this post was submitted on 15 Nov 2025
324 points (99.7% liked)

News

33152 readers
4604 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

A federal bankruptcy court judge on Friday said he would approve OxyContin-maker Purdue Pharma’s latest deal to settle thousands of lawsuits over the toll of opioids that includes some money for thousands of victims of the epidemic.

The deal overseen by US bankruptcy judge Sean Lane would require some of the multibillionaire members of the semi-reclusive Sackler family who own the company to contribute up to $7bn and give up ownership of the Connecticut-based firm.

The new agreement replaces one the US supreme court rejected last year, finding it would have improperly protected members of the family against future lawsuits. The judge said he would explain his decision in a hearing on Tuesday.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Okay so you're really telling me that the inner city addict who steals his brother's watch and pawns it for drug money, back in 1992, that was all because he used to be functioning member of society but then got a prescription? Come on man. Heroin has been around a lot longer than any sort of Perdue malfeasance, as have the criminals supplying it to junkies.

I will perhaps give you that it's possible a large number of new heroin users started with prescription pills, for some period during the height of the crisis. But it is beyond ridiculous to ascribe every opioid death to Purdue.

And as for combining drugs, yes that is the risk you take when you buy illicit substances off the street. That is a thing that has been going on long before Purdue, continues today, and will continue into the future even after they rebrand or reorganize or whatever they call it. None of that has anything to do with Purdue.

My point is, the US of course has a drug problem and lots of people die from it. But if you are going to talk about the harm a company creates, you should focus on the deaths actually related to that harm, not out of a broad general category.

For example, if you say 'People need to slow down in work zones! 500 highway workers died on the job last year!' But if the reality is only 100 of those died from being hit by vehicles, the other 400 died from equipment malfunction, chemical exposure, and bad workplace safety practices, your statistic is irrelevant and disingenuous, just like this article.

[–] Peruvian_Skies@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

And how do you propose the people crunching the numbers separate these cases? Most addicts will lie about how they became addicted, choosing whatever story they feel paints them in a positive light. Most families of deceased addicts will stick to the same story, either because they believe it or because they too want to paint their dearly departed as a victim rather than irresponsible. Practically speaking, there is no way to get an accurate split between who was addicted to prescription drugs first and who wasn't.

[–] SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today 2 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

If you don't have good statistics, then you don't include them right next to talking about the prescription drug epidemic sending the impression (If not precisely stating) that your number is directly caused by prescription drugs.

Journalistic integrity is important.

[–] Peruvian_Skies@sh.itjust.works 2 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (1 children)

I agree, but exactly zero large media organizations agree as well. Journalistic integrity is bad for business. That said, when a huge corporation is profiting by turning people into addicts and killing them, I have no sympathy. Let the FDA and DEA worry about which opioid deaths are whose fault while the courts lay each and every one at Purdue's feet. The odds that they deserve it due to some other as-yet undiscovered shenanigans that they're likely to get away with are as close to 100% as makes no difference.

[–] SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today 1 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

I agree on journalistic integrity. But isn't it important to uphold that standard, even if others don't?

They may deserve it, but it's by knowing those details that we determine if they do or not.

Because otherwise your position basically becomes 'If company did thing x and as a result is bad, it's okay to blame them for thing y and thing z, which they probably had nothing to do with, but we've already determined they are bad and therefore they deserve any blame we throw at them justified or not'.

The problem with that is it sets up witch hunts. You are bad, therefore we can blame you for anything we want, and that blame justifies your being treated as bad.

That is why the Constitution mandates due process. And we should uphold that same standard, in our minds and in our positions and in our debates.

[–] Peruvian_Skies@sh.itjust.works 2 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

That would be a very fair assessment if the entire system weren't rigged for the benefit of corporations and the very wealthy. Mitt Romney said thay "corporations are people too" so I'd like to see them get death sentences as well.

[–] SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today 1 points 1 hour ago

Much like racism, the solution isn't to rig it in the other direction, the solution is to unrig it.

There should absolutely be a corporate death penalty. Perhaps the same process should be used for anything too big to fail. Nationalize the company, All existing shareholders and equity owners get wiped out. Then either wind down operations or appoint an interim administrator and interim directors, then issue a new stock offering the proceeds of which first pay back any taxpayer expenses or bailouts, then pay back creditors, then used as capital for the company.

That's what should have happened to all the banks that got bailed out. Wipe out anybody who held the stock, fire management, then issue new stock for purchase, the proceeds of which pay back the bailout.

If nothing else this would make investors take a much more active interest in the malfeasance of the companies they invest in.