, just not in a way that is helpful.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday October 23 2019, @06:11AM (4 children)
It is if you stop there!
(I guess that's yet another one who didn't get I'm not objecting to the punishment, but say "It is not enough, need to consider the whole problem to be called 'thinking' and not just kneejerking"!)
Well, I didn't notice the point where Runaway says "distribute to those agencies most likely able to help addicts recover" - neither in his original post [soylentnews.org] nor the subsequent one [soylentnews.org] in the thread to which you are replying. I'll gladly stand corrected if you can provide a proper citation.
(it was only later, on a separate branch [soylentnews.org] that he did, and I was the first to recognize it [soylentnews.org])
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by Sally_G on Wednesday October 23 2019, @07:49AM (3 children)
In that initial post, there seems to have been a tacit approval of the agreement under discussion. It would seem that the assumption of responsibility, and funding of existing solutions, satisfies his sense of justice, for these companies. Purdue is to be held to a higher standard, due to his perception of greater responsibilities. That is how I read his post. We would need Runaway to comment here to verify any of that.
More some other day!
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday October 23 2019, @08:34AM (1 child)
Well, I'm don't have telepathic abilities and English is not my primary language.
Too many "seems" and too much "reading between the lines" for me, so I do what I can and I don't infer implicit meanings when not explicitly stated.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday October 23 2019, @01:59PM
That's alright c0lo - we can't all be lucky enough to grow up in an English speaking country.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday October 23 2019, @01:58PM
There is less "tacit approval" in my post, than there is "tacit acceptance". I don't really like it, so I'm not in approval. But, I do recognize that the settlement approaches something like justice, and I'll have to accept that it's the best we're going to get.