The Sackler Family and Culpability in the Opioid Crisis

[notsmokeymcpot42088]

@notsmokeymcpot42088

you refuse to understand what capitalism is. companies do not give a fuck about ethics, profits are the only concern of a company.

this is how the world works. i’m sorry.

if you’re waiting for some ethical form of capitalism and ethical corporations to regulate themselves at the expense of their profits….you must be high.

if a ceo or board tries to do something ethical at the expense of profits those ppl are immediately fired and replaced.

regulation by government is the only mechanism to check these things. that’s where ppl should be pointing fingers.

I refuse to understand capitalism. You did not address a single question - despite reading between the lines you are indeed saying they do indeed operate with the same lack of ethics and morals of the cartel.

It is an insult to my intelligence. Even More so towards your intelligence--- which from what I read is tough to do.

As someone who has worked in both fields, the only real difference is that pharmacutical companies can afford better lawyers. Neiher care about the end-user, both handed control to the PR department rather than the chemists who actually develop novel ligands.

In short - neither have ANY morals (or morels - mushrooms being natural).

This is exactly the common ground I was hoping to reach. BUT NOW I FEEL LIKE GOING THEE EXTRA MILE TO POINT OUT BIGPHARMA HAS FUCKED US MORE. (I will never learn)

I think the Sackler's were certainly opportunists as well. And with regards to drug trafficking, the cartels have certainly been pioneers in some respects. With regards to big pharma's influence on law, I see that less as a reason to believe that big pharma is more evil, and more of an exemplar of how easy regulatory capture is in this country.

Please do tell me how the cartels have been pioneering the drug market and I believe I can likely point to a chronological mistake.

Let us not pretend the cartels do not have SOME influence on the law either --- The US is the only country that still does straight to consumer pharma ad's. (Considered wrong for obvious reasons all over the globe) -- except the good ol US of A.

Remember when old people were going to Canada to fill they meds?? (G.W era if I recall)

They both have influence on the law sure--- kind of like I can influence the law by voting. Trump can just write up an executive order. BOTH OF US HAVE INFLUENCE - A comparable amount? NO

I also don't agree that pharmaceutical companies are the sole reason we have progressed beyond opium... which is certainly a good thing. Academic chemists I'm sure could have and would have just have easily invented meperidine/fentanyl/insert synthetic/semi-synthetic opioid here. In fact oxycodone was first synthesized by academic chemists at the University of Frankfurt. I think we should try to steer clear of any opiophobia and recognize that medicinal chemistry's advancements in the realm of opioids has had some rather beneficial effects. Sorry this part of your quote got cut out for some reason --- I was not ignoring it.

I absolutely agree that we would have progressed past opium without bigpharma -- which is indeed a good thing. Morphine woulda been synthesized, likely heroin.

What would not have happened is us ending up with drugs like Darvocet, Tramadol, Anything compounded with APAP (Which does cause alot of death's annually, the FDA went as far as saying they would stop making APAP compounds...than?) -- as there would be 0 demand - 0 kickbacks = 0 incentive to invent - 0 supply.

That would be an effect of capitalism (But what do I know) --- I had a much longer response to this section but it got deleted while I was posting apparently. Apologies if not thoroughly addressed - push back away (That is how debate works)

If I were uninterested in debate I would just say -- "That is speculation" moving past opium. (as would any good lawyer - but I want to discuss this in good faith)

All that to say, I think America's poor relationship with opioids mostly boils down to systemic issues, rather than the exceptional evilness of any one clan of people or organized crime group.

I certainly agree with that --- But we are comparing the evils of BigPharma to those of the Cartel in regards to opiate/oids in the US specifically right?

"Check" -- not quite, but "your turn" lol

 

[tuppingtoncity]

Please do tell me how the cartels have been pioneering the drug market and I believe I can likely point to a chronological mistake.

My point was more with regards to innovation in drug trafficking through the mexican-american border, rather than pharmacological innovation (which the cartels, I agree, are largely incapable of; Although the argument could be made that the cartel's influence or "innovation" with regards to cutting agents e.g. levamisole, mannitol, etc. is a pharmacological one, although that is just semantics and I would not make that argument in good faith ).

Both cartels and pharmaceutical companies, largely under the pressures inherent to capitalism or capitalism in the presence of prohibition, have made 'innovations' in the respective areas in which they 'excel'.

They both have influence on the law sure--- kind of like I can influence the law by voting. Trump can just write up an executive order. BOTH OF US HAVE INFLUENCE - A comparable amount? NO

I think we are ultimately disagreeing on whether the root of evil or the evil itself is worse. Yes the pharmaceutical industries have an influence on US law, but only as a result of a federal government that is incredibly pliant to lobbyists and corporate money. I see the pharmaceutical companies less as evil for their influence on law (yes, it is most definitely evil, morally fucked up, gross, whatever you want to call it), but rather I see their influence on law as inevitable in whatever strange corporatocratic, oligarchic capitalist hellscape America currently finds itself in.

In this sense, I find it hard to make a distinction in 'evilness' between the cartels and pharmaceutical companies because I see their existence and subsequent evils as unavoidable results of capitalism and prohibition.

If I were uninterested in debate I would just say -- "That is speculation" moving past opium. (as would any good lawyer - but I want to discuss this in good faith)

I get this isn't your main point here, but it is objectively not speculation. Friedrich Sertürner, the first man to isolate morphine from opium had no association with a large pharmaceutical company, in fact pharmaceuticals in the modern sense didn't really exist then. Morphine was quite literally the first alkaloid ever extracted from plant matter. You can look at the progression of a great number of opioidergic compounds/scaffolds that really have no relation to big pharma.

As to compounding opioids with acetaminophen, I think you are mostly correct in saying that is the result of pharmaceutical companies (trying to skirt around patents, profit-maximize), but probably also in conjunction with a prohibitionist federal regulators wanting to minimize the presence of opioids in the pharmacopeia.

I think this is an interesting conversation, but I'm not sure how much of a middle ground we'll come to. Of course, it is incredibly difficult to make value judgements as to whether greatbigevilthing#1 or greatbigevilthing#2 is more evil. It's fun, but probably useless at the end of the day.

 

[notsmokeymcpot42088]

My point was more with regards to innovation in drug trafficking through the mexican-american border, rather than pharmacological innovation (which the cartels, I agree, are largely incapable of; Although the argument could be made that the cartel's influence or "innovation" with regards to cutting agents e.g. levamisole, mannitol, etc. is a pharmacological one, although that is just semantics and I would not make that argument in good faith ).

Both cartels and pharmaceutical companies, largely under the pressures inherent to capitalism or capitalism in the presence of prohibition, have made 'innovations' in the respective areas in which they 'excel'.

I agree and now remember a line that got cut originally. I feel like BigPharma is largely introducing the drugs and influencing the laws surrounding them --- The cartels are more making the best out of what resources available (including synths of course) and dodging the law.

Cutting agents are pretty much all the cartel -- until the fentanyl thing I woulda argued that tylenol compounds have probably killed more people than cut dope...... (That argument is moot at this point though).

Than again you can look at compounds big pharma puts out like SSRI's with opiate antagonists -- Bupe/Naloxone (well documented the naloxone does nothing).

economically killing your customers is not smart and bad capitalism. I think the cartel made a mistake with the fent cutting and they will end up regretting it at some point. (That is an entire different debate though).

BY FAR THE MOST EVIL MOVE THEY EVER MADE. (Im throwing nitazenes in with fent -- and it doesnt get hit with xylazine till the US border so I can't blame the cartels for that)

I think we are ultimately disagreeing on whether the root of evil or the evil itself is worse. Yes the pharmaceutical industries have an influence on US law, but only as a result of a federal government that is incredibly pliant to lobbyists and corporate money. I see the pharmaceutical companies less as evil for their influence on law (yes, it is most definitely evil, morally fucked up, gross, whatever you want to call it), but rather I see their influence on law as inevitable in whatever strange corporatocratic, oligarchic capitalist hellscape America currently finds itself in.

In this sense, I find it hard to make a distinction in 'evilness' between the cartels and pharmaceutical companies because I see their existence and subsequent evils as unavoidable results of capitalism and prohibition.

I honestly think that is pretty fair and we are just about on common ground.

I get this isn't your main point here, but it is objectively not speculation. Friedrich Sertürner, the first man to isolate morphine from opium had no association with a large pharmaceutical company, in fact pharmaceuticals in the modern sense didn't really exist then. Morphine was quite literally the first alkaloid ever extracted from plant matter. You can look at the progression of a great number of opioidergic compounds/scaffolds that really have no relation to big pharma.

Still a valid point!! I agree that alot would have been synthed without bigpharma -- but with true free market capitalism noone is buying things like tramadol, darvocet. Surely in this sense they are slightly more evil?

At least the cartel offers true free market capitalism. (Presuming I know what that is...) --- Yes you can get un-fented H from them at a markup; if you are so privelaged/in a risky position to be communicating with them directly on that level.

(Or so I hear from ppl least; same with the darkweb -- that is more verifiable)

As to compounding opioids with acetaminophen, I think you are mostly correct in saying that is the result of pharmaceutical companies (trying to skirt around patents, profit-maximize), but probably also in conjunction with a prohibitionist federal regulators wanting to minimize the presence of opioids in the pharmacopeia.

I think this is an interesting conversation, but I'm not sure how much of a middle ground we'll come to. Of course, it is incredibly difficult to make value judgements as to whether greatbigevilthing#1 or greatbigevilthing#2 is more evil. It's fun, but probably useless at the end of the day.

Well the APAP compounding is usually to get the substance into schedule 3 so it can be marketed to a wider demographic (despite being more toxic objectively) -- To me that says something.

You are correct at the end of the day both are evil to a level I doubt either of us could (or would want to) fully comprehend.

The apologist got me going a bit; I was hoping to debate that fool... But I suppose fools don't debate.

 

[Deleted member 593549]

I you are indeed saying they do indeed operate with the same lack of ethics and morals of the cartel.

there you go. glad we’re on the same page now. i think you now understand why this isn’t the fault of a single company because companies are not ethical. they are profit driven and will poison you with lead if they can make 0.001% extra profits.

every company functions this way. chemical companies have poisoned every living thing on earth. it’s how they operate unless they are regulated. that’s how capitalism works.

i put the blame on government and secondarily on individuals, not one of thousands of opioid by manufacturers.

life is a system where living things exploit and destroy other living things to satiate themsleves, ethics is a cute idea but that’s never how life has worked.

 

[notsmokeymcpot42088]

You are late to the table but none the less "Cheers, Slaint'e, Salut" to that. I will take it.

Was all I was asking originally *Wipes tear* lol

coulda just said "Dont blame the player blame the game"

 

[Deleted member 593549]

You are late to the table but none the less "Cheers, Slaint'e, Salut" to that. I will take it.

Was all I was asking originally *Wipes tear* lol

i’ve been saying that companies do not operate ethically and instead are profit driven since my first post in this thread.

 

[4DQSAR]

@Dr. John Thackery - well, a friend told me that the lab they worked in payed a private contractor to spy on the other lab (of the same company).

There is an OLD saying - the competition is the competition, the other lab is the enemy.

There were some good people but it was in the 1970s when the PR departments got to decide what medicines would be the most profitable, not the most effective.

Even Janssen quit his own company when J&J stopped accepting candidates based on their utility, but on their profitability.

Ironically, when RCs were legal, forums turned up so bad suppliers got a bad name, good suppliers got a good name. Ironic that when the end uset gets to vote with their feet, quality goes UP!.

 

[4DQSAR]

I mean, name a better and safer anxiolytic than pyrazolam, for example.

 

[Deleted member 593549]

[Ironic that when the end uset gets to vote with their feet, quality goes UP!.

this is true but again it’s still motivated by profits not by actually wanting to please a customer just for the sake of it.

i wish this was true with heroin / fentanyl. everyone seems to hate fentanyl yet we don’t see the cartel ramping up efforts to provide more heroin….even as a high end expensive product they could mark up and sell to clientele with money. i’d buy it at a premium cost. instead i use nothing except a little subs or methadone on and off. but i use exclusively for pain these days not getting loaded to the max….but if i had heroin or dilaided that might certainly change

 

[notsmokeymcpot42088]

Fentanyl is alot easier to smuggle, less odor, dont need poppy plants to start with.

Its just capitalism you cant blame em? They do in fact mark up un-fented H and sell it to certain clientelle -- on the darkweb is one place I hear you can find such premium products.

 

[4DQSAR]

It takes YEARS to develop a candidate and 90% of them will fail.

Is it wrong to earn from working? Do people who build guns, automobiles, aircraft and everything else which could potentially harm someone all care about that minority? NOTHING is without risk.

 

[Godjilla]

I do not believe that people are inherently evil like this. We have all of these examples right now of people, as groups, conducting some of the most abhorrent behavior a person could ever imagine. There are people whose idea of ¨fun¨ is flying to an island to molest children. Those same people can then resume normal life without guilt or shame? I don´t believe we can break down society into the black and white of capitalism/communism or whatever.

I think people are failing to realize that what is happening in America is not ¨good¨ capitalism. This is not the capitalism that anyone would have imagined or intended at the beginning of the American revolution. ¨Good¨ capitalism is when there is healthy competition. This competition actually works in the favor of the consumer, as companies have to fight for their business. What we have now are more and more single entities buying greater and greater shares of the available business, the 0.1% everyone is always talking about. Capitalism is not an economic oligarchy. Do you realize that we are morphing into what Russia was after the fall of the Soviet Union? They had a free market too. Just like ours, their ¨free¨ market was in fact rigged from the very start and there is only the illusion of freedom.

These corporations poison us with toxic food, prescription medications that cause more harm than good, create environments on the internet that are deliberately addictive and meant to break a person down and we all accept it as ¨America¨. Whether you´re extremely conservative or liberal, nobody ever wanted America to be like this. We fought to oust the King, so they say, so our people could have a choice. We do not have a choice now, we have the illusion of choice.

What is happening and has been happening in my backyard in Nevada, I believe is happening everywhere else at differing rates and intensities. Las Vegas is now a playground meant only for those who do not need to even worry about paying 15$ for a bottle of water (real price) or won´t flinch when an extra $300 ends up on their card for ¨fees¨. See, if I went on vacation and got hit with a surprise $300, it would break me. Las Vegas was once accessible for families. There were really good deals on buffets and you could play 1$ blackjack for 4 hours with 20 bucks if you wanted. That is all gone now.

Las Vegas is like I said, a playground for those with wealth that is not even relevant to what a social worker like myself makes. We are a city of workers meant to prop up this dystopian display of wealth and excess. As the wealth gap widens, we are just becoming more and more helots, serfs or whatever. America is becoming a playground for the filthy rich in which us normal people are working our asses off so they can continue to fly on private jets to molest children, live in mansions with 26 bedrooms and gamble away quantities of money that could literally change a family´s life overnight, just for fun. Is it illegal to bet 40,000 on a hand of blackjack? No it is not illegal. Is it immoral? I´m sorry, but I believe it is. I don´t care if you made that money. To waste is wrong when there are so many out there struggling.

So when you start talking about the Sacklers, they are just one example of this Russian-style economic Oligarchy we have now found ourselves in. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. I never understood that as a kid; how could you? I´ve never had power. When I look at the people who do have it... shit, it seems to corrupt a person´s soul like nothing else. Only the truly good are able to survive power and remain good. Very sad.

 

[4DQSAR]

I did explicitly state that the rot set in when PR deparnemtns worked out what would be the most PROFITABLE medicine and then tell the teams of medicinal chemists to make it so.

Quite often warnings are ignored. Gabapentin and pregabalin spring to mind. I KNOW the medicinal chemists sent a memo saying that both medications ptoduced physical dependence and psychological addiction only for those memos to go missing.

If you work in that industry, you have to sign with a strongly enforced NDA so a medicinal chemist who 'goes public' can be assured of three things:

1)They WILL be sued, into bankruptcy in most if not all cases.
2)They will never work in the industry again
3)Their former emploer will not confirm or deny that a person had worked for them so a senior researcher may have a 25 year gap in their CV, so even teaching is not an option.

3a)A few medicinal chemists had had fatal 'accidents'. How many I cannot tell you, but I know of at least one case where a coroner's court descided it was suicide while' the balance of their mind was disturmed'. They had managed to slit their wrists... but no blood. Even the ambulance crew stated that there was only a small quantitiy of post-mortem blood loss, certainly not enough to have been fatal. But it was in the middle of woodland and no blood was discovered in the home or on the path to the spot they were found.

 

[Vastness]

I don´t believe we can break down society into the black and white of capitalism/communism or whatever.

I think people are failing to realize that what is happening in America is not ¨good¨ capitalism. This is not the capitalism that anyone would have imagined or intended at the beginning of the American revolution. ¨Good¨ capitalism is when there is healthy competition. This competition actually works in the favor of the consumer, as companies have to fight for their business.

While I don't really disagree with your post generally, and certainly agree that none of this is "black and white", I think that talking about "good" capitalism and "bad" capitalism as a route to arguing that it isn't just about capitalism, essentially, is a kinda meaningless way to just excuse inherent problems with capitalism. Of course it is better when there is healthy competition, hence anti-monopoly laws and the like. But these laws are regulations external to capitalism itself. The rampant corruption, immorality, oligarchic wealth concentration and the like going on in America right now of course is "bad" in many ways but it's also just capitalism. It's never happened in history (correct me if I'm wrong - but it's certainly a rarity) that a successful business has decided to self-regulate for purely moral, humanistic, socially conscious reasons. Labor laws limiting working hours, minimum wage, abolition of child labor, hell the abolition of actual slavery, all of that stuff was a result of regulation, or controls on capitalism, imposed by the state.

One might even say, in a sense, that the imposition of controls on capitalism in the form of regulations and laws, when done by a somewhat democratically elected government, is a slightly garbled implementation of communist ideals, ie, the workers, or at least, ideally, the citizens of the region in which the corporations are operating, not owning but exerting some control over the corporations (the "means of production")... Of course that statement can be picked apart by those so ideologically inclined but regardless, it bears repeating, IMO, that capitalism itself and the unregulated free market is a completely amoral ideology that has been shown time and time again to tend towards monopolistic, oligarchic concentrations of wealth and power, and "good capitalism" is something that only works when socialist ideals are prioritized above capitalist ideals.