[–] 21094101? ago (edited ago)
You're going to try to shift the blame to the victims? Huh.
1) Both the Sacklers and the doctors profited from getting people addicted. The addicts themselves, however, weren't the ones profiting. They were the ones paying the price.
2) The nature of addictive substances is that they're addictive. When you do them regularly tolerance builds and unless one has sufficient willpower one will end up taking more than the recommended dose. That's why these sorts of substances need to be controlled rather than given out like candy.
[–] 21094811? ago
You have contradicted yourself multiple times. Are you a lawyer?
1) The victims. Huh. You mean the people who doctor-shopped to get as many pills as they could? Yes, everyone eventually caught on and this was stopped but it was legitimate patients with intractable pain who were the ones negatively affected. So your "victims" ruined what would have been a wonderful thing for people who really needed it and now their handlers seek a redistribution of the wealth created by said victims. Pardon my lack of a violin accompaniment for your "victims".
2) One does not need sufficient willpower to follow the directions clearly printed on the pill bottle, one just needs to be able to read and follow directions. You are calling those who didn't follow the directions victims yet it seems they considered themselves smarter than the doctor who prescribed the medication if they deviated from the directions. To be a victim of something you must follow the directions, no?
As far as I'm concerned these lawsuits are simply a shakedown by those left holding the bag for citizens who, in the end, were not responsible for themselves. Opioid pain medication makes life bearable for people who have chronic pain, and Oxycontin was a game changer. How do you feel sorry for people who would crush and snort a pill meant to be taken every 12 hours? You should feel sorry for those who really do pay the price for those who abuse whatever they can get their hands on.
[–] 21094929? ago
200 deaths a day to deal with a societal edge case is totally worth it I guess.