Why is the Drug Companies Fault ?

[GURPS]

The opioid epidemic has America worried. After all, we need powerful pain medications for powerful pain. Unfortunately, the opioids that provide relief are ruining lives.

Now, the state of Alabama has decided Purdue Pharma needs to pay. The state filed a lawsuit against the pharmaceutical company on Tuesday, alleging the company is responsible for the opioid epidemic. Alabama now joins at least 13 other states in their quest to sue "Big Pharma":

"Purdue knew, and has known for years, that, except as a last resort, opioids were addictive and subject to abuse -- particularly when used long-term for chronic pain. Purdue further knew, and has known for years, that with prolonged use, the effectiveness of opioids wanes, requiring increases in doses and markedly enhancing the risk of significant side effects and addiction," the lawsuit read.​

That is true. Purdue has known that for years. So has every other pharmaceutical company and medical provider, and most patients.

I know this because it was a topic of discussion when I attended the United States Navy's pharmacy technician school in 1994. Little has changed on that front in the last 24 years, nor was it breaking news for some time prior to me going through the training.

In fact, the federal government was well aware of this situation. That's why there are such stringent controls in place on how these medications are handled.

Look, I get that states are looking for something to do to combat this problem. The opioid epidemic isn't a good thing by any stretch of the imagination, but suing pharmaceutical companies because some people misuse their products is like suing Glock because a shooter used one of their guns, or Toyota because of drunk drivers.



Alabama Sues Pharmaceutical Company Over Opioid Addiction Epidemic

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Purdue has been sued multiple times.

2001 in CT, 2004 in WV, the big one in 2007, anotherin 2007 in KY, 2017 in WA, and now this.

 

[GWguy]

This was known back in the 1800s. It was the subject of many of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's novels.

 

[GURPS]

yeah so what :shrug:


if Purdue is FOLLOWING Federal LAW ... why is it Purdue's FAULT what a 3rd party does with its product ?


shall we sue Ford for Drunk Drivers ?

Progressives already want to Sue Weapons manufactures for the actions of Criminals

 

[vraiblonde]

If you can sue McDonald's for your poor eating habits, and tobacco companies because you choose to smoke, you can certainly sue a pharmaceutical company because of your addiction choices.

I'm not sure when all this "sue everybody" nonsense first started but it's ridiculous. If anything, they should sue the doctors who illegally or overprescribe these meds, not the company that makes them.

 

[jazz lady]

If anything, they should sue the doctors who illegally or overprescribe these meds, not the company that makes them.

^This^ That is the head of the snake that needs to be chopped off.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

yeah so what :shrug:


if Purdue is FOLLOWING Federal LAW ... why is it Purdue's FAULT what a 3rd party does with its product ?


shall we sue Ford for Drunk Drivers ?

Progressives already want to Sue Weapons manufactures for the actions of Criminals

If they followed the law, they wouldn't have been sued, and lost.

 

[Merlin99]

If you can sue McDonald's for your poor eating habits, and tobacco companies because you choose to smoke, you can certainly sue a pharmaceutical company because of your addiction choices.

I'm not sure when all this "sue everybody" nonsense first started but it's ridiculous. If anything, they should sue the doctors who illegally or overprescribe these meds, not the company that makes them.

1977 when it became legal for lawyers to advertise.

 

[vraiblonde]

If they followed the law, they wouldn't have been sued, and lost.

Well that's certainly not true. Companies that follow the law are sued and the plaintiff wins all the time.

What law did the tobacco companies break? How about McDonald's?

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Well that's certainly not true. Companies that follow the law are sued and the plaintiff wins all the time.

What law did the tobacco companies break? How about McDonald's?

Except we're not talking about McDonalds or tobacco companies. GURPS's post specifically mentions Purdue.

They had their own issues, including deceptive marketing and falsely claiming Oxy Contin has a lower potential for abuse coupled with evidence that the company knew about these issues before it hit the streets but didn't revise their claims or speak out.

I wish I could find the paper I wrote on all this, specifically, Purdue Pharma and Oxy Contin.



Besides all that, those aren't really the grounds for Alabama's lawsuit. AL claims Purdue knew it was addictive. Shocker there.... There's a reason the Federal Govt. regulates it they way they do. It's not shocking, but as the link in the OP points out,

If Purdue -- not that they are being accused of this -- falsified research findings, or similar? Blast them. If they're breaking the law, punish them for that.

But if Purdue did all they were required to do, lawsuits like this will do less than nothing to combat the real problem. They'll drive up the prices of much-needed medicines. They'll make it too risky for companies to do research and development on new drugs to treat chronic pain.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Found my paper. Here's the part on Oxy and Purdue. If anyone cares.

Before 2007, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) placed a maximum manufacturing weight of oxycodone, the main ingredient in painkillers such as OxyContin, at 3,520 kilograms. From 2007 and on the DEA revised those maxiumum manufacturing weights to 70,000 kilograms in 2007 and steadily increasing and peaking in 2013 at a massive 150,000 kilograms of oxycodone. OxyContin, one of the most well-known prescribed opioid painkillers, is manufactured by Purdue Pharmaceutical. The Food and Drug Administration approved the sale of OxyContin in 1995, and by 1996 Purdue Pharmaceutical sold $45 million worth of OxyContin. Ten short years later sales ballooned to $3.1 billion making OxyContin account for approximately 30 percent of the painkiller market. (Eban) Purdue Pharmaceutical fiercely marketed OxyContin, which competed with effective prescription painkillers already on the market such as Percocet and Vicodin, giving massive bonuses upwards of $125,000 to salespeople who targeted private practices and pain management clinics. Purdue Pharmaceutical would downplay the addictive properties of OxyContin for years, claiming the risk of addiction to OxyContin at “less than one percent.” (Zee) By 2007, it became clear that number was wildly inaccurate and an affiliate of Purdue Pharmaceutical, Purdue Frederick Company, Inc. along with three executives plead guilty to misleading the public on the addictive properties of OxyContin and were court-ordered to pay $634 million in fines. (“Purdue”)

During a similar time frame, 1999 through 2014, opioid overdose deaths almost quadrupled and by 2014 there were 28,647 opioid overdose deaths, accounting for almost 61 percent of all illicit drug overdose deaths. Just one year later opioid overdose deaths jumped to 33,091, accounting for just over 63 percent of all illicit drug overdose deaths. (“Morbidity” 29 Dec.) This spike in opioid overdose deaths compounded with the massive amounts of opioid painkillers being prescribed led the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to issue guidelines for prescribing opioid painkillers for chronic pain, noting that in 2012 alone, doctors wrote almost 260 million prescriptions for opioid painkillers, “enough for every adult in the United States to have a bottle of pills.” (“Morbidity” 18 Mar.) Noticing a sharp increase in abuse of prescription drugs such as OxyContin, Purdue Pharmaceutical tweaked the recipe for OxyContin in 2010, making it tougher to crush and snort, the preferred method for illicit users. This seems to have played a part in OxyContin not being a choice of illicit users since the percentage of users who chose OxyContin as their drug of choice dropped from 35.6 percent to 12.8 percent. Unfortunately, those same people chose to switch to heroin to achieve their high. (“Effect”) While the reformulated OxyContin reduced the overall number of users, the street value of OxyContin was high when compared to heroin with 80mg OxyContin pills ranging from $60 to $100 per pill and heroin ranging from $45 to $60 for enough to do multiple doses, pushing OxyContin abusers to seek the cheaper, but similar high, heroin. (Leinwand) Heroin, while chemically similar to opioid painkillers such as OxyContin, is part of a large, unregulated, market and often mixed with highly potent painkillers such as Fentanyl. Fentanyl is a synthetic opioid 50 times more powerful than heroin and 100 times more powerful than morphine, leading to an increase of 72.2 percent rise in synthetic opioid, other than methadone, death rate between 2014 and 2015 alone. (“Morbidity” 29 Dec.)

 

[mAlice]

I need to sue Dixie Cystals. I'm sure they knew that their product is addictive, and would make my ass larger.

 

[GURPS]

... falsely claiming Oxy Contin has a lower potential for abuse ....

AL claims Purdue knew it was addictive. Shocker there.... There's a reason the Federal Govt. regulates it they way they do.

Oh For ####s Sake .... falsely claiming ... based on whose opinion


AL is suing because Oxycontin is Addictive .....

damn is water still wet ..... its retarded of course Opiates are Addictive

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Oh For ####s Sake .... falsely claiming ... based on whose opinion

I studied this for a research paper. I included a bit of it above. They certainly made flase claims about it. Specifically the risk of addiction being "less than 1%". Is it your opinion that number is high or low?

 

[mAlice]

of course Opiates are Addictive

Exactly. I don't know if I've said it here (probably), but I have said it before. We can become physically addicted to many things. Why aren't we suing Jack Daniels? We have total and complete control over our bodies. An "addiction" is not the problem, "abuse" is the problem. Abuse is not the fault of Big Pharm (as much as I hate them), it's not the fault of Jack Daniels, and it's not the fault of Dixie Crystals. I took pain meds for 7 years. I took them as prescribed. I did not abuse them. When I stopped taking them, I stopped slowly, then I felt like I had the flu for about a week. I got over it.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Exactly. I don't know if I've said it here (probably), but I have said it before. We can become physically addicted to many things. Why aren't we suing Jack Daniels? We have total and complete control over our bodies. An "addiction" is not the problem, "abuse" is the problem. Abuse is not the fault of Big Pharm (as much as I hate them), it's not the fault of Jack Daniels, and it's not the fault of Dixie Crystals. I took pain meds for 7 years. I took them as prescribed. I did not abuse them. When I stopped taking them, I stopped slowly, then I felt like I had the flu for about a week. I got over it.

Which is why we should focus on treating abuse and not locking up anyone who chooses to do drugs, or drink Jack Daniels.

 

[This_person]

Which is why we should focus on treating abuse and not locking up anyone who chooses to do drugs, or drink Jack Daniels.

For better or worse, Jack Daniels is not illegal to those over (nominally) 21 years of age. Should people sell it to those under, they can be locked up.

For better or worse, illegal drugs are like illegal aliens - "illegal". We should focus on helping people not do illegal things, not subsidize their recovery from doing illegal things. For example, we do not provide a minimum standard of living to all Americans to help forestall people stealing from each other, and we do not provide those who do steal from others a "poor, pitiful Sally" look in our eyes and a 3,000 sq ft McMansion. We provide them a cell, and a time out to think about what they've done wrong. Why is doing illegal drugs to be treated differently?

 

[Merlin99]

Which is why we should focus on treating abuse and not locking up anyone who chooses to do drugs, or drink Jack Daniels.

I'm still going for the Darwin solution, if someone wants to drink or drug themselves to death, let them. How is it different from mountain climbers or auto racers, they all put their lives on the line for what they like.

 

[This_person]

I'm still going for the Darwin solution, if someone wants to drink or drug themselves to death, let them. How is it different from mountain climbers or auto racers, they all put their lives on the line for what they like.

If you never leave your house and interact with others (thus putting your fellow citizen at risk due to your risky behavior), you can do that now.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

For better or worse, Jack Daniels is not illegal to those over (nominally) 21 years of age. Should people sell it to those under, they can be locked up.

For better or worse, illegal drugs are like illegal aliens - "illegal". We should focus on helping people not do illegal things, not subsidize their recovery from doing illegal things. For example, we do not provide a minimum standard of living to all Americans to help forestall people stealing from each other, and we do not provide those who do steal from others a "poor, pitiful Sally" look in our eyes and a 3,000 sq ft McMansion. We provide them a cell, and a time out to think about what they've done wrong. Why is doing illegal drugs to be treated differently?

Yes. I know. They are illegal. That doesn't mean it can't be changed, but when much of the govt., police, judges, lawyers, etc. rely on maintaining the illegality of drugs...nothing changes and we sit here in an ever-circular discussion on how pain pills caused heroin usage or how some legal, yet chemically similar, substance is the reason people chose to go to the illegal substance.

I think there has to be a larger discussion on this topic and simply saying "well, it's illegal" effectively ends the discussion without even considering the contrary. That govt. has the ability to change laws.