Last week, fentanyl was a contentious topic during the debate on criminal justice reform in the House. An amendment to that bill would have imposed a mandatory minimum prison sentence of five years (with the possibility of a life sentence) on people who sell drugs that result in the death of the user of those drugs, a proposal strongly backed by Governor Baker. Supporters of the amendment asked their colleagues why they were not ready or willing to send a strong message of condemnation to drug dealers. Opponents, readily acknowledging the heartbreak of the opioid crisis, argued that the amendment was merely a hollow gesture: the law already allows prosecutors to bring manslaughter charges against drug dealers if the facts of the case support it and the courts can determine appropriate sentences for people convicted of the crimes. The amendment was rejected, 110-41.
This week, the opponents of the amendment were vindicated (although in a sad and painful fashion) in Berkshire Superior Court, when a judge imposed a six-year sentence on a man who had sold fentanyl-laced heroin to a person who later died of an overdose. The heartbreak of the opioid crisis continues: the defendant in the case isn’t a drug kingpin profiting from the misery of others. Yes, he sold the heroin. He’s married to a person who is addicted to it and the couple was selling the drug to a small group of users to help support her habit. Charges against her are still pending.
When will Purdue Pharmaceuticals and the Sackler family be brought up on charges for instigating and profiting greatly from the opioid epidemic they started?
Probably never since it doesn’t seem they did anything illegal.
Wow, that is a very uninformed post. Purdue pled guilty and was fined $600 million for their crimes. They did everything to pin it on three non-Slacker executives, while members if the Slacker family were indeed at the helm when they plotted their strategy to poison the county with opiates. https://www.cnbc.com/id/18591525
OK, then it sounds like the comment I replied to might have been misinformed and that the information you provided answers that. It sounded like he gmoke was complaining that the company should be charged with marketing legal drugs.
My opinion is that Purdue Pharmaceuticals marketed legal drugs fraudulently, knowingly giving misinformation about the likelihood of addiction and effects of dosages over time.
My opinion is also that the pharmaceutical distributors have been knowingly distributing opioids in obviously dangerous amounts for which there is no valid purpose, the proverbial millions of doses for a relatively small county in West Virginia for instance.
My short hand opinion is that the modern legal drug industry read William S Burroughs’ Naked Lunch and took it for a business plan: an addictive (or essential) drug is the perfect capitalistic product and the first one’s free. After that, they own the customer, Dr Benway CEO.
Would I be correct then to say that the best analogy is Big Tobacco?
Even worse than Big Smoke as their products when used as directed deliberately caused more pain than they assuaged.
See http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a12775932/sackler-family-oxycontin/ for a good understanding of what the Sackler family did.
See https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ex-dea-agent-opioid-crisis-fueled-by-drug-industry-and-congress/ for 60 Minutes story on drug distribution and the way the DEA did NOT confront them on their illegal business practices.
Why shouldn’t Harvard, and all the other institutions be if not compelled by law, shamed into setting aside part of the Sackler Museum (and all similarly named places) as a methadone clinic, a needle exchange facility or something of that type.
Along with a plaque describing the Sackler family’s responsibility for the opioid epidemic.
Money and donations shouldn’t shield reputations.