Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Tuesday October 22 2019, @11:52PM   Printer-friendly
from the chicken-feed dept.

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.]


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday October 23 2019, @02:20AM (3 children)

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday October 23 2019, @02:20AM (#910635) Journal

    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.

    Should've been a bountiful season for straws, you seem to construct on reflex already.

    One of the stated reason for prison is deterrence

    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
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday October 23 2019, @02:40AM

    by fustakrakich (6150) on Wednesday October 23 2019, @02:40AM (#910643) Journal

    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)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 23 2019, @03:29AM (#910657)

    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

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday October 23 2019, @06:17AM (#910680) Journal

      You are arguing that the rich should have special treatment, just by virtue of being rich.

      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