Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Monday June 18 2018, @03:39PM   Printer-friendly
from the addiction-sucks dept.

US needs to invest 'tens of billions or hundreds of billions' to fight opioid epidemic

The goal of an opioid is to reduce pain, but the addictive drugs are creating pain for millions of families suffering through the crisis. Deaths from opioid overdoses number at least 42,000 a year in the U.S., according to the Centers for Disease Control.

"This is an epidemic that's been getting worse over 10 to 20 years," Caleb Alexander, co-director of Johns Hopkins Center for Drug Safety, told CNBC's "On The Money" in a recent interview. "I think it's important that we have realistic expectations about the amount of work that it will take and the amount of coordination to turn this steamship around," Alexander added.

[...] Alexander added: "The statistics are stunning. More than 2.1 million Americans have an opioid use disorder or opioid addiction" and he says the country needs to "invest tens of billions or hundreds of billions of dollars" to shore up the treatment system. He said patients should be able to access medications that "we know work to help reduce the cravings for further opioids."

Don't mention the Portugal model!

Meanwhile, the Massachusetts Attorney General is suing members of the family that runs Purdue Pharma:

Their family name graces some of the nation's most prestigious bastions of culture and learning — the Sackler Center for Arts Education at the Guggenheim Museum, the Sackler Lefcourt Center for Child Development in Manhattan and the Sackler Institute for Developmental Psychobiology at Columbia University, to name a few.

Now the Sackler name is front and center in a lawsuit accusing the family and the company they own and run, Purdue Pharma, of helping to fuel the deadly opioid crisis that has killed thousands of Americans. Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey took the unusual step of naming eight members of the Sackler family this week in an 80-page complaint that accused Purdue Pharma of spinning a "web of illegal deceit" to boost profits.

While prosecutors in more than a dozen other states hit hard by the opioid epidemic have sued Purdue Pharma, Healey is the first to name individual Sackler family members, along with eight company executives.


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This discussion has been archived.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: 5, Insightful) by DannyB on Monday June 18 2018, @05:56PM (3 children)

    by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 18 2018, @05:56PM (#694610) Journal

    I have to strongly agree.

    A corporation seems to be a fiction invented to protect people from the consequences of their own actions. As you say: "the corporation did it".

    But in fact, people did it.

    If the consequences of their actions could bite them, then they might be more thoughtful.

    --
    The people who rely on government handouts and refuse to work should be kicked out of congress.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=2, Interesting=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Monday June 18 2018, @06:09PM (2 children)

    by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 18 2018, @06:09PM (#694616) Journal

    Actually, the corporation was invented to allow a group of people to invest in something where they couldn't tell the details of what was going on. The minor stockholders are (properly?) immune to losing more than they have invested. When that immunity is extended to the board of directors or the executives of the corporation .... well, that's just wrong. And, in fact, it doesn't really extend that far. The problem is it is usually applied as if it extended that far, and, in fact, it has been made unreasonably difficult to "pierce the corporate veil".

    If I remember correctly back from a comment on Groklaw those who own more than a particular percentage of the stock (I can't remember whether it was 5% or 10%) are not immune to having the corporate veil pierced. The problem is it isn't usually done, and it's unreasonably difficult to do, requiring an excessively high amount of evidence beforehand.

    --
    Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
    • (Score: 2) by frojack on Monday June 18 2018, @06:40PM (1 child)

      by frojack (1554) on Monday June 18 2018, @06:40PM (#694633) Journal

      I don't think you do remember correctly.

      Piercing the corporate veil [wikipedia.org] refers to going after the assets of an individual holding only stock.

      It is somewhat orthogonal to going after a corporation or the board for violations of the law or liability for damages.

      Going after the board is common. Reference any of the recent very public trials or upcoming one. Ask Elizabeth Holmes.

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.